-
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
- Thread starter shuppatsu
- Start date
- Status
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Now, I thought you were taking the mickey out of someone who got the price wrong by 10-20x. I'm perfectly aware that in Euro/metric land that decimal points are used instead of commas as thousands separators, thanks.
I have now watched the full video. Good that GoldenSounds stands up against such a behavior, maybe he develops into a honest person after all. Also, the points dCS are critizing appear to be so minor, they seem to be really desperate for attention.
A common typo.Now, I thought you were taking the mickey out of someone who got the price wrong by 10-20x. I'm perfectly aware that in Euro/metric land that decimal points are used instead of commas as thousands separators, thanks.
comma & dot are next to each other on a keyboard.
Brown sauce, yes please
Sounds like censorship to me ? Is this what they are carrying on about ?
goldensound.audio
Why don't these cowards from dcs get online and debate these issues in an open forum instead of hiding behind some ambulance chasing lawyer who wouldn't know shite from clay about DACs ?? It's obvious they are trying to distance themselves from chip DAC's so people can't claim their DAC is the same as some chip DAC such as ESS or AKM etc. And quite frankly it doesn't matter anyway. For the price give me a Topping DAC any day of the week
dCS Bartok (with headphone amp) Measurements - GoldenSound
The dCS Bartok is a 'summit fi' level DAC with a hefty pricetag of £12,500. But whilst the performance is great in many areas, others leave some questions unanswered.
goldensound.audio
Why don't these cowards from dcs get online and debate these issues in an open forum instead of hiding behind some ambulance chasing lawyer who wouldn't know shite from clay about DACs ?? It's obvious they are trying to distance themselves from chip DAC's so people can't claim their DAC is the same as some chip DAC such as ESS or AKM etc. And quite frankly it doesn't matter anyway. For the price give me a Topping DAC any day of the week
Last edited:
few ways (for dCS) to recover is to actually start looking inward:
a) if soon to be former dCS workers were behind this (sabotage), not very likely but who knows.
b) start blaming workers for such a big fiasco, assuming someone is ready to become the black sheep.
anywho i care very little about some expensive gear company problems, that a much less expensive gear can do without fiasco
a) if soon to be former dCS workers were behind this (sabotage), not very likely but who knows.
b) start blaming workers for such a big fiasco, assuming someone is ready to become the black sheep.
anywho i care very little about some expensive gear company problems, that a much less expensive gear can do without fiasco
Ismapics
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
- Messages
- 242
- Likes
- 331
There is a notable and big difference to the case with Erin. They are similar but not the same. Erins review was based on data, which he used to confirm listening test. The maker ask for holes to be closed up and the same results came back, they insisted, then they were in the wrong. Erin was backed up with ample data set.
In this case Cameron has the data, but does not reference it in the YT review. Data that he writes "it was very good". Then instead of referring to it he says the same words every other YT reviewer uses, and I quote: "Dull, not fatiguing, Soft, leading ages, blunted". He claims to have a data set that he does not refer to in the review, data that shows the product to have OK performance compared to others, maybe not state of the art and certainly too expensive for perforce $ as many other high end gear is.
Because he based it on opinion and not facts thats where the manufacturer claims, rightfully so, a biased review. As with that data set, another human could come up with a different set of words out of their golden ears. That is the problem with humans they are biased. That is the problem with all YT reviewers including him, they are Paid Media, claim independence but are biased paid media. That is why most are not reliable.
That is why this forum only received donations and the YT channel is not monetized.
Perhaps this is what they are sour grapes over
they state pretty clearly that they will (~1:10 minute mark in the video)
EDIT: my error, the video is not head-fi
Last edited:
Galliardist
Major Contributor
I'd guess this is about the subjective comments, not the measurements. There are other measurements of their products that show very similar results down to the channel difference and spikes in jitter response.Sounds like censorship to me ? Is this what they are carrying on about ?
dCS Bartok (with headphone amp) Measurements - GoldenSound
The dCS Bartok is a 'summit fi' level DAC with a hefty pricetag of £12,500. But whilst the performance is great in many areas, others leave some questions unanswered.
Why don't these cowards from dcs get online and debate these issues in an open forum instead of hiding behind some ambulance chasing lawyer who wouldn't know shite from clay about DACs ?? It's obvious they are trying to distance themselves from chip DAC's so people can't claim their DAC is the same as some chip DAC such as ESS or AKM etc. And quite frankly it doesn't matter anyway. For the price give me a Topping DAC any day of the week
If it is about the measurements, then surely they have to sue Stereophile as well, for one?
