SPINORAMA vs Subjective

[mfaughn]

I'm guessing this has been discussed before here but my search Kung-Fu is apparently not up to snuff. I'll frame this question as follows:

The spinorama.org rankings show that, with EQ and Sub, the $100 Polk XT15 and $75 Micca RB42 perform slightly better than the $5000
Dutch Dutch 8C. I'm wondering if anyone has subjective experience that supports (or contradicts) this sort of phenomenon, i.e., that with proper sub support and EQ, there are inexpensive speakers (ostensibly using much lower quality components) that sound as good or better than very expensive speaker built (again, ostensibly) much higher quality components??

 

[Matias]

Spinorama is the set of measurements. You mean the prediction score.

Yes, it is flawed and cannot be compared that simply. Dynamic compression, distortion and noises are not captured by the spin.

 

[TheBatsEar]

I'm guessing this has been discussed before here but my search Kung-Fu is apparently not up to snuff.

Can't be discussed often enough

The spinorama.org rankings show that, with EQ and Sub, the $100 Polk XT15 and $75 Micca RB42 perform slightly better than the $5000

It just says the preference score is higher, it doesn't say anything about max SPL or distortion for example.

I'm wondering if anyone has subjective experience that supports (or contradicts) this sort of phenomenon

I can't predict how some speakers sound, based on their measurements alone. For some reason the Wharfedale Linton 85 do a better job at pleasing me than the KEF R3, despite the fact that the KEFs measurements are better by a hair.

with proper sub support and EQ, there are inexpensive speakers (ostensibly using much lower quality components) that sound as good or better than very expensive speaker built (again, ostensibly) much higher quality components??

It's true.
A pair of Kali In-8 2nd (or Neumann KH120 II or Genelec 8030), a bunch of subs, a Umik1 and a MiniDSP Flex and you get terribly close to the state of the art.

Don't tell anyone i said that.

 

[voodooless]

The fact that the score has an error margin of about + or - 1.2 should tell you all you need to know.

 

[ahofer]

Measurements are useful, one summary measure is mostly just useful as a filter:

We could have a similar discussion about SINAD rankings. Certainly you should weed out the poor SINAD performers (mind audibility), but not select from among the good performers based on that summary measure. Same goes for preference score. Also, as others have pointed out, appropriateness to the size of your listening space (sound pressure/distortion) isn’t considered in the preference score.

The anti-measurements crowd always siezes on these limitations as if they render measurements useless. Like any other field, you have to know a bit about how to interpret specifications and which ones to check off.

 

[mfaughn]

Well, a few quick and concise answers. Very helpful. Thanks! I have a miniDSP Flex8 w/ DIRAC, Umik1, and a selection of subs. I've learned that I can elicit dramatic improvements in how some speakers sound in my room while others don't change much. Just now finding out about spin data. My takeaway is that, while technology can illuminate the path quite a bit, one still has to experience the nuances of different systems and determine their own personal preferences.

 

[radix]

My understanding is that speakers with modest problems and a smooth directivity index (DI) can be EQ'd well. A rough DI will not EQ well. The DI is at the bottom of the frequency response chart, like here:

 

[radix]

Also, @Purité Audio in a different post linked this reference about spinnorama

https://www.sausalitoaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Interpreting-Spinorama-Charts.pdf