I'm trying to find out if it's listening with the intent to "critique" the music, equipment, medium or all of the above. If it is then it's no wonder I'm not a critical listener. However, that's not to say I don't hear flaws in the music or it's reproduction it's just that I choose to listen to the music and only use the critical aspect when I need to fix something or make a change. This probably doesn't make much sense. Then I seldom do anyway

Given the dependence on Program material, I cannot imagine ho0w we can do critical listening without being familiar with the PM on different equipment.

I agree with your assessment about vitriol on "other forums".
-akhilesh

After listening to the system at low, medium, medium-high, and high volume levels, I came to this conclusion (totally based on my subjective impression and not on measurements, unfortunately):

The midrange driver seemed to have different power compression characteristics than the woofer and tweeter; specifically, it had less power compression. The midrange seemed to get loud faster than the other drivers as we cranked the volume up, and to get quiet faster as we turned the volume down. So at low volume levels the midrange was recessed, at medium to medium-high it was about right, and at high volume levels the midrange was forward and borderline shouty.

To me, job #1 of a loudspeaker is to get the tonal balance right. If it's not right, I have a very hard time listening past that to focus on dynamics, imaging, clarity, whatever.

I think it's well worthwhile to match up the power compression characteristics of the drivers. I've heard quite a few small two-way systems where it seemed like the tonal balance changed significantly with volume level, consistent with the tweeter (which was probably padded down) having less power compression than the woofer. High efficiency systems are usually very good in this respect, as voice coil heating (the primary power compression mechanism) isn't significant at normal home listening levels because of their low input wattage.

To address the question of critical listening to loudspeakers, to me it involves music that I'm very familiar with and ideally a wide range of volume levels and two or three listening positions. It's done eyes closed, listening with my left brain instead of with my right brain. I don't particularly enjoy it, as it takes a fair amount of self-discipline. It's almost (but not quite) like doing long division in your head during sex.

Listening to the program material in detail is a totally different process than A/B'ing two components. Now you are listening to the individual performers, their technique and the overall balance of parts. This becomes a highly subjective procedure where objectivity is irrelevant. Who is your favorite singer and why? What sounds better, a Beethoven symphony played on a 100-member modern orchestra or a 40-member period instrument group?

One thing about listening to the music rather than the equipment: I can enjoy the music on an atrociously bad system. While listen on a good system, and I think my home system falls into that category, does enhance the experience, the music transcends the equipment.

Bob

Bob

After I am satisfied with a design, or if I'm using something that I've already found tried and true, I revert back to a more normal mode where I'm not listening to the machine anymore. I am just enjoying the music. It's a much more relaxed mode. That's the way I listen most of the time, listening to the performance rather than trying to find flaws. It's sort of like holistic listening.

I wasn't going to respond, because I probably have nothing useful to add. But what the heck.

I am a total subjectivist. I've never heard all the wonderful things that Stereophile says you should hear from particular speakers. Maybe I just don't have "golden ears." I used to try like crazy to hear all the things that learned reviewers heard: that peak at 400 HZ, that trough at 1500. No luck. This used to embarrass me, but I've gotten over it.

The bottom line, I audition speakers, or electronics, by playing music I know and love and seeing if my hair stands on end. The output may be a travesty when viewed via one of those Stereophile graphs, but I just don't care. If Jimi Hendrix does't make me shake my head in wonder, the equipment is out. If Frank Zappa doesn't make me laugh or snarl, it's out. If the trio in Rosenkavalier (three soprano voices from God) doesn't make me cry, it's out. If Mahler's Ninth (complex orchestra) doesn't make me melt, it's out. If the Big Aria in Pagliacci (tenor) doesn't stun me, it's out. If Hagen's Lament in Gotterdamerung (bass) doesn't give me the heebeejeebees (sp?), it's out.

On (perhaps) a somewhat more practical note, I tend to think the human voice is a particularly good test vehicle. If a good soprano sounds harsh and screechy, there's something wrong. If a tenor doesn't sound the way I "know" he sounds, there's something wrong. etc. Notwithstanding that at my age my treble hearing should be going, I continue to find many or most speakers overly bright. That's probably my fault; the Stereophile readouts are probably ruler-flat, but unfortunately it is I who am listening to the recording, not a test mike.

I'm not, by the way, criticizing others. To the contrary, I'm jealous of those who can hear with more precision. Unfortunately, as Clint would say, a man's got to know his limitations. The good news is that I love music and that reproduced music can me laugh or cry or whatever. If I can't have both, I suppose I rather have that than the ability to detect that peak at 400 HZ.