spinorama.org

[hardisj]

Hey, guys. I don't mind sending over my SPIN data but I want to be clear: I'm not fond of people taking scans of my compression and distortion data to be used on the SPINORAMA website. If I wanted that posted on someone else's website I would provide that data in a text file to Pierre the same way I do the SPIN data. And maybe one day I will.

I know some of you may be upset by this but I am sure any reasonable person can understand my position.

Thanks,
Erin

Edit: Which reminds me... Pierre, shoot me an email with the SPIN data you need to update for your site and I'll get that over to you as soon as I can.

Edit 2: It's not that my data has any real commercial value to me. It's simply that I work my ass off to provide this data in a particular format and I like that it's unique *to me* and my website.

 

[Blockader]

I found a source for harvesting more spinorama data.

Voice Acoustic Venia im Praxistest – Säulen-Line-Array | Production Partner

PA-Lautsprecher bieten bei geringem Platzbedarf und unauffälligem Erscheinungsbild für Locations einem Line-Array vergleichbare Performance. Mehr dazu hier!

www.production-partner.de

Voice Acoustics Venia

Kling & Freitag CA 106 Pro | Production Partner

Ein Klassiker in zweiter Generation: Bei Kling & Freitag bleiben Gehäuse und Mechanik unverändert, wurden aber mit neuer Technik ausgestattet.

www.production-partner.de

KF 106 CA Pro:

 

[jhaider]

If it's possible for a loudspeaker to get a very high Preference Rating AND be widely disliked in subjective listening tests, then the rating system is broken / flawed. I love the idea of working together here to address this and improve the rating algorithm.

As an experiment, we made two different DSP tunings for the same (fully active) loudspeaker. Tuning A scores a ~6.5 and Tuning B scores a ~9.2. See attached images.

Tuning A has been optimized for the listening window frequency response (green line, second from top).
Tuning B has been optimized for the predicted in-room response & PIR.

So far, 100% of listeners prefer Tuning A.
"Man this just seems more well-behaved all around."
"I am enjoying the spatial stuff. Seems like less confusion with regard to localization of sounds. Lovely."
"I’ve always kind of struggled with the top end, having to toe out to tame it, but this top end seems less glarey!"

Tuning B was described thusly:
"It’s like the presentation is smothered by a blanket. Where’d the treble go?"
"This profile just seems like a Beats by Dre tuning."
"The speaker no longer sounds like a reference for anything, just bass canons and no more top end sparkle."

I definitely think we can make meaningful progress here, as a group. One possible solution for correlating objective measurements with subjective preference ratings would be to build a special "test mule" loudspeaker that we open source / sell kits at cost / sell assembled versions at cost, then get a bunch of us with this same speaker in our homes, and share different DSP tunings.

If this interests folks here, I'd be happy to support this project and design/make the speaker.

Love this, from start to open source concept. The score (and, frankly, PIR) has always, in my view, been more muddying that clarifying.

I don’t have the kind of highly clarifying data described above, but IME the “‘measures well’, sounds not-great” speakers are speakers with axial/LW response gamed to give pretty PIR despite poor directivity where the tweeter comes in.

 

[pierre]

Hello everyone,

Following Erin’s posts, I’d like to clarify how spinorama.org works and ask for your thoughts on its future.

Spinorama.org is a personal, noncommercial project. I write and maintain the code, which is available under the GPL, and pay the hosting and domain costs myself. The website has no advertising or user tracking.

The site brings together loudspeaker measurements so that people can find, understand, and compare them more easily. The measurements come from Amir, Erin, manufacturers, and other contributors, with attribution and links to the original sources. Some data is supplied directly; some I extract from published graphs.

Erin has made clear that he does not want measurements extracted from his published material and added to the database without his permission. I understand that attribution and the noncommercial nature of the project do not, by themselves, address that concern. I appreciate his work and contributions, and I will discuss the practical arrangements with him directly.

More broadly, maintaining the site takes considerable time. I enjoy building the tools; collecting and preparing the data is often the harder part. Growing traffic suggests that people find the project useful, and I would like to find a sustainable way to continue it while keeping good relationships with measurement contributors.

I would welcome ideas from the community, particularly on:

• Making it easier for reviewers and manufacturers to contribute data, with clear agreement about its use.
• Establishing agreed publication delays where contributors would find that helpful.
• Expanding contributions from independent measurement projects.
• Finding volunteers to help prepare and check data.

