I'm really surprised and appalled by some of the responses I've read here. I can tell there are some strong opinions about these SVS speakers and the ability of spin data to predict loudspeaker preferences.
I'd like to chime in and say that in my opinion, the replies here that criticize Amir's listener observations are very anti-science. Like it or not, the auditory impressions provided by a reviewer are data. They're the same type of data we would get from the gold-standard test (a blinded A/B listening comparison under otherwise identical conditions), except without all of the laborious measures to eliminate bias. A good scientist never dismisses data simply because it doesn't "agree" with his/her prevailing theory. Like it or not, Amir's listening impressions ARE data - and should be treated as such.
The other thing I'd like to point out is that there are apparently some individuals who think they can eyeball spin charts and make magical predictions that Speaker A will sound better than Speaker B with 100% certainty. As far as I know, there is NO agreed upon and objective way to convert spin charts to preference predictions, and NO evidence that one's ability to "eyeball" a series of spin charts is superior to Olive's regression formula, which we know uses a deliberate SUBSET of spin data, requires complex math, AND only explains 74% of the variability in listener preferences in a closed set of 70 speakers. So, the notion that spin data is a highly reliable way to gauge a speaker's sound quality without listener validation is unfounded and unsupported by evidence - unless someone has something to share.