This whole fiasco is mind boggling.  The fact that DCS shut down any comments as soon as they posted the two comments that are highlighted in this thread tells me all I need to know about them.  Amazing watching business owners use social media to drive two audio companies potentially in the ground in just 6 months.

libel laws are  tricky. to my understanding,  you can't be liable merely for stating an opinion (an opinion being  a belief or viewpoint which may be supported by reason or evidence, but which cannot be proven true or false through evidence). however, merely framing a  statement as an opinion doesn't automatically protect it--if the statement includes or implies the existence of defamatory facts it could be actionable. thus, merely stating that "in my opinion, this dac sounds bad" is protected, but stating that "in my opinion this dac sounds bad because it contains radioactive materials and was assembled by child slave laborers" probably isn't.

looking at this cameron's review, i'd argue that it's classic protected, subjective opinion--even to the extent his opinions are based on (allegedly) false factual assumptions, there's no reason to believe that he knew the assumptions were false, or that said assumptions were defamatory in the sense of maligning dcs. to the larger point, i fully agree that dcs's hissy fit was a remarkably ill-advised, self-inflicted wound--consumers remember this stuff.

loomisjohnson

libel laws are tricky. to my understanding ...

Libel laws vary greatly by nation, and supposedly (according to @audio_phool) the companies involved here aren’t U.S.-based. Still, DCS behaved pretty poorly here before finally apologizing, and the YouTuber uses it all for clicks.

I don’t believe that DCS is being “driven to the ground” and (having some exposure to the company) do believe David’s explanation that the DCS USA employee acted independently and was indeed fired for these transgressions.  The quality of the products speak for themselves.   That said, I agree that the DCS USA employee took an indefensible approach. 

I agree with Golden Sound's review of the Bartok. I listened to it in my system. In my system the Bartok is dark, lacks detail, and sounds closed-in.

@cleeds, thanks for mentioning blue jean's epic takedown of monster cable--it was the classic example of how these feuds should be handled. that said, i can't help but be sympathetic to the (non-bully) businesses being victimized by ill-informed and often corrupt "reviewers", who can spew internet venom without consequence.

+1@grislybutter

Some of the blame lies squarely on the head of gullible consumers who place too much credence on what any reviewer has to say.

Navigating the confusing landscape of high end audio can be daunting hence the emergence of sites like ASR. 

@viridian.  The exact words:

In May 2024, my colleague in the USA instructed a lawyer to communicate with GoldenSound in an attempt to reach a resolution. I was aware of this letter and my intention at this point was to reach a solution by mediation or another process – not to instigate a seven-figure lawsuit. However, I appreciate that in the context of additional communications that have since come to light, this is not how this will have been construed and I apologise for any distress caused as a result of this

I heard most of their equipment the Bartok and newer model are very detailed and 

good but may not be the most natural sounding with some electronics ,

if they don’t like it tough schit , getting sued for having a opinion will lose them customers DCS -  Deranged Control Syndrome !!

@viridian + 1

I’m sorry but DCS is completely full of it.  Other than a recitation of the technical specs, a review is almost entirely the opinion of the reviewer.  Opinions are not capable of being proven to be true or false.  They are therefore not actionable as libel, period.  So threats of litigation can be deposited right into the circular file.  And  if a review says that there are 6 filters and there are really 10, OK, that is a mistake, but cannot be proven to have caused any sort of legally cognizable harm to the company other than by pure speculation.  Those types of mistakes are typically corrected by a disclaimer on the article or in an amended article.  Disagreement over testing methodology is also not actionable.  If a company believes that one testing method makes their product look crappy while another doesn’t, is too bad.  The company is free to run its own test and point out in a comment that their test is more accurate than the reviewer’s.  Again, not actionable defamation.  So if Cameron had contacted me, he would not have lost any sleep at all because I would have laughed and told him to forget about it — a lawsuit would have zero chance.

I also have to laugh at DCS’s response that they did not threaten the reviewer and that the word “litigation” was never mentioned in their letter.  Let’s see . ..  (1) the letter is from a lawyer, (2) it claims that DCS was harmed by false statements,  and (3) the letter threatens to seek damages, including punitive damages from the reviewer.  I would like DCS to explain to me how they would propose to obtain damages and punitive damages if not through the filing of a lawsuit.  That is just a plain old lie.  The letter is obviously a threat of litigation, albeit a frivolous one.  The fact that DCS would lie about that in its response shows that they are simply attempting to intimidate the reviewer into withdrawing a negative review.  

