Exogal has shown it is willing to defend itself. I review; I"m not a PR agent. The seemingly fictitious comparisons you present I would challenge regardless of the company involved.
I wrote the reviews of the Comet and Ion, and did the video interview in regard to the Vortex all prior to my knowledge (I believe prior to the emergence of the incompatibility issue of the software remote) of the issues with the software remote. My motivation to write about the Pulsar - which was another unpaid article I did not have to write - was to help the community and Exogal both, to be of assistance in cleaning up a problem with the unit. Anyone who reads the Pulsar article will see it is even handed and is not attempting to defend the company. Ironically, this is perhaps the third time in 14 years where I attempted to go the extra mile at my own initiative, and in all three instances it resulted in criticism from a member of the community (or industry member behind a moniker).
The community can see clearly enough the evidence that my ethics are intact. Above, I challenged you on claims of product performance which I suspected were based on nothing more than conjecture, and you responded with ad hominem attacks. You still have not demonstrated that you did any kind of actual comparison, yet you discuss multiple products, imo in completely invalid comparisons, i.e. DAC (Comet) versus DAC (Topping) and Amp (Purifi based). You never did discuss the amp used with the Comet, which is significant, because the Purifi-based amp alone would potentially cause a significant improvement in performance over an older/other class of amp. In your comments factors such as that are completely ignored, yet you want to not only draw conclusions, but use them against a company. From your above description of your activities, you sold off the Comet, then purchased these others. Thus, you had zero comparison of sound, yet you make claims as to which is better. Anyone who has experience in such things will see immediately that it is an invalid comparison to discuss a DAC versus a DAC/Amp combo. The ONLY proper discussion of a product is direct comparison, an apples to apples, one on one comparison.
You even extend your fantasy comparisons to a field of Purify-based amps! I suspect that if you had done comparison that was favorable to the Topping DAC as stand alone alternative to the Exogal Comet, then we would have heard much about it. You give no discussion of the comparison, you have no comment on sound quality attributes of each. I conclude you did nothing but sold one, bought these others, and want to slam the Exogal without any comparisons, but act as though you know how it would have gone.
That is what I challenged, and I would have challenged it whether it involved Exogal or any other brand I have reviewed. I could care less what Audio Science Review says, and it seems evident that you think you have the ability to draw conclusions on performance without actually using/comparing equipment. Worse, you use your fantasy conclusions to assault one company and promote others. As I said, I will let Exogal defend themselves, but your methods are nonsense.
You should know that the Eastern Electric Minimax Tube DAC Supreme with the Stacatto opamps under review would best your Topping DAC. That wouldn't be too great an outcome for the Topping DAC, would it? See, that is a great example of the nonsense you promote. Obviously, no one can say which would be preferred without direct comparison. Yet, you, and many others who are ignorant in these matters, think you can judge entirely apart from such comparisons. I suggest you learn how to conduct proper comparisons and discussions of equipment. That is an issue you have entirely apart from your displeasure with the Comet. You see, it's not a matter of me defending Exogal, but a matter of me confronting your inappropriate declarations of which is better apart from comparison, then using that to promote one company over another. Put whatever companies you wish into the slots of DAC vs DAC/Amp, and I would state the same objection.
You are brining into your criticism of me your seeming preference for measurement driven analysis of products and advising me to lean on Audio Science Review. As stated above, I do not care what that entity says about any particular product. Superior systems are not built by scouring specs. I could go on about the Legacy Audio i.V4 Ultra Amplifiers, which sports terrific specs - ah, yes, I did so in the review! It would be rather stupid of me to simply look at specs and select an amp as though I know how it will sound in my system. That is another aspect the hubris of many audiophiles in this community. If you want to select a product based on measurements thinking that it will yield superior sound, then great, do things your way. It will not assure you actually assemble a superior audio system.
Finally, I don't care much what you or anyone else says about a product's performance when it is used in merely one or two iterations of systems. I typically build a dozen or more rigs, often with many speakers, to assess a product's performance. Consequently, I have a more global understanding of the product's performance than most hobbyists and even reviewers. So, do I give a rip what others say? No, I will reach my own conclusions.
Do I expect you to accept this correction? No; based on your history, I expect you to continue to be oppositional. If you wish to be cordial and considerate, then I am willing to continue discussion. But, if you determine to continue your assaults, then I am finished with our conversation.