Headphones.com and head-fi are not the same.
MattHooper
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 8,366
- Likes
- 14,052
Well, there’s no way I’m buying that $40,000 DAC now !
British food, so I guess we're staying with the theme
Seriously though, at those prices people don't buy these things for their performance, how good or bad it is doesn't matter.
But again, same thing as with Tekton, the product did reasonably well (although it clearly has some circuit design or quality control issues).
Ismapics
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
- Messages
- 242
- Likes
- 331
I remember they used to say that Julian Hirsch liked every product he reviewed. Ever wonder why, there were plenty of ads to sell in Stereo Review and if reviews were bad no ads would sell. That is not to say that Mr. Hirsch did not find bad products, they just did not make it to print. A typical Stereo Review had descriptions, measurements and his opinion compered to his reference system.
That is the problem with the current reviews of audio gear. They are mostly talking heads that claim to have golden ears and dont have one iota of technical knowledge. They claim they are independent, they always say: "all opinions are mine and not influenced by the manufacturer", sure they are.They also never criticize the gear they review, as if they start doing that, the train of free gear would stop and there wold not be any content to publish. They are so biased, I heard today (the one that sells all the stuff he gets to pay his lifestyle) that he was upset that he had to buy a sub to review becase that company never answers my emails. I agree with that company, they are not interested in the"new media game".
In this review Cameron from Golden Sound - a page full of ads for the same companies he reviews - show a data set and even says and I quote:
That is the problem with the current reviews of audio gear. They are mostly talking heads that claim to have golden ears and dont have one iota of technical knowledge. They claim they are independent, they always say: "all opinions are mine and not influenced by the manufacturer", sure they are.They also never criticize the gear they review, as if they start doing that, the train of free gear would stop and there wold not be any content to publish. They are so biased, I heard today (the one that sells all the stuff he gets to pay his lifestyle) that he was upset that he had to buy a sub to review becase that company never answers my emails. I agree with that company, they are not interested in the"new media game".
In this review Cameron from Golden Sound - a page full of ads for the same companies he reviews - show a data set and even says and I quote:
Firstly I have to mention, this is far and away the best build quality of any DAC I’ve tried. This thing absolutely OOOZES quality. Jitter performance was seemingly identical on both USB and ethernet. In both cases it was ‘good’ but honestly not as good as you’d expect for this price. Overall the performance of the Bartok is generally excellent, I just wish that the ultrasonic noise wasn’t so high! (BTW Ultrasonic as in stuff you dont hear)
and then publishes a review in his YT channel that says that the product is and I quote "Dull, skrillex is not fatiguing, Soft, leading ages, blunted".
He basically abandons the data set and goes in the the same diatribe all YT reviewers do, what my golden ears tell me. Instead of backing up the opinion with data he goes into minutes and minutes of criticism. All subjective, as the product measures good and any defect are beyond threshold of hearing. Like many high end gear, the costs does not back the performance, but that is far from claiming subjective criteria that another human may find great.
So he has same credibility as any other Youtube reviewer, none. He is just another human relying in the worst 2 pieces of gear, in the side of his head, ignoring what the data says.
Although I am not happy at all they need to go to a lawsuit, I wish it would go forward. It would settle the playing field and place accountability on manufacturers (spending their Advertising dollars on every channel trying to control them) and reviewers to have to claim that they don't have golden ears and that they need the free gear and loaners to survive.
and then publishes a review in his YT channel that says that the product is and I quote "Dull, skrillex is not fatiguing, Soft, leading ages, blunted".
He basically abandons the data set and goes in the the same diatribe all YT reviewers do, what my golden ears tell me. Instead of backing up the opinion with data he goes into minutes and minutes of criticism. All subjective, as the product measures good and any defect are beyond threshold of hearing. Like many high end gear, the costs does not back the performance, but that is far from claiming subjective criteria that another human may find great.
So he has same credibility as any other Youtube reviewer, none. He is just another human relying in the worst 2 pieces of gear, in the side of his head, ignoring what the data says.
Although I am not happy at all they need to go to a lawsuit, I wish it would go forward. It would settle the playing field and place accountability on manufacturers (spending their Advertising dollars on every channel trying to control them) and reviewers to have to claim that they don't have golden ears and that they need the free gear and loaners to survive.
Curious what the theory of liability would be, where any action might be filed, and whether it would withstand a demurrer based on the statute of limitations.
- Status