My motivation remains the same: to make reliable loudspeaker measurements accessible and help people make informed choices. Comparable measurements help us assess performance beyond price, reputation, and marketing.

Thank you to everyone who produces measurements, contributes data, reports errors, or supports the project. I would like this discussion to focus on how we can make that collaboration work well.

Pierre

 

[Purité Audio]

I really enjoy the site and it is a wonderful asset, and you already credit the creator.
I also understand Erin’s point of view, I hope you can reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement.
Keith

 

[hardisj]

I write and maintain the code, which is available under the GPL, and pay the hosting and domain costs myself. The website has no advertising or user tracking.

To be clear, my site has been this way since the start as well.

However, thanks to the recent onslaught of other websites culling my data for financial gain, I am planning to create a new site that will have an entirely new format. Still no advertising. But will still use my generic affiliate links to various retailers.

More broadly, maintaining the site takes considerable time.

Yep. I can relate. Now imagine other sites taking your data (or, more specifically, my data) from your site and using it to create AI reviews to generate affiliate sales and ad-revenue. This is where my major frustration comes from. Seeing that my 8380A data had been scanned and uploaded to your site was just more fuel to the fire, so to speak. I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see that referenced and used elsewhere... even though I had never sent you the actual data.

Erin has made clear that he does not want measurements extracted from his published material and added to the database without his permission.

Correct. This seems like a reasonable expectation. Amir posts his data in his OPs. I provide my data when I can. If I were home this thread would have reminded me to send you some missing data. Like you, however, when I get home there are other tasks I have to work on.

Thanks for recognizing the effort on my end and the concerns I have with extracting my data without my permission.

 

[hardisj]

I really enjoy the site and it is a wonderful asset, and you already credit the creator.
I also understand Erin’s point of view, I hope you can reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement.
Keith

It’s pretty simple for me. I just sent him the data. The thing is that I have been really far behind. And with the push of these new websites, taking all of my data I’ve been having serious considerations as to whether or not I wanna share my data in text format anymore.

 

[AudioJester]

Practical question. Wether its is scanned by Pierre or sent by Erin and uploaded - how will the distinction stop others from using the data without permission?
Also cant they still get the same data from Erin's publications anyway?

 

[kemmler3D]

Practical question. Wether its is scanned by Pierre or sent by Erin and uploaded - how will the distinction stop others from using the data without permission?
Also cant they still get the same data from Erin's publications anyway?

People pay to get the data from Erin early, plus traffic to his channels to see the data (even when released for free) boosts his revenues by and by. So people publishing the data without his permission willy-nilly is definitely bad from his POV.

From that perspective it's a favor to the community to share it on spinorama.org. Don't forget it's kind of a pain in the ass (from everything I've seen) to scan a speaker on a klippel, not to mention what one costs in the first place.

In practical copyright terms, if he gives someone the data to publish that gives a license, implied or explicit, to publish. If someone just grabs the data and publishes it without permission, that is likely a copyright violation and Erin could sue, and IMO win, and I wouldn't say he's wrong to do it, either.

 

[hardisj]

Practical question. Wether its is scanned by Pierre or sent by Erin and uploaded - how will the distinction stop others from using the data without permission?
Also cant they still get the same data from Erin's publications anyway?

The difference is that I own the data and that not taking it without my permission is just the right thing to do.

Do you wanna have the early 2000s debate around sharing MP3’s on Napster? Go ahead. But the bottom line is that I’ve made it abundantly clear that I don’t want someone taking my data without my permission. and I have plenty of reasons for that. That should be good enough.

 

[hardisj]

this was discussed in the forum feedback thread. It’s a good fit here. So I’ll re-share it.


^ not to derail this thread. I promise I don't want to make a scene of this. I just want absolute understanding of where I stand on this. I posted this in another thread a month ago and am sharing it again below.

Forum Feedback and Discussion

Call me crazy, but I think the current forum equilibrium of silly vs anal retentiveness is pretty much where it should be. There are bound to be occasional a-holes, but we don't want the cure to be worse than the disease Yes, I completely agree with you. With such a large number of people...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Honestly never thought I'd have to address it but I am glad I was sent this discussion so I could clarify.

This is the only issue I've ever expressed. I have absolutely no problem with my data/reviews being linked here as long as credit is given.

Specifically what we are discussing here is someone taking scans of my actual data and posting them elsewhere. Even if given credit, I don't like that.

So to be clear...

I'm 100% okay with:

• Me sharing data with Pierre for his SPINORAMA site.
• Others linking my website/YT.
• Others posting my graphics as long as source credit is provided.

