DCS Sending Legal Notice To Reviewer (Golden Sound) Over an Old Review of Their Bartok DAC

It’s really a convoluted I said you said.  Having read the dCS response I would note:

1) they admit that they sent intimidating emails

2) the make many references to demands made by their legal counsel, and deadlines set to meet those demands.  They seem to duck the issue of what they would do if those demands are not meet.  Their disclaimer at the beginning that they didn’t use the word litigation is disingenuous.  Having a Lawyer issuing demands with deadlines attached is clearly threatening. 
3) dCS seems greatly perturbed that the reviewer did not have a dCS rep set up his system.  I would argue that this is more representative of what a real world user would be doing 

4) imo the correct policy for dCS to pursue would have been to issue a statement correcting what they perceived as factual errors in the review and left it at that 

No clue about this case, but I have been vacillating between a DCS Vivaldi Apex and other DACs.

This action makes it easy; I will never touch a DCS product.

"would not stand scrutiny by the courts."

Have to voice some skepticism there.

@rib61 The bar for defamation is lower in other countries, so it depends on where the suit is filed.

@jimmyblues1959 + 1

@mahler123 + 1