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