Now, I think that we all know how unusual it is to see a negative review about any $$ product.  Every product reviewed in Stereophile, TAS and other mainstream publications is routinely so much better than the last product or the reviewer’s “reference product, that you would be a fool not to spend thousands of dollars for the new and improved version since the old one, which was the greatest thing since sliced bread last year is suddenly old and crappy technology.  Private reviews  are more likely to be honest.  In this case, the reviewer borrowed the test sample.  He was beholden to no one.  He double-checked his test methodology with third parties.  How DCS could ever show that the review was intentionally false, and maliciously made, assuming that DCS could be considered a “public figure,”is beyond me.

I also laughed at DCS’ complaint that the test unit was not “professionally set up” by DCS for the review.  Are you kidding me?  So now, if I purchase a DCS unit, I need someone from DCS to come to my house to set it up correctly? Give me a break.  The reviewer borrowed a unit and set it up per the owner’s manual.  If that is insufficient, that is DCS’ problem, not the reviewer’s, and potential buyers have a right to know that that is DCS’ position.  For example, Wilson clearly states that set-up of their speakers is very important — so much so that professional set-up by a trained dealer is included in the purchase of their speakers.  Whether that is truly required or not is up for debate, but it is plainly disclosed.  If a reviewer (who presumably understands speaker placement as part of their work) slams a Wilson speaker, Wilson would be entirely justified in pointing out that it was not professionally set up by Wilson, and offer to come set it up and see if the reviewer reaches a different conclusion.  But that is not what happened here. DCS is just trying to retreat from a ridiculous and untenable position that unfortunately for them is in writing and not capable of dispute over what was actually said.

Bottom line, DCS likes to think that it is a top tier product.  To bitch about a video review from “headphone.com” is hardly the kind of behavior one would expect from a top tier company, confident in its product.  To threaten a lawsuit that any reasonable lawyer with experience in the field knows is complete BS just shows that they don’t like it when the jumbo jumbo sales nonsense is pierced and an unvarnished opinion published.  How many times do we see ridiculous and literally unsupported claims made to sell products, such as the magic ebony record clamp soaked in ancient swamps in Africa does magical things?  I want more honest reviews and not just shills.  If I wanted shills, I could read the company’s own literature.  This type of conduct must be discouraged in the strongest way possible.  I would expose all of DCS’ BS, make no apologies whatsoever, and send that stupid lawyer a laughing 😂 emoji as the response to his asinine letter.

Cameron, I have 35 years of high profile litigation experience in the defamation area and I’ll defend you for free.  Tell DCS to pound sand.

peter_s

I don’t believe that DCS is being “driven to the ground” and (having some exposure to the company) do believe David’s explanation that the DCS USA employee acted independently and was indeed fired for these transgressions. The quality of the products speak for themselves.

I’m inclined to agree. It’s rather interesting how a vocal few have treated this as something approaching an international crisis. I suspect few of them were potential DCS customers anyway.

moto_man

Cameron, I have 35 years of high profile litigation experience in the defamation area and I’ll defend you for free.

What are you going to defend him against? There is no lawsuit. It's just a tempest in a teapot.

I'm not sure how many people who might say "well that's dCS off my list" ever had dCS on their list... I am delighted with the sound quality my aging Puccini + U-Clock continue to deliver and will upgrade to the Rossini when funds allow. Hey, as a result of this controversy, secondhand prices may tank and bring that moment forward!

Whatever the internal deliberations and whether it was a "rogue" employee overstepping the mark or not, dCS hardly comes out of this smelling of roses. However, the reviewer in question thrives on clicks and has proven himself a master of exploiting the situation in a way which massively boosts those.

It's a storm in a teacup, but one which dCS will feel the ripples of for some time. That's a shame for a company with a strong heritage and a track record of pushing the boundaries of digital playback.

This just isnt that big of a deal but I've enjoyed the popcorn. 

MoFi CEO to his/her Assistant: "Hey, remind me to send a thank you note to the dude who used to work for DCS!"

Belated apologies to @cleeds as I appear to have been channeling him without acknowledging the same!

There's always other brands of tea to savor.

