Folks, please be careful about jumping to conclusions, as the member above has. PLEASE!
And remember why AV Science Forums are so successful. Because we share our ideas, we hopefully don't put down someone else just because we disagree on how to build or spend money for a better trap. And we shouldn't jump to conclusions about Mr. Hardesty's accussations of plaguarism against Mr. Reber, becaue we've only heard one side of the story, the legal issues could be more complex than we think, and remember that Mr. Hardesty had some sort of employee relationship with Widescreen Review although we don't know the exact details of that relationship.
How many of you have read Widescreen Review from the first issue? Well, I read every issue since the second as they came out. Mr. Hardesty makes it sound like all good ideas set forth by Mr. Reber, the owner/editor, came from Mr. Hardesty. But Mr. Reber over the years has assembled many extraordinarily talented individuals with some similar, some different ideas, in evolving his and his magazine's approaches to home theater. Names which come to mind are Peter Moncrief, Michael Green, Russ Hirschelmann, Richard Hardesty, and many others.
When I built my dedicated home theater room 5 years ago, I got lots of ideas from Widescreen Review, mostly Russ Hirschelmann's articles, but also Issue 15 with Peter Moncrief discussing imaging and multi-channel speaker selection and performance ("Doing It Right"), Gary Reber taking the subject further, and Michael Green discussing room treatment. Richard Hardety's articles, primarily equipment reviews, came later.
I like some of what I read in Widescreen Review and followed it in doing my theater - and I got ideas other places, too. We've all been evolving in past years, striving to better our home theaters.
Richard Hardesty has a lot of good ideas and information. However, as is his title, he sees himself as "The Audio Perfectionist". Whether his ideas are all more right than anyone else is frankly up to each of us individual audiophile-home theaterphiles!!! Just as Mr. Hardesty slams Mr. Reber, he could slam each of us if we don't do everything his way. I don't agree with such an approach. And that's that.
What's the old wife's tale "Folks who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Or put another way, is it really professional to be overly negative about the opposition? All I can say is I prefer the positive approach, emphasizing my opinions and beliefs and why, not being overly negative about those I disagree with (even if they frankly deserve it).
Mr. Hardesty appears to show us his SOUR GRAPES. Face it. Widescreen Review has become very "successful" and mainstream, from a magazine that back in 1991 - to 1993 only nerds like I read. All Along Mr. Hardesty states he wrote the new product sections, laserdisc and then DVD reviews, but often received no byline. Well - whose fault was that???? Mr. Hardesty didn't have to write those sections for Widescreen Review, did he? Just maybe Mr. and Mrs. Reber are actually making some good money finally from the magazine, but Mr. Hardesty isn't - because he never had any ownership interest. Just maybe he split over his non-piece of the pie. Maybe. "Only the Shadow" really knows.
Frankly, the exact "truth", heck if I know. And heck if I care. I do know that I am disappointed that Mr. Hardesty would write and disseminate such a mean spirited accussational article about what has been considered by many to be a top notch home theater magazine, one which emphasized ISFing and considering not compromising theater performance for the wife long prior to other publications getting there. Sure, maybe Widescreen Review is selling out to advertisers some these days - but Mr. Hardesty with each new surround processor reviewed gatting the best rating yet could be similarly accused, too. One must be careful about making such accusations because they can rebound from the glass right back at you.
With Mr. Hardesty now going to write for the competition, also great magazines, "The Perfect Vision" (I was an early subscriber to the original incarnation of that mag in the early 90's, too) and "The Absolute Sound", certainly if someone believes what Mr. Hardesty says they will cancel their Widescreen Review subscription and move over to Mr. Hardesty's new magazines. Just another factor looking like sour grapes.
I have heard both "traditional" stereo based home theater systems, as Mr. Hardesty believes are the only way to go, with front speakers angled from main listener only at 55 to 60 degrees, using on-wall surround speakers; and I've heard my system and a few others using all full range floorstanding speakers with wider angle placement closer to ninety degrees along a circle. I subjectively will put my system's sound and imaging up with any of them. And I do believe that room treatments, in my case adjustable Michael Green Pressure Zone Controllers, do allow you to place the speakers farther apart yet maintain outstanding sonic qualities and great center phantom imaging. And my system sounds darn fine in stereo, too!!!!
(I'm not saying that if my system was music only, that I wouldn't place my front left and right speakers closer together, ala Mr. Hardesty, as I would - but for home theater and video I also use a front center top notch speaker, and I've had audiophiles with many years of experience, after some listening and debating, pretty much agree that my system is setup well considering its primary home theater purpose.) And our Az Audiophile Society heard a large room treated with Owens Corning, as is the Widescreen Review reference theater, and all of us were very impressed - even though Mr. Hardesty seems to bash Owens Corning, too. (BUt I often agree with Mr. Hardesty, that many theaters especially at shows are way overdamped and can sound terrible.)
**Mr. Hardesty could have taken a different approach with his article. He could have simply discussed his concerns about the current Widescreen Review reference theater and how it was done, and how with the same components he would have done the room, speaker layout differently in consideration of his years of experience. That would have been totally positive food for thought and something to really think about.
Just my two cents.