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

Of course I have read that. I do not believe that Mr. Steven sent his lawyer to reach a resolution, it speaks to Mr. Steven trying to compel a certain behaviour through implied threat. And he says the lawyer was sent to initiate mediation, or "another process". We all know what that other process is, litigation. He is being intentionally opaque.

And we have both Mr. Steven and his employee each sending legal threats, both overt, and implied. That speaks to a culture of lawyering up to resolve these issues that dcs had with the review, in my opinion. That is what dcs is about and who Mr. Steven is.

I will also tell you, my experience working for Corporations is that the folks that engage the lawyers are not the ones that approve the bills, so normal checks and balances indicates, to me, that someone else would’ve been aware of the lawyers, and what they were doing for the corporation. If not, they have even more problems there.

I find Mr. Steven’s explanation in his most recent communication as credible as his outright lies in his first communication. If it quacks like a duck...

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.