All the best,
Nonoise

@cleeds, perhaps I should have been clearer . . . I meant if DCS had the lack of common sense to actually file suit, I would happily defend Cameron for free. I don't appreciate the attorneys posturing and making baseless threats solely to use the threat of litigation to browbeat someone into submission -- in other words, I am happy to even the playing field for the little guy in this instance.

No one is treating this as an "international crisis" as you put it.  Rather this is extremely poor conduct by a well-known manufacturer, caught in the act of threatening a reviewer over a negative review, making frivolous threats and then denying that any threats were made because the word "litigation" was not used in their attorney's letter to the reviewer.  That type of conduct should not be tolerated.  I don't think that is an "international crisis," but I do think that it should be well-publicized and there should be ramifications for that type of improper conduct.

This is tragic mistake and an unforced error by dCS. 

Here at FutureAudiophile.com we've mistakenly bailed others out of anti-free speech issues such as Eric Alexander at Tekton Design. He foolishly attacked a YouTuber who measures some of his speakers. He laid empty threats on him and at the same time off-put his direct-to-the-customer clientele. Ouch. dCS did the same here.

If anybody would study Bose Vs. Consumer Union, we would know that there is a strong Supreme Court First Amendment precedent set that you can a) buy gear and review it and b) that doesn't remove your right to share your opinions. 

I know the VP of Marketing of dCS from his days at Wilson Audio and even before that. He should have known better.

In the event that there are any people here who don't understand the power of their vote this fall - your rights are being taken from you by a political party and a "dictator on day one" (his words not mine) is the end of your rights like free speech. The good news is that we aren;t dead yet. Vote to protect your rights because if you don't, you wont have any. 

Jerry

I gotta call BS Jerry.

Those aren’t his words.

If you want the truth, you can easily find transcripts of the exact conversation.

Something tells me you’re not interested in the truth…

First amendment ONLY applies to the government trying to limit free speech.

Listen to the lawyer who spoke earlier.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment right to free speech.

I like the 5 star rating system from people that own products. Everyone can throw in their 2 cents comment. Professional reviews, not needed. Reviews are opinions no matter from a reviewer, or owner. That would work for me if I was looking for a rig.

I felt that Goldensound presents his case very clearly and substantiated with evidence. BUT - I think there is one considerable discrepancy between the accounts of each party.  Goldensound asserts that he was not alerted to the specifics of what DCS asserted were incorrect statements in Goldensound’s 2021 Bartok review, until 7 months later when the lawyer sent the note.

Meanwhile, the DCS response seems to assert that they did take every opportunity to alert Goldensound to the specifics of what DCS felt were false statements in Goldensound’s Bartok review.

I’m not sure - am I interpreting this right?  If so both parties can’t be right on this perspective and I think the truth on this particular matter would change how the community views the claims of each party.  

My highly limited legal knowledge would indicate that for DCS to seek a “remedy” in court, they would have to prove that financial and reputation damages were incurred directly as a result of the alleged false statements.  If I am right on this (not sure I am), it would be very difficult to prove this.

The irony is that as a result of the Goldensound video summarizing the ordeal, many have now stated that they will not purchase DCS products as a result.  This makes the bar for Goldensound to tell the truth in his video all the more critical. And, not just the truth, but stating facts that he can back up with evidence.  Because if he didn’t tell the truth, or if he can’t prove his assertions, then this would be slander and there are already people indicating that they will not purchase DCS products as a direct result of the video!  As such I’d expect Goldensound was likely VERY careful to make only factual, well substantiated claims in the video.

It would be a nice ending if both parties could find a way to accept responsibility for missteps and reconcile this amicably.  This would be in both parties best interest as it would help to restore confidence in the eyes of the community, now that Goldensound has taken his case to be tried in the court of public opinion.  

Jerry

One has nothing to do with the other. So your mention of the power of the vote just put you on the same no fly list as DCS. Who cares what you think?

I can see this reviewer with a big ole grin on his face, he's getting some free gear, he's garnered acknowledgment in the audio community as a professional reviewer(was he heard of before idk I don't read reviews) who won't be intimidated and has brought a large company to its knees who's fired an employee, blame it all on a rogue employee, that's how it's done! 

