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

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.