Then with that said, thank you arche3 and kiteboard for your opinions. That is the purpose of this forum.
If anything, this debate has been instructive. I knew that this review would be controversial, and indeed it was. In doing so, it brought forth numerous opinions and viewpoints regarding string. Secretly, that was what I was aiming to achieve equally as much as reviewing the string. I wanted to see how people view equipment: some see it objectively, subjectively, from the views of others and only from their own. As examples, objective string assessments are technical data. Stiffness ratings, lab-tested rebound angles and RPM generation are all objective parameters of any given string. Subjective views are what we have here. People using them in the real world and making their own opinion given a known set of parameters. Viewing from others would be people taking my subjective opinion or the RSI playtester's opinions and using a string based on that. The final one would be akin to stubbornness: you know what works and has worked, so nothing could be better.
I've strung frames for all four types of players and truth be told, no one viewpoint is right (obviously). But here we have an interesting twist, and it's what I was interested to see. The L-Tec strings have no objective ratings, very few subjective ratings, a few more selections based on other's opinions and no pre-held notions since it's new. However, the fervor generated by a single opinion was enough to spark a firestorm. Why? Because the product was marketed as though all four selection methods had been done and the string was superior for all. If nothing else, this just means one thing: please read my first post. See how I hit the ball, what racquet I use, etc. This thread's reviews are my own, and the opinions derived are my own. Sometimes they match with others, sometimes not. Doesn't matter, because as kiteboard just said, there will always be something else to try and everyone is different.
With respect to L-Tec, the "blackening" was because the product was presented in such a manner that it should score perfect 10s. Since it did not and the same company can claim any number of reasons why it did not, it gets lower marks. The testing was to see if the claims were true in addition to whether or not the string was good. If the latter is true, the former is not necessarily true. If the former is true, however, then the latter is by default. Here, the latter was only true, and since the system is set up for the consumer to spend more and more money to potentially never find anything that wows them, I cannot possibly recommend that anyone try. Whether you do or not depends on which of the four types I listed above you fit into. I have no hold whatsoever over someone trying or not trying a string. But when it fails to live up to hype and that failure was pre-calculated by the manufacturer as an exit strategy, I'm not going to say "maybe you'll have better luck". I'm going to say: try something which you can afford to not like.
