• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

dCS threatens with a 7-figure lawsuit over a review

Status
Not open for further replies.
You would loose that much dynamic range permanently just in case there is a music track that has intersample overs. Do you have music that is hitting this? I don't and I have listened to tens of thousands of tracks. If you do, just reduce the volume a bit in your player upstream of the DAC.

Those of us using DSP to correct for headphone/rooms/speakers, are already in charge of headroom anyway and need all that there is in the DAC.
I measured a lot of my tracks using Orban Loudness Meter, and I came to the conclusion I need to run -2dB negative preamp to counter almost all intersample overs, and -3dB to capture all intersample overs. Following is the track that I remembered to be worst for intersample overs:
Supermassive Black Hole Intersample Overs.jpg
 
I really don't under stand that guy, but I guess it all might have to do with him working for headphones.com where they sell those expensive gear aimed for the subjectivity crowd.

I've noticed that people who should know better seem to be obligated to pander to the subjectivist crowd.

Let's get this out of the way.

There seems to be a lot of profit in subjectivist equipment. Not just high prices, but profit. It seems that many companies know and understand that subjectivists are roughly the same as Flat Earthers; illogical, unscientific and frequently deluded. So these companies seem to say to themselves, "Hm-m-m. We could make a lot of money off these people. We could pander to them, curry their favor and subsidize their wacky ideas. We'd get rich that way."

The problem with that is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Once you start talking that talk and walking that walk, you've in effect legitimized the Subjectivist agenda, and the little monster grows ... and grows ... and grows.

The situation is out of hand. Companies and designers thought they were going to fleece a few dumb people that were willing to shell out bucks. Instead, they're the servants of the fallacious; they have to keep up the charade and continue the lies to stay in business.

They've backed themselves into a blind corner. And there seems to be no escape.

Reviewers are in the same predicament. They need to make up imaginary crap just to stay in line with powerful (and vocal) subjectivist juggernaut. Some can do this, and they do it well. Slick, oily and given to imaginative prose, they're sharks who swim in the same pool as their prey. But some people are just not that talented when it comes to lying. They just don't have the natural knack of bullshitting people and walking away with a thicker wallet.

I have a great deal of compassion for people who can't lie well. They seem to be inept, when in actuality they are the best among us. Too often, honesty is mocked and despised, while the slick and wily are admired for their "talents".

The work that Amir does here is turning the tide, but it's a lot of slow and laborious work. What we need is a turnaround. People need to learn to face reality instead of taking shelter in an illusion.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening soon. :(

Jim
 
Last edited:
I've noticed that people who should know better seem to be obligated to pander to the subjectivist crowd.

Let's get this out of the way.

There seems to be a lot of profit in subjectivist equipment. Not just high prices, but profit. It seems that many companies know and understand that subjectivists are roughly the same as Flat Earthers; illogical, unscientific and frequently deluded. So these companies seem to say to themselves, "Hm-m-m. We could make a lot of money off these people. We could pander to them, curry their favor and subsidize their wacky ideas. We'd get rich that way."

The problem with that is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Once you start talking that talk and walking that walk, you've in effect legitimized the Subjectivist agenda, and the little monster grows ... and grows ... and grows.

The situation is out of hand. Companies and designers thought they were going to fleece a few dumb people that were willing to shell out bucks. Instead, they're the servants of the fallacious; they have to keep up the charade and continue the lies to stay in business.

They've backed themselves into a blind corner. And there seems to be no escape.

Reviewers are in the same predicament. They need to make up imaginary crap just to stay in line with powerful (and vocal) subjectivist juggernaut. Some can do this, and they do it well. Slick, oily and given to imaginative prose, they're sharks who swim in the same pool as their prey. But some people are just not that talented when it comes to lying. They just don't have the natural knack of bullshitting people and walking away with a thicker wallet.