Many Reviewers have been corrupt for years, this is nothing new, remember the Fremer incidents going back many years ago?? One well known reviewer started a new online website way back when and it’s still going strong today. I just happened to be the first person to respond favourably to his first review. He contacted me to ask if he could publish my response, I said sure. I had just sold a pair of speakers I didn’t like that were high value, he told me how he thought they were terrible speakers and described most all of the issues I found with them. He had previously worked for a large publication and a couple years earlier gave a glowing review of those same speakers. I bought those speakers based solely on his review and one other. I could also tell you antics from probably the best known speaker manufacturer in the world with whom I’ve spent plus six figures with but my point is that how do you regulate a subjective review. The advice has been there for years, listen with your ears. Most of these manufacturers are small companies and small business people that our industry and readers prop up like stars. Let him sue a reviewer openly, who cares, maybe he should take a different path with his products in getting them noticed or look at his prices, the house of cards has to fall at some point.

I don't take sides on these things, but at the same time I'm wary of companies that try to shut people up, rogue employee or not. I will be in the market for a new doc within the next 5 years, and I'm not sure I would look at DCS now. But let's see how this plays out in the next year.

Much has been said here that is correct and incorrect. In any case this isn’t about free speech, but is about poor business judgment. To start, I am a dCS Bartok owner and love my streamer DAC. I bought it some years ago at probably half the price of a new one today. I also am an active participant on the dCS owners forum.

My impression of dCS management and staff are that they have been in their own little universe and believe they have unique knowledge of the digital world. Rather arrogant.   dCS was acquired in the past year or so by a large audio focused business aggregator, because, I believe, the brilliant but self involved people who run the place could not take the business to the next level. There are countless examples of highly successful companies whose founders had to be set aside to allow the business to really reach it’s full potential. The evidence of this is their attitude prior to the acquisition toward owners suggestions for product and service improvements. They exhibited a "look, we know best what’s good for you" attitude. Pleasantly, things seemed to have substantially improved since they were purchased.

Now, along comes this review. The reviewers opinion was just that, and the music he suggested as an example of the lack of irritating sound was ridiculous. Why would anybody listen to that stuff? How is that a problem? For dCS to react to those comments was just silly and a grevious mistake born of their own arrogance. I believe that review was done before dCS released a substantial software upgrade for the Bartok, which markedly improved the already great DAC’s sound quality to a level that approached the much more expensive next level dCS DAC . Cause and effect? Was dCS holding something back to assist sales of the better unit? Guess we’ll never know.

What’s next? Some serious damage control... and a visit from the audio group owners who will not be amused with what this error in judgement has done to their investment.

This to me highlights the fact that today’s consumer can’t help themselves but to believe and trust the opinions of others, who for the most part, have little to no professional credibility AND they’re gullible enough to purchase something that isn’t worth the asking price. Then, when maybe someone with credentials, or at least honesty, calls a spade a spade the chain of BS is broken and this drama ensues. Don’t know the reviewer at all, but this is what this case smells like to me at least. I’ve actually demoed the product in question and to my ears agree with the review. I’ve tried $2000 DACs that are far superior to my ears in my system. It seems DCS is in a tight spot and this sounds desperate on their part. Consumers need to do their own listening and come to their own decision.

DCS as well as Tekton both threatened what was not to their liking.

they were unhinged even threatened them  with attorneys letters.

I will not give either one a Penney , Freedom of Speech the last I looked 

was still in our constitutional law !! 

Freedom of Speech the last I looked was still in our constitutional law !!

This has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional right to freedom of speech !! This has absolutely nothing to do with congress passing a law to limit speech.

it says "Congress shall make no law ..... abridging the freedom of speech"

Amendment 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I watched the video of Andrew Lissimore, CEO of Headphones.com and watched Cameron provide details about dCS' actions in response to his review of the dCS Bartok.

I'm a longtime owner of dCS products including a full Paganini stack and currently a Rossini Apex DAC and a Rossini Clock.

My impression of dCS' reaction to Cameron's review of the Bartok is that dCS has dominated the digital world for decades and are now frightened they're losing their dominant position largely due to the plethora of digital product options we have.

I've never heard of Cameron before this incident, but we need more reviewers like Cameron that have an incredible depth of knowledge re: the design and execution of audio components.  Cameron's honesty and transparency is a welcome site as he was quick to post a correction to the mistake he made re: dCS use of a 10MHz clock.  He corrected this in his post by stating dCS uses a Word Clock which he seems to consider is a better option.

