Why not horns?

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.

Yes, nicely put Seikosha. Clearly, listeners were speaking about what they heard before TAS and Stereophile came along; it would be silly to think that they weren't. As I said in an earlier post, even if Kiddman's premise is correct, so what? As you say, it was HP/JGH and others who actually consistently put their thoughts in writing and were able to get many who were new to the hobby excited about it; in no small part, because they related this terminology to the music in a vivid way. I, likewise, don't recall these individuals taking credit for "inventing" the terminology. To the extent that they are given credit for it, I don't think that this "transgression" can't be forgiven for the credit that they do deserve. I just don't get the general tenor of these criticisms as if these individuals were somehow guilty of some great sin when the truth is that they brought a lot of interest to the hobby.

****I believe that the real legacy of HP and his followers is that we are no longer concerned with high fidelity reproduction, or accuracy, but instead pursue good sound.****

Really?! Read these comments (in the context of the entire story) from Kiddman's post:

****At no time was there any suggestion of distortion, nor any hint, in the quality of the music, of the electrical transfer it had undergone. For the new apparatus (”microphones, amplifiers, electrical filters, transmission lines, and loudspeakers”reproduces with absolute fidelity all sounds that the normal human ear is capable of hearing.****

****From 1960, a Shure ad: "Shure announces a stereo arm and cartridge that recreates sound with an incredible fidelity, transparency,....." ****

Are you kidding me?! Those comments put a lot of this in context and demonstrate the state of "hi-fi" back then. Do you really think that those comments would hold up to scrutiny by most knowledgable audiophiles today? If those comments are an indication of the level of sophistication of the average audio aficionado (and equipment) of the day, then I think much is left to be desired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

++++The truth is that I don’t know everything. No reviewer does. And we all can miss things and sometimes do. Now there is the key. What I did from the very start of TAS [The Absolute Sound] was invite multiple commentaries on things because no one person has the perfect insight- not me, not anybody else. If you think I’m full of you-know-what… comment. It is the internal dialog that sets up the truth that will reflect the variety of opinions you get from people exploring the equipment. Perspective is the word. And you have to know what that perspective is. That is what I tried to identify with the absolute sound by asking: What is your perspective? How do you look at things? You know how I look at it, I try to compare it to live music. And if I fail on that… comment. If I do a really good job… comment.

{{Are you hoping to provide a sense of illumination as a writer?}}

Yes, but not only that. Illuminating is the first step of the process. What I am trying to do is help people create a passion for that which is eternal. And that which is eternal is music. Take the Tagore quote: “music fills the infinite between two souls.” That is what music does. And if I can turn that passion on or show people the way to that passion… I am a guide, I am not the end. I am to be looked at as a guide. Not as a final authority. What happens, is that a person’s life is enriched to an extent that they will be ever thankful, not to me, but for the enrichment. For the music. See I am not here to teach people what HP says. That’s bullshit. What HP says is bullshit comparatively to what they can find out on their own. But if I can kick their ass into starting… that is the goal. ++++ - HP (interview in High End Report)

++++ I think the explosion of designs in the High End are symptomatic of the health of a field that others have said is dying. This is the most creatively stimulating period for designers since the early Seventies and there are more interesting and good electronic designs out there at once than there have been in a quarter of a century.++++ - HP (interview in TNT Audio.)