I have a great deal of compassion for people who can't lie well. They seem to be inept, when in actuality they are the best among us. Too often, honesty is mocked and despised, while the slick and wily are admired for their "talents".

It won't change anytime soon. The work that Amir does here is turning the tide, but it's a lot of slow and laborious work. What we need is a turnaround. People need to learn to face reality instead of taking shelter in an illusion.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening soon. :(

Jim
Sounds like a pretty elaborate conspiracy.
 
It won't change anytime soon. The work that Amir does here is turning the tide, but it's a lot of slow and laborious work. What we need is a turnaround. People need to learn to face reality instead of taking shelter in an illusion.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening soon. :(

Jim
Jim,
Could I humbly suggest this thought process has permeated into all human interactions where money or power is concerned.
Basically because the human though process is fallible.
Citation needed: "Influence - The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B Cialdini

It does not only apply to consumer audio.
"Strangely" it is not as prevalent in the same degree as professional audio.

I think SIY summed all this up well about 500 posts ago.
 
Personally, I see Goldensound's subjective historic "review" of the dCS unit is certainly not balanced. He spends way too long talking about what he didn't like, in nebulous, meaningless language, deperately attempting to sound "authoritative" and doesn't contrast that enough with what he did like. It's almost like the review was edited to add the positives at the front, because he realized he was being way too hard on the product for no good reason.

I also think he may have made his commentry fit the objective measurements.

In short, this entire storm in a teacup has made me less inclined to view any of his content going forward.

As for dCS, the emails from the VP (sales?) seem to me to have been shot off after a few drinks and perhaps a hot head. But it's also clear he felt aggrieved and likely for good reason- they produce a stellar (albeit expensive) range of beautifully finished products that will likely offer their customers a lifetime of enjoyment. That has a price some people are quite willing to pay. I'd take one of those DACs over a million other cheap-and-cheerful ASR chart toppers. It'll still be working perfectly in 25 years, unlike the others.

And to all the people with their faux outrage and statements like "I'll never buy dCS" and "There's another manufacturer off my list"- who are you trying to kid? You were never their customer, or likely to be, in the first place.
Finally, had to be said.
 
After that, it should be clear to everyone that there will be no more independent tests of dCS products in the future, because no independent reviewer will agree to write a test report.

And anyone interested in dCS can then do without all other tests, because they will be nothing more than advertisements.
Has dCS really done itself a favor by doing this?
I think that (potential) buyers for a DAC in this price category are not as much interested in measurements as they are in bragging rights.

Their equipment looks great (Subjective, i know) built to high standards, and does nothing wrong sound-wise, and they probably have good customer support, so what's not to like, IF you have the money that is.
People who can buy this will likely no be worried that the next day they may have to skip a meal, or have to buy a burger instead of a steak.
 
I disagree with this statement.

Intersample clipping frequently occurs, e.g. when upsampling for whatever reasons, with a lot of CDs as well as with some recent Tidal songs. It is a real issue. I appreciate if my DAC can handle this without generating a ton of distortion.

I agree however that the root cause lies in bad/ wrong mastering. It's the same issue as with excessive loudness compression.

I agree.
Even if the root problem is too high levels caused by the mastering process, we have to live with that and just put our hopes in that all mastering engineers from now on start leaving more headroom in the music files. But as that will likely never happen we could at least hope that the DAC manufacturers leave enough headroom for their internal process not to cause any additional problems.

There are a lot of music tracks that look like this:
1721214509940.png
 
I'd take one of those DACs over a million other cheap-and-cheerful ASR chart toppers. It'll still be working perfectly in 25 years, unlike the others.
Do you actually have a 20k$ home audio DAC?
 
I agree.
Even if the root problem is too high levels caused by the mastering process, we have to live with that and just put our hopes in that all mastering engineers from now on start leaving more headroom in the music files. But as that will likely never happen we could at least hope that the DAC manufacturers leave enough headroom for their internal process not to cause any additional problems.

