Why not horns?

Seikosha,
Nicely put! I don't intend to overstate the influence of HP and JGH but they did bring subjective opinion/reviewing to a wide audience of readers. They weren't "all knowing gurus" but I'll give them their due credit.
Charles,

My point is that folks were using the terms, so whether they were in reviews or not they were in the lexicon. Therefore, they most certainly would have been used in reviews even if there were never an HP. Actually, first piece I quoted was a news story, not an ad, so we can say that the press indeed used the concepts and words in the 30's. And that press piece compared the sound of the hi-fi to that of a symphony....which is "real, live, unamplified instruements".

So there we go: words and concepts, including using unamplified instruments, goes right back to the 30s.

03-06-14: Kiddman
Aczel criticism overblown? I don't know that this would be possible.

Here's a guy who never published a particular issue, but write a bogus review for Carver saying that Carver had exactly duplicated the sound of a well known, very expensive amplifier. Nice little arrangement, Carver reprinted the excerpt from the non-existent issue and supplied them by the load to Carver dealers. Nice little bit of fraud on both sides. The amp, by the way, was very poor sounding compared to one Aczel said it was identical to, and took out many a tweeter of relatively easy to drive speakers at way less than its stated output power.

The aforesaid review was in fact eventually published, in Issue 10 in 1987. That was the first issue Aczel published following the nearly seven year hiatus I referred to earlier. The 1983 review "preprint" to which you refer was extracted from what Aczel indicated in Issue 10 had been an almost complete, mostly set in type issue which was not published due to the hiatus, which occurred for unrelated reasons. Carver requested and was granted permission to issue the preprint.

Also, I recall some seemingly credible speculation that the close transfer function match between the aforesaid amplifier, the Carver M400t, and the transfer function of the Mark Levinson ML2 it was designed to emulate, may not have been maintained in production to anywhere close to the same degree as the match that was measured by Aczel on Carver's prototype.

Also, I'll mention that I owned an M400t for about 20 years, alternating it with other much more expensive amplifiers. It sounded surprisingly good, driving 90 db speakers having easy to drive impedance characteristics. (Its predecessor model which I VERY briefly owned, the M400a, which pre-dated Carver's attempt to match the transfer function of the ML2, did sound very poor). The M400t had no trouble whatsoever cleanly producing 100 to 105 db peaks at my 12 foot listening distance playing classical symphonic music on labels such as Telarc, Sheffield, and Reference Recordings. It never clipped once in my extensive experience listening to those kinds recordings having exceptionally wide dynamic range. The amplifier, btw, is still going strong in the home of a relative, after 30 years.

Regards,
-- Al

Correction to my previous post: Looking at Issue 10 of "The Audio Critic" I am reminded that the Carver amplifier which was the subject of the preprint was the M-1.5t. The M400t was released subsequently, and was claimed to have been similarly matched to emulate the transfer function of the ML2, but was not the subject of Aczel's preprint.

Regards,
-- Al

The 1.5t was nowhere near the ML2 (itself not my favorite amp)and making "transfer function matches" between 2 totally different amps with different components and topologies is entirely preposterous.

This was "an inside job", nothing less. Should surprise nobody familiar with the Fourier shenanigans.