While I never thought his reviews were better than any other reviewer or lined up more with my thinking, his writing style was unique, flowery, and descriptive to say the least. I had a chance to meet him when I was the Marketing Director for SigTech (Cambridge Signal Technologies). I installed one of our systems in his home (in his main room) to have our product reviewed. He was every bit as unique in person as was his writing style.
I met Harry and chatted with him several times on visits to Sea Cliff, and I know a fair number of behind the scenes vignettes from friends who wrote for the magazine and who knew him quite well. I read the magazine from its inception and dropped it for a number of years in the infamous astrology period where it was his idea to publish reviewers' astrological signs along with their reviews, as if that had some major influence on the reviewer's sonic opinion. Once that stupid initiative had been dropped, I came back later, pre-Harley, but the magazine had to me permanently lost credibility in that episode, and Harley has never regained it in my eyes. I read it more as a news bulletin of what is going on in high end circles, and for music reviews. It has generally not had high credibility on equipment for me, and actually it seldom did.
Agreed, he was a major force in shaping the high end establishment as we know it. He had some brilliant insights as to how to listen, such as the "sound of live acoustic instruments in real space", and the concept of the Gestalt of live performance. These concepts were and are indeed valuable and insightful.
He wrote well and entertainingly, as expected with his background in newspaper journalism. I always read his stuff, sometimes agreeing, sometimes infuriated with his naive and often erroneous technical speculations. Under his editorial guidance, the concept of the preamp, amp or speaker "of the month club" became established, which continues at full force under Harley, Valin, et al. I know from a discussion with a former staff reviewer several years ago how this concept was even encouraged by senior editors.
There was good in Harry's writings. But, I see some major, lasting negatives that have grown and continue from those days to influence audiophile attitudes, not for the better, in my view. One was his obvious egocentrism, affirming itself in the notion that his ears alone could discern all there was to be known about the sound of any components. He was, as easily inferred from his writings, the feisty, argumentative center of the universe when it came to judging sound. That was coupled with an absolute and utter disdain for any sort of alternative evidence that tried to be more questioning or objective, such as measurements or controlled listening studies.
It struck me that in later years, he retreated more and more to his Valhalla on Long Island Sound and reviewed only outrageously expensive and obscure gear that had limited distribution, few dealer demo capabilities or alternative reviews elsewhere. I see in that a hidden desire to avoid questions and challenges to his opinions, as he had faced earlier in his career about some of his more main-stream reviews, even from some of his own staff writers. It was his shield against any dissent. Most had simply not heard the gear in question, although, obviously it was good stuff. The question remained, was it as good as he proclaimed, and was it really compared to a wide enough sampling of alternatives to warrant his effusive praise.
Sorry, Harry, may you rest in peace. Like all of us, there is good and bad in the legacy we leave behind.