Modesty is apparently not one of your personality attributes.
In any case, I'll do better than fishing up your videos and go straight to the written word. In your Dagogo review if the Comet (October 2015) you start your self stated "accolades" by noting that the Comet is "well-planned and executed." You continue to state that the front display is "nearly non existent" and describe how it is basically unreadable. Then you say that isn't a "mistake but intentional [that word italicized for emphasis!] as Exogal does not wish for the owner to actually use the display." Then you continue to describe at length the apps by which the Comet was intended to be controlled. Your review even quotes Jeff saying "the emphasis on device apps won't go away. That approach simply allows us too many features and control options." Well, it certainly has gone away.
So very plainly according to both you and old Jeff the Comet was designed to be used with apps that are now no longer available. Yet when I complained about this total failure on this thread you chimed in and defended Exogal. Then you later wrote a review of this crappy remote that is not what purchasers wanted, in fact not even what the "Fabulous Four" Exogal owner/founders initially wanted. That's how we came to this impasse--I criticized Exogal as an irresponsible failure and you defended them despite your past statements in print and otherwise. So yes, you are propping up a dead horse.
In your original review, consistent with your methodology, you included no graphs and technical measurements such as what one routinely finds on Audio Science Review. You did have a lot of subjective impressions such as saying the component if "as cute as a button." Is that sort of expression a substitute for technical testing and data? I think not. Subjective rhapsodizing isn't a substitute for science.
So I have to wonder how and why a reviewer defends (as per your past contributions to this thread) a totally flawed and ill-conceived component that no longer functions in the manner you so approvingly described in your review. Your communications here are redolent of an attitude of superiority--"Trust me I know better because I am a big whiz with lots of knowledge and experience." Sorry, I'm not jumping on that bandwagon.
Incidentally, I checked out your Eastern Electric thing and plenty of very knowledgeable people think it is less than ideal.
In any case, I'll do better than fishing up your videos and go straight to the written word. In your Dagogo review if the Comet (October 2015) you start your self stated "accolades" by noting that the Comet is "well-planned and executed." You continue to state that the front display is "nearly non existent" and describe how it is basically unreadable. Then you say that isn't a "mistake but intentional [that word italicized for emphasis!] as Exogal does not wish for the owner to actually use the display." Then you continue to describe at length the apps by which the Comet was intended to be controlled. Your review even quotes Jeff saying "the emphasis on device apps won't go away. That approach simply allows us too many features and control options." Well, it certainly has gone away.
So very plainly according to both you and old Jeff the Comet was designed to be used with apps that are now no longer available. Yet when I complained about this total failure on this thread you chimed in and defended Exogal. Then you later wrote a review of this crappy remote that is not what purchasers wanted, in fact not even what the "Fabulous Four" Exogal owner/founders initially wanted. That's how we came to this impasse--I criticized Exogal as an irresponsible failure and you defended them despite your past statements in print and otherwise. So yes, you are propping up a dead horse.
In your original review, consistent with your methodology, you included no graphs and technical measurements such as what one routinely finds on Audio Science Review. You did have a lot of subjective impressions such as saying the component if "as cute as a button." Is that sort of expression a substitute for technical testing and data? I think not. Subjective rhapsodizing isn't a substitute for science.
So I have to wonder how and why a reviewer defends (as per your past contributions to this thread) a totally flawed and ill-conceived component that no longer functions in the manner you so approvingly described in your review. Your communications here are redolent of an attitude of superiority--"Trust me I know better because I am a big whiz with lots of knowledge and experience." Sorry, I'm not jumping on that bandwagon.
Incidentally, I checked out your Eastern Electric thing and plenty of very knowledgeable people think it is less than ideal.