Talk:AudioQuest

Talk:AudioQuest

Audio Science Review forum Evaluations
Suggest we include appropriate independent tests and data such as this one: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audioquest-wind-high-end-cable-review.17065Sedimentary (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I just did, short and sweet under RCA cable evaluation. 94.134.36.191 (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As of 11 december 2023, three entire sections were dedicated to negative charges against the brand based only on the arguments of one forum member. Please consider that "measurements" from the Audio Science Review forum are not from a peer-reviewed science publication. Filling the whole article just with negative charges is against encyclopaedic neutrality and violates Neutral point of view. If you consider adding criticism to the article, then add a dedicated section with an appropriate name and also include citation positive review for comparison.

Effects of cable quality section
This whole section is wordy and lacks references and is out of place in the article. Unless editing can increase relevance to company's products and claims suggest should be eliminated. Sedimentary (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely written by the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1C7F:B3C9:439:9B7D:2AC8:EBC9 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I just removed the section entirely, it was some incoherent StartTrek like techno babble that explains nothing. 94.134.36.191 (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing questionable entries, etc.
I removed an entry on this page that was solely promotion for a "YouTube" video in which the creator makes unverifiable statements simply for entertainment purposes, and in this case merely to make an off-topic comment without any verifiable facts presented. WP is not a forum to post advertisements. 2602:306:320A:AF0:C02F:CD2C:3BCC:2DB5 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Negativitiy of the article towards AudioQuest
I am not affiliated with the company in any way, other than owning a few of their products, but the article as a whole seems rather disparaging towards the company, including three sections specifically stating how their products ostensibly do not work as the company advertises. This is seemingly in violation of Neutral point of view, although if this is not the case please feel free to ignore this message. --128.65.102.226 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

From my perspective, these third-party evaluation of the products are completely neutral and objective and are essential to prevent the article from being purely promotional. Sedimentary (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)