Since many active 3D glasses are now cross-manufacturer compatible, and prices vary by not inconsiderable margins, would What Hi-Fi consider a 3D specs group test for a future issue?
I've been comparing Panasonic's TY-ER3D4ME specs with the 3D3 A1112 Universal 3D glasses
I think the 3D3 A1112s outperform Panasonic's TY-ER3D4ME in several regards, though you don't see much written about them (I bought them after reading positive user accounts on AV Forums).
They're also rechargeable (the Panasonic equivalent will cost you more). This takes half an hour; then they're good for 60 hours viewing. The 1112s are marginally cheaper. They also, in my view:
1. Allow slightly more light through the lenses, leading to brighter 3D viewing
2. Are better performers in terms of crosstalk (as a test, I repeatedly ran a few problematic scenes using each set of glasses)
3. Sit more comfortably on your nose, ears and the sides of your face
4. Block more ambient light due to their wider and deeper profile
The Panasonic glasses are marginally lighter, so may be better for younger viewers. In every other sense, the 1112s offer slightly better performance. For a while, I though images looked punchier through the Panasonic glasses, but I soon realised this was because the glasses made pictures look a shade darker, making colours seem bolder. Once I recalibrated by knocking the colour setting up a couple of notches, I realised the 1112s had the edge.
I can't recommend the 1112s highly enough for those seeking a subtle if worthwhile upgrade in 3D performance. It'd be great to see the mag put glasses from different manufacturers through their paces. They're an increasingly necessary accessory and I think a group test would make for useful reading.