I was looking the spider chart @purrin made and thought a companion graphic could be useful. I brought the chart into Illustrator and worked up a quick mockup of a "spider small multiple." Here it is: We all know that summing the individual scores is bad, but it occurred to me that a comparison of the relative area enclosed by the individual webs would be a useful thing to see, and this format makes it much easier to do that. For example, @purrin's comment about the TH-X00 being a better all-arounder than the Omni is born out by the more bulbous (for lack of a better term) shape of it's web which covers more area in comparison. It's also clear that the Fostex compares favorably to the HD 650, which covers a similar amount of visual area even though the overall shape of the web is quite different. Interesting also to see how the 650's excellence in three categories compensate for its weaknesses from a web surface area standpoint. All in all, the spider charts are great for diving into the details and comparing cans against each other in the individual categories in an visually efficient way. But I was feeling that it was a bit difficult to get a more "big picture" view of each headphone relative to the others with the spider chart alone. I agree wholeheartedly that there's nothing useful to be gleaned from summing up the individual categories to see which headphone got the most "points". But I think the itch to total up the categories hints at something that the combined spider chart isn't optimized for but that the "spider multiples" may help address. If you all think these are useful, I'd be happy to make more for the other spider sets.