There are a lot of music tracks that look like this:
View attachment 381417
"There are a lot of music tracks that look like this:"

Ouch, that looks terrible, almost no DN if i'm correct?
 
One note of caution here is that well controlled listening tests are essential for anything like that. Having a subjective experience and then going spelunking for things that might just happen to correlate in the data is a surefire recipe for a wild goose chase otherwise.
Yep... hopefully Cameron has now fully realised the latter is a problematic approach. One can't have their cake and eat it too... finger in too many pies etc. etc.
Too late at least for me. Damage is done
Agree... not sure if I even believe their story at all actually as dCS have done nothing but confuse and obfuscate during this whole drama.


JSmith
 
You would loose that much dynamic range permanently just in case there is a music track that has intersample overs. Do you have music that is hitting this? I don't and I have listened to tens of thousands of tracks. If you do, just reduce the volume a bit in your player upstream of the DAC.

Those of us using DSP to correct for headphone/rooms/speakers, are already in charge of headroom anyway and need all that there is in the DAC.
That is true - with one important prerequisite: Volume control needs to be prior to any upsampling. This is not possible, e.g. with minidsp SHD and Flex (ASRC is prior to volume control). And as well with all DACs in standalone mode, and without digital volume control.
 
Reviewers are in the same predicament. They need to make up imaginary crap just to stay in line...

It's easy to claim they 'make it up'. I'm sure I've said that. But as we delve deeper, we find that many, maybe most, really believe that they hear what they claim to hear. They are sincere, but you could say deluded. With that in mind they are not 'making it up' in the sense of lying to decieve. Sure, some probably know the score, and simply have no shame. But I suspect that most are true believers.

I remember Aczel relating how the biggest shock of his audiofool life was the day he matched the levels on his expensive Mark Levinson and compared that with a run of the mill 'cheapy', and then realized he couldn't tell the difference. He said he 'knew' (from years of 'experience') that the Levinson had to sound better. But he left the building realizing that for all those years everything he thought was the case was wrong, and he was guilty of a naive, undisciplined mind. That he should have understood back in 1977, when he went through all the preamplifiers, testing for this and that, but couldn't correlate any measurement with what he 'heard'. He admitted he should have known back then that the game was up. My only response was how if he had been a fool all those years, then the rest of us that believed what he wrote were twice the fools.

When you read subjective reviews you are simply reading about how the reviewer felt--their feelings. How the gear made them feel about their music. But if you think about it, it is better that way. I mean, it is better if they just tell you how they feel, how the gear made them feel toward their music. Pretty silly, but if you are going to be silly, that is the way to do it.

What is worse, and can't be justified at all, is when a reviewer goes to all the trouble to do the Audio Precision gig, but then ignores what the machine is telling them. And when they ignore a rigorous psychoacoustic methodolgy--i.e. the double blind protocol, yet proceed to tell you how they feel. Those folks are just using the fancy machine to hide their undisciplined mind.

The first group, the true believers, can almost be pittied in their ignorance. If they know how to write (most don't) you might even find some enjoyment in their prose. But the latter? Only contempt. They are the ones that should know better, yet show themselves to be the bigger fools.

Throughout this mess, we have been watching fools going around in circles. What a pastime, and what a hobby...
 
Personally, I see Goldensound's subjective historic "review" of the dCS unit is certainly not balanced. He spends way too long talking about what he didn't like, in nebulous, meaningless language, deperately attempting to sound "authoritative" and doesn't contrast that enough with what he did like. It's almost like the review was edited to add the positives at the front, because he realized he was being way too hard on the product for no good reason.

I also think he may have made his commentry fit the objective measurements.

In short, this entire storm in a teacup has made me less inclined to view any of his content going forward.