We have far too may unqualified reviewers that get a YouTube channel and know absolutely nothing about the internals of what they're reviewing.  So, let's not penalize reviewers like Cameron that are actually qualified to inform us of reasons we night be hearing things due to the design of the electronics and their relationship to the various graphs he provides.

Message to dCS.  Perhaps you should consider spending less effort on legal threats and more effort on R&D.  

Another thing...

Can’t tolerate that reviewer’s voice again for a replay, but when he discussed the Bartok’s value, don’t remember that he mentioned that Bartok is also a world class streamer as well. So you save the cost and hassle of choosing and integrating an Aurrender or equivalent in your system. Missed a huge capability of the Bartok. Not such a thorough assessment after all. Much ado about nothing.

Here's the latest and hopefully, the last word on the matter. 

If you keep up with hifi news, you’re aware of a recent event of the litigious variety.

I’m not going to dig into that mess here except to say that if you’re a hifi manufacturer you may want to look into the details for a case study in how not to do things.

What I find as troubling was within minutes of the video reveal, all kinds of men, it’s always men, were making wild accusations, crazy assumptions, and flat out the sky is falling type claims. Yea, on par for Internet behavior.

I’d like to set the record straight, as straight as I can based on nearly 20 years as a reviewer, the last 10+ working full time as such. Here are a dozen observations based on that experience.

• Lawsuits against reviewers are not common.
• I’m no lawyer but I do know you can’t get sued over expressing an opinion about how a piece of hifi gear sounds.
• Since lawsuits are not common and you can’t get sued over expressing an opinion, I don’t know of a single reviewer who skews their language to avoid being sued. [footnote 1]
• You can, on the other hand, get sued for misrepresenting objective data like faulty measurements of hifi gear and while I have no direct experience here I understand from colleagues that lawsuits over measurements are also not common.
• Speaking only for Twittering Machines (me), I review every product that arrives in Barn regardless of how I feel about it.
• I have written negative reviews and some of those reviews were of products from companies that were/are advertisers.
• A negative review isn’t truthful by default, just as a positive review isn’t dishonest by default.
• The notion that positive reviews can only be trusted coming from people who also write negative reviews is faulty (self serving) logic. There’s nothing easier than writing a negative review—the Mona Lisa sucks!— so anyone saying you can trust them because they’ve written negative reviews may very well have written them just to be able to say, “You can trust me because I’ve written negative reviews.”
• The reviewers I know, and consider friends, are honest hardworking people who care deeply about the quality of their work. More than likely, just like you do.
• People who comment negatively about the trustworthiness of reviewers as a blanket statement are typically not trustworthy.
• Humans make mistakes, which is why I send out a preview link for fact check purposes prior to publishing a review. [footnote 2]
• I avoid reviewing gear from companies that behave in an appalling manner.

Addendum

The above referenced (and linked) matter has been resolved to Cameron’s satisfaction according to his post on Head-Fi by way of a mea culpa, a fall on a sword, and other offers.

1. While not related to getting sued, I’ve seen people suggesting that reviewers don’t write negative reviews for fear they’ll get cut off from the supply of review gear. Based on my experience, this is nonsense for a few reasons:

• Most manufacturers I know do not read reviews on a regular basis.
• Nearly every manufacturer, or their rep, I’ve dealt with appreciates honesty.
• Of the negative reviews I’ve written, all but 1 manufacturer, who closed up shop, came back asking for another review.
• The reviewers I know, and consider friends, are not afraid to be truthful.
• People who believe reviewers are generally fearful and easily corruptible are typically revealing aspects of their own thinking/behavior.

2. I had one instance, just one years ago, where my contact asked me to change the wording in my listening notes, i.e. they were not asking me to correct a fact but to alter my listening impressions to make them sound more positive. I said no, tersely, and explained the meaning of “for fact check purposes”.

All the best,
Nonoise

Sorry but an article written by a reviewer about this subject is not the last word. In fact it really means nothing. I got a real kick out of "its always men". Is this comment the result of the fact that this hobby consists almost entirely of men, or that we men display a proclivity towards this type of behavior? 

"Rather this is extremely poor conduct by a well-known manufacturer, caught in the act of threatening a reviewer over a negative review, making frivolous threats and then denying that any threats were made..."

Deja vu!

Remarkably like the situation involving a speaker manufacturer whose initials are Tekton...