Contributing

Contributions are welcome: corrections, better sources and reproducible tests are especially useful.

Editorial scope and review

This is a hobby project with one editor who makes the final editorial decisions. The aim is a useful, readable playback guide, not an exhaustive catalogue of every technical detail. Contributions may be shortened, linked from a research page, deferred or declined, even when the material is technically sound.

There is no guaranteed review schedule. Not every submission can be investigated, and the editor may disagree about its relevance. An unanswered or declined pull request is not a judgement on the contributor. For substantial additions, propose the scope before investing heavily in them.

Evidence-backed corrections are welcome, including corrections to the guide's conclusions. Keep discussion focused on the claim and its sources. Acceptance into the guide is an editorial decision, not a scientific endorsement; exclusion is not proof that a finding is false.

AI assistance and practical evidence

AI assists with technical research, source comparison and drafting. Its output is checked against original sources. Practical contributions should describe what was tested, how, and under which conditions. Personal experience can suggest a test, but cannot alone establish a general quality ranking.

Independent measurements and controlled listening/viewing complement theoretical analysis. Inconclusive and conflicting results are kept. Work is not called community-validated before that review or replication has actually happened.

Proposing a change

Change a claim and its sources together, and say which page and matrix row it affects. Read the evidence policy first: it explains the evidence labels used throughout the guide.

Updating player status and test evidence

For each affected player row, give the exact model, app, firmware or commit, and a source supporting the change. “Entry updated” is the date the entry was revised, not a hardware test date.

Use the test proposals and results workflow for new experiments or external evidence. Submission, review and replication are kept distinct.