Why not horns?

If Kiddman is right (and in this respect he is) that the industry would have flourished, whether or not there was an 'HP' or 'JGH' reporting on it, then some responsibility rests with the manufacturers, distributors and the rest of the industry in the States for failing to recognize the virtues of horns and low powered tube amplifiers at the time. If you rewind to the early 70's, the focus, with a few exceptions, was high powered amplifiers; acoustic suspension speakers, of the 'bookshelf' variety, were still the norm for home use and the only horn loudspeakers I remember from that era were Klipsh and a variety of professional and sound reinforcement pieces, e.g. Altec A 7. Electrostats were also sidelined for a number of obvious reasons. The Magneplanar was a practical compromise for planars, but took up space and required oodles of power.
Information about good sounding gear was not as easy to come by then; you could rely on what could be heard at your local hi-fi shop (I was fortunate in having a good one in my town) and in others' systems.
Whether or not HP and JGP 'invented' the vocabulary, they did much to promote the notion that not all gear was created equal and questioned whether specifications dictated sonic outcomes (remember the quest to reduce 'TIM')?
Perhaps HP did audio enthusiasts a disservice by failing to recognize the virtues of horns, but given the direction of the industry as a whole, I don't think he should bear sole responsiblity. And to the extent he and other writers did inform and influence readers, I regard it as a positive. How many people were aware of some of those great old recordings before these magazines explored them in depth? (I always enjoyed Sid Marks' work on the RCA and Mercury catalogs and even if I didn't always find the music on HP's 'Super Disc' list to be engaging, he did identify a number of well recorded albums that I can still listen to today).

What sort of a man reads Playboy? For those old enough to remember, this was an ad campaign launched very successfully by Hugh Hefner. In those days (the Madmen era) American men were being encouraged to fancy themselves to be oozing savoir faire and unabashed self confidence. James Bond was there to set an example of the gentleman who is rugged, handsome, virile, well to do and always tasteful. HP developed an essence of such an individual as the TAS reader, the audiophile snob, the knowing and eager pursuer of the Absolute Sound. It was pretentious to its core and it reeked of arrogance and selfishness.
And it was the launching point for a collusive and insular con game. He was a petty and petulant tyrant given to vindication or revenge as he felt necessary. He seemed to think of himself as Queen of all he surveyed. And we bought into his schtick hook, line and blinkers.

But that's not why we're here. We are gathering at this thread to determine why we as individuals have or have not chosen to explore the greater virtues of horn loudspeakers.

A simple 2way hybrid system can be put together for under $5K if active amplification is used and a little creativity is employed. I obtained a fine working pair of JBL L-200 speakers. The weak point of these was always the mid-horn. So I bypassed that horn and mounted a larger and more broadband horn on top of the cabinet. At first I just used the onboard JBL passive crossover. Then I acquired a digital speaker management system and bi-amped the speakers.
This worked very well and set me off on my way.
The footprint of this combo is 24 inches wide by 21 inches front to back, with the compression driver extending about 8 inches behind the cabinet. I think in today's audio that would not be considered a very large speaker.
That takes care of price and size arguments. Some will surely object to the appearance and some will simply not have a large enough room. Generally, however, a horn installation is a pretty realistic option for nearly anyone who reads Playboy.

I am still waiting for actual and specific examples of the lying and bullying that HP is accused of. I also find it ironic and more than a bit laughable that Peter Aczel, the man who claims that all amplifiers sound the same, is being introduced into this discussion as a way to somehow give credence to the bashers.

Peter Aczel's "all amplifiers sound the same" attitude is why I'd referenced Stereo Review earlier. Even as a young greenhorn back in the late 1980s I knew that mindset was patently false. This is an obvious area where the subjectivity crowd got it right, component's most definitely sound distinct with their individual character. Julian Hirsch was very different from the compelling HP and JGH in those days.
Charles,

Julian Hirsch, Leonard Feldman, Rok2id :), Pete Azcel and about 99.99999999999% of all HUMANITY, both past and present, KNOW, that all amps sound the same. Meaning, if they are well made and engineered correctly, they have no 'sound'.

Now the question is, which 'camp' is laughable? Humanity, or 'audiophiles'.

I don't know anything about HP. Neither he, nor any of the other charlatans, occupy space in my universe. BUT, what Pete said about him, and it was brutal, you can take it as Gospel!!

The man did not lie or stutter. Spoke English. You understood him. A true hero of audio. Don't like it? Too Bad!!!

One more thing. We all splurge on something! If anyone wants to spend 10k on a power amp, or a few feet of wire, fine! Just don't feel you have to demolish or corrupt science and the scientific method, in order to justify your purchase.

After all, it's your money. Leave science out of it. The Wire Moguls won't mind. :)

Cheers