I'm not okay with:

• My data being scanned and converted to a different format and uploaded to a different website.

The "gray" area is I sometimes see someone do a line trace of my data or a scaled image of my data to compare against someone else's data provided in a different format. That's fine with me. I don't want a separate 'database' (like Pierre's website) being used to host my data unless I give explicit permission or provide the data directly myself.


I think these are more than reasonable requests. Hell, many sites charge for access to the data. I don't do that... unless I'm sharing with Patreon members first and then I will eventually get around to sharing them on my website.

I'd like to address this because I don't like the implication that I only send people to my site for affiliate purposes.

First, I didn't even think about that when I made my earlier posts. The affiliate links are rarely used from my site. According to analytics it's less than 3%. That means 97% come from my YT videos.

I also didn't limit sharing my data via linking to my website only; I said I am fine with others posting the graphics as long as the source is given (for context).

Do I generate income from affilliate links? Yep. I don't hide that at all. But the overwhelming use of said links by the audience is to buy regular daily-use things. Interestingly enough, they're rarely used to buy speakers or electronics. Now I understand how all these IG/TikTok "influencers" make so much money; I should review shoes and makeup. I'd make a killing.

The primary reason I don't want digital scans of my data being used to put it in a different format is because I don't like the idea of someone altering the presentation style when I've worked hard to establish a consistent baseline (that many others have since copied, to be frank).

Again, I have zero issue with my graphics being linked/pasted directly here and elsewhere. I have a huge issue with digital scans and data manipulation to fit another format. That's not cool at all.

Hopefully this doesn't come off as defensive. I am just a big proponent of clarity and reality.

Waking up to this frustrated me. If I sound emotional about it that's because I am. I'm sure you can understand.

I'll send the data to Pierre when/if I see fit. Sometimes I'm behind the curve. But I've increasingly become more frustrated by AI websites using my data to make sales and drive ad-revenue. Neither of these are what spinorama.org does. But this ultimately comes down to my data being used without permission.

Erin

 

[a4eaudio]

Spinorama.org should be the authentic repository of Spinorama data, providing data supplied, or permission granted, from the original source of the measurement. This doesn't apply to just Erin, but should equally apply to Audioholics, AudioXpress, Sound & Recording, PMC, Ascilabs, Audio First, etc.

 

[Newman]

I'm not fond of people taking scans of my compression and distortion data to be used on the SPINORAMA website.

What about your other data? (just for clarity's sake)

In other words, why mention just those two?

 

[hardisj]

What about your other data? (just for clarity's sake)

In other words, why mention just those two?

That was what was being discussed at the time.

But yes, this would apply to all of my data. Thank you for asking.

 

[Mort]

For what it's worth, I'm confident your position is overwhelmingly supported here, @hardisj . You are an asset to the community and deserve the kind of professional respect you request.

That said, policing people is pretty difficult on the internet so you may find it still happens, hopefully less though.

 

[janbth]

It’s pretty simple for me. I just sent him the data. The thing is that I have been really far behind. And with the push of these new websites, taking all of my data I’ve been having serious considerations as to whether or not I wanna share my data in text format anymore.

It’s unclear to me what all this discussion really is about. Erin, are you saying you consider not sharing your data anymore, including with spinorama.org?

If I’m missing something, then I would be happy if someone could clarify.

 

[Newman]

It’s unclear to me

He's saying that he is already sending his data to Pierre for putting in spinorama.org, but other people are sending Pierre more of Erin's data and it is appearing on the site, including non spinorama data that Erin considers to be his specialty, and he objects to any data appearing on the site that he hasn't provided to Pierre.

Seems fair.

 

[janbth]

He's saying that he is already sending his data to Pierre for putting in spinorama.org, but other people are sending Pierre more of Erin's data and it is appearing on the site, including non spinorama data that Erin considers to be his specialty, and he objects to any data appearing on the site that he hasn't provided to Pierre.

Seems fair.

Still unclear. Please forgive me for asking, but did Pierre put stuff on spinorama.org, provided by someone other than Erin, and attributing it to Erin?

Edit: My intention is not to accuse anyone of anything, but to understand what is actually being discussed.

 

[a4eaudio]

Still unclear. Please forgive me for asking, but did Pierre put stuff on spinorama.org, provided by someone other than Erin, and attributing it to Erin?

Edit: My intention is not to accuse anyone of anything, but to understand what is actually being discussed.

Have you read all of Erin's posts? He has made it pretty clear.