A little more spin, more speed though, and only if you hit the ball like Gauzy.
...
True, and I also believe it is necessary to realize (for everyone) that by using something like Spinsight
it eventually becomes a very personalized issue and not an objective one. Therefore one would have to take it with a grain of salt if a user of Spinsight claims that a certain rubber (generally) produces more spin and/or speed than another.
I am mentioning this because in the comment section of this review of the Nuzn
someone claimed to have tested the rotation capabilities of some rubbers by using Spinsight and his results showed that he got pretty much the same spin out of rubbers like Evo FX-S and Tibhar Nimbus (!) compared to D09C and a boosted Hurricane (actually he says that the difference in rps was just 10).
He essentially refused a counterargument that the results were probably due to his very own technique. According to Spinsight his fh topspin would even be on 1850 TTR level (roughly 2200 USATT) and on that level most amateurs aren't anyway, so it would be pointless for all of these players to use rubbers like D09C and (boosted) Hurricane!?!
While I don't have proof, I am sure that many amateurs get more spin out of D09C compared to an "old" Nimbus, which was (and still is) mainly known for its prominent catapult and not for its spin capabilities.
The Spinsight software, of course, offers more than just the measurement of rps, but still, even if you are a Gauzy-type-level player and could theoretically get in the "objective sphere", you would have to take some rubbers out of the equation. Even Boll once said that he couldn't play with the rubber Ma Long uses...
That being said, I can totally see this software becoming a popular tool among players and coaches (it should be particularly interesting in regard to the development of younger players), and reason for plenty of discussions when comparing rubbers.