As for dCS, the emails from the VP (sales?) seem to me to have been shot off after a few drinks and perhaps a hot head. But it's also clear he felt aggrieved and likely for good reason- they produce a stellar (albeit expensive) range of beautifully finished products that will likely offer their customers a lifetime of enjoyment. That has a price some people are quite willing to pay. I'd take one of those DACs over a million other cheap-and-cheerful ASR chart toppers. It'll still be working perfectly in 25 years, unlike the others.

And to all the people with their faux outrage and statements like "I'll never buy dCS" and "There's another manufacturer off my list"- who are you trying to kid? You were never their customer, or likely to be, in the first place.
Hi

Allow me to respond to your post, I cut in two parts,
Part one:

Personally, I see Goldensound's subjective historic "review" of the dCS unit is certainly not balanced. He spends way too long talking about what he didn't like, in nebulous, meaningless language, deperately attempting to sound "authoritative" and doesn't contrast that enough with what he did like. It's almost like the review was edited to add the positives at the front, because he realized he was being way too hard on the product for no good reason.

I also think he may have made his commentry fit the objective measurements.

In short, this entire storm in a teacup has made me less inclined to view any of his content going forward.

As for dCS, the emails from the VP (sales?) seem to me to have been shot off after a few drinks and perhaps a hot head.
I agree. Not much to add

Then these:

But it's also clear he felt aggrieved and likely for good reason- they produce a stellar (albeit expensive) range of beautifully finished products that will likely offer their customers a lifetime of enjoyment. That has a price some people are quite willing to pay. I'd take one of those DACs over a million other cheap-and-cheerful ASR chart toppers. It'll still be working perfectly in 25 years, unlike the others.

And to all the people with their faux outrage and statements like "I'll never buy dCS" and "There's another manufacturer off my list"- who are you trying to kid? You were never their customer, or likely to be, in the first place.
I disagree:

We are talking about an audio product whose primary function is to "do" audio: When you have a $100,000 DAC that performs no better than a $100, one. You must admit that, on the function side... There is a disconnect... That is not "stellar"
I could take your argument of longevity and stability, if you offered proofs. There is none, only speculation that they may last 25 years. I have a $99 DAC, a DACBOARD, IIRC working after 5 years... Are there accelerated aging tests of dCS vs, say an SMSL or Topping? That would show the dCS topping :) the Topping in this regard? I can thus advance that one of these cheapies, is as likely to "provide a lifetime of enjoyment", a speculation, like yours...

Now if we're talking about jewelry...this is subjective. then, anything goes... It is an opinion, not a fact.

The outrage is to me not "faux"... Why buy something that is so expensive for performance that can be attained at 1/1000 the price?

The darn dCS lineup is overpriced and the company marketing, B.S. , my conclusion.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
There are tests around which suggest that the "best" Rolexes, properly calibrated, can perform equivalently to cheaper quartz models. Not that that's what you would buy one for, though.
As someone that owns a Rolex looking at the Batman now that prices have somewhat gone down and it's possible to actually get one in an AD, this is complete BS without context. Even if an automatic watch is calibrated, it depends on the angle of the watch, temperature, altitude, etc. The bps of a quartz crystal is just so much faster than that of a automatic/mechanical watches, unless you're talking about a Spring Drive Seiko. To be honest you should be talking about Grand Seiko Hibeat and Spring Drive movements as well as Rolex if talking about automatic/mechanical watch accuracy.
 

dCS backs down. CEO said it should never have happened and he was lied to.

The letter is pretty good so long as it is truthful. One reason to not quite believe it is entirely truthful is this line

Once again I’m truly sorry to Cameron for some of the communications he received – this is not how we wish to do business or who we are,

Generously I could see that as a statement of David Steven's aspirations but speaking more literally, as we technical people often try to do, I'm inclined to reply: Actually, this is who you are, dCS, because it is what you did.

I hope that Steven's "thoroughly reviewing our internal processes" will be successful and that nobody needs to be punished. But in my experience, and this is especially true in SME, culture flows from the top.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom