Why not horns?

Mapman, I remember there was an Ohm model that got good reviews back in the early 80's in Stereophile and maybe TAS too. I can't remember the model, but I want to say it was about a $750.00 speaker at the time. I still have all my old copies in storage. One day I'll try to dig them up.

I've got every single TAS from about issue 2 or 3 through around 1997 or so and when I was a kid, I memorized them cover to cover. Regarding horns, my recollection was (and I could be remembering wrong) that HP kind of dismissing them, but at the same time, every once in awhile, he'd unexpectedly say a nice thing about a trait of Klipschorns. I seem to remember thinking that he'd occasionaly contradict himself on them.

Thanks for the info Kiddman.

I was never under the impression that HP or JGH ever claimed that they were the first to use these terms, I felt that they were the ones who picked them up and started using them consistently and made efforts to let us know how they were using them and if HP ever bragged about it, it wasn't about inventing the terms, it was about using them consistently in his reviews. In other words, they were the first who started drilling into the readers a point of view stating "hey, here's how we listen to equipment and these are the terms and definitions of the words we use."

There is no question in my mind that people were talking about image placement or soundstage concepts before the first issue of Stereophile or TAS. I remember being a kid and my father playing records and pointing out the placements of the different sections of the orchestra while the record was playing.

Before JGH and HP, I can't remember any reviewer who was consistently describing what they were hearing from audio equipment in terms imaging, depth, soundstaging and transparency and if there was someone consistently reviewing this way before HP and JGH, then they should be given credit.

My memory of reviewing before HP/JGH back then was that it was all about how everything measured on the bench and then at the end of the review there's be a few generic sentences about how the sound was clean and fine, just as it measured, or if their was an anomaly in the measurements, a statement about the sound to support that anomaly.

What do you think; were HP and JGH the first mainstream writers to consistently review this way, or were others reviewing like this earlier?