I agree it's a preference thing, but I still want to know what standards
Eg this statement:
We can be very confident in saying the Darbee Visual Presence won’t give you pictures that adhere to the established image standards as the content creators intended.
Now admittedly I haven't gone through a full calibration with the Darblet installed and enabled, but it does not appear to affect brightness, black level, white balance, greyscale, gamut. Essentially every metric used when you calibrate or measure a projector seems (given what I've seen of my Darblet) unaffected. It doesn't make faces look sunburned, or like martians, or like they're anemic. It doesn't (seem to) fundamentally change any aspect of the picture that any standards I'm aware of specify.
And the review even says as much:
Try as we might – and believe us, we tried very hard - we couldn’t get meaningful measurements from our Klein K-10 to demonstrate the luminance changes with real-world material
They really seem to come into that review with a preconceived bias that it's a "bad thing".
Then there's comments like this:
The captures of the Kiwi fruit, in particular, highlight the over-processed, hyper-reality look the DVP 5000 gives material. Again, there’s very little question the Darbee gives the sense of increased resolution but it’s at the expense of robbing the footage of its inherent naturalness.
The effect is entirely up to the individual, you can set the Darblet to produce as natural an image you want, or as "hyper-reality" looking as you want. Now if you want to argue that you can't find a setting you like that produces enough of a "sense of increased resolution" to justify the price without becoming unnatural looking that's a different, interesting, and completely valid argument.
But it seems to me they went into the review closed minded and with the intention of proving all the horrible things the Darblet does to the image, and then upon failing to find any objective measure of the damage (other than the zone plate) they proceeded to crank it up way past what's most here would say is reasonable and then complain about the unnatural/overprocessedness of the image.