Why not horns?

Funny, being casually interested in horn speakers for some time, I have been casually intrigued by this thread for some time also without actually taking the time to read it until today when I looked at the some of the posts in this last page. I then read:

****Harry Pearson has done a greater disservice to high end audio than anyone else I can think of. His faulty proclamations, pretentious stance, and cronyism misdirected about 2 decades worth of audio growth. The internet came to the rescue when we finally started talking amongst ourselves thereby learning the myth in his message.****

Man, talk about living on a different audio planet from mine! I am still intrigued by horns (a little), but one thing is certain: I am looking (listening) for different things in audio than the author of that comment. Perhaps that is a part of the answer to the OP's original question.

Really? I don't think so; my heroes make music and sound not write about them. Here's what I do know: I can't remember a time that I bought a recording that he recommended, and then, when judging the sound of the recording on my system not being able to verify what he described. Operative word here is MUSIC. I am not aware of anyone else being so articulate and accurate (aargh!) in the way that he wrote about recorded music; and the passion with which he did so. That is good enough for me. Additionally, I can't think of a component that he spoke highly of and which I then owned (not many), or had extensive experience with, that I disagreed with his assessment of. The man has great ears.

As usual, Almarg comes to the rescue with his indisputable reasonableness; in this case, helping to turn the tide of the usual reviewer bashing which is partly what I like to call simple reviewer envy (all that great gear!).

Perhaps the bashers are younger than I and some of the other supporters and are not familiar with the TAS of its heyday; and I will concede that the TAS (and HP's contributions) of the last several years was not on the same level. IMO, the contribution of TAS and HP in particular has done as much (in a positive way) for the health of the industry as just about anyone else including the great equipment designers. His relentless adherence to a standard influenced these great designers to continually improve their designs. No other reviewer that I can think of was as adamant about the concept of the gear always being in the service of the music. Read some of those back issues and you will learn not only about the concept of faithfulness to the sound of live acoustic instruments, but also (via the infamous "surveys") everything from the great concert halls around the world to the great pipe organs of the world; not to mention an incredible (for an audio mag) number of discussions about music theory and pedagogy, and the "Super Lists" of great recordings. Additionally, he did more to create a vocabulary for discussing audio matters than anyone else that I can think of. I think the bashers are taking a whole lot for granted and not giving credit where credit is due.

Perhaps your reality, not mine. I think your comment "The systems always could play loud, and usually did, could go deep in the bass and with a lot of volume, and threw big images. But to get those traits they often veered quite a bit away from truth in tonality." is a gross mis characterization of reality. As you may (or not, apparently) recall his reference systems were broken into categories: large, medium and small. While it is true that his no.1 reference speaker system was the IRS he championed many smaller ones like the Crosby Quads (and who can argue with the "truth in tonality" of those), smaller Thiels, Proacs and Sequerras to name just a couple. But, more importantly, I think you miss the point of the bigger picture. HP was TAS, and the adherence to strict standards of reviewing (flaws and all) and variety of opinion expressed by his chosen reviewers (and subsequent rebuttals) was something that was unparalleled. Sure he was a gear head; so what? That in no way detracts from his loftier contributions. He had a tremendous amount of influence and it is true that he (with a negative review) could cause great harm to a start-up, but on balance his positive contribution to the health of the industry was huge.

Dkarmeli, specifics please. My definition of "lie" is not the issue here; yours is. Explain "misguidance and misinformation" with specific examples; it is very easy to condemn or criticize. What exactly are you referring to? I would like to understand your perspective.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Kiddman, I don't recall ever reading copies of the Absolute Kiddman or of Kiddmanfile. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct about the use of a similar descriptive language before Holt or HP did. So what? The point is that it was they that took the leap and made the investment to found their magazines and introduce me and countless others to it. Isn't that alone deserving of credit? You seem hell bent on not giving them any credit. I am truly curious as to why that is. Perhaps a clue lies in your hint that you are in the industry. BTW, no one has said anything like:

****To really believe we (the industry) would not care about such things without his specific words.****

****gee, how did they get the placement so correct on records pressed in 1959 without having Harry tell them that there was such a concept as center, left, right, or a sense of depth possible? How did they ever get a soundstage before HP "invented" the word? Do you think that the fabulous mic placement on RCAs that HP so lauded years after they came out was just luck? That the placement just happened to serendipitously be there to be discovered by HP?****

HP revered the great engineers like Layton and Wilkinson and gave them their due many times over in his reviews of their recordings as well as discussing their techniques.

It seems obvious to me that there is something going on here beyond a simple wish to set the record straight. I for one would be interested in knowing what that is.

An honest question: what lies? There may be disagreement, but lies? Kindly explain.

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.

"99.99999999999" of the time, with some gentle prodding and especially persistence, truth will usually reveal itself. Those desperately seeking support for a questionable position would do well being careful about who their bedfellows are.

Almarg, thank you for the history lesson; fascinating, and should be very interesting for those too young (or uninterested) to remember. You may also recall that it was Aczel who gave Fourier speakers some of their first positive reviews. It was then revealed that Aczel was one of the owners of the company. Hmmm. What that says about the integrity of the reviews (and the reviewer; at least, at that point in his career) is fairly obvious. What it it says about Aczel's sudden change of opinion (and it's motivation) about the sound of amplifiers I find far more interesting and mysterious; and, I know you are too much of a gentleman to surmise. I am not nearly as much of a gentleman, and am still ruminating the possibilities ....

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.)