dCS threatens with a 7-figure lawsuit over a review

[Jim Taylor]

We desperately need the bigger reviewers to protect the smaller ones and protect the internet as a safe environment for honest consumer advice.

No, ... "we desperately need ... [to] ... protect the internet as a safe environment for ... [opinion].

As much as I hate and loathe the stupid, superficial, unscientific drivel that these "reviewers" spew, THE RIGHT OF ANYONE TO SAY ANYTHING - AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT PROMOTE HARM TO OTHERS - MUST BE DEFENDED. That means defended from censorship by religious groups, by the government, and by misuse of legal threats, corporate or otherwise.

Yes, I know that this appears to defend people that I have, for years, criticized as wrong-headed and idiotic. And I haven't changed my mind. But the minute that you start to suppress someone else's opinion, you foster an atmosphere that can (and probably will) lead to universal suppression.

We have a few of those types of societies active in the world today. Do you really want to live in that kind of environment? I certainly don't!

As long as we continue to point out that this type of "review" is not "honest consumer advice" but simply unsupported bullshit, I believe that the best interests of the average consumer will have been served. Let's keep the court action (or the threat of court action) out of it.

Jim

 

[rank]

The entire audio press and the web should be standing up against all these procedures.
The right angle for brands which do not add anything to what already exists -but at a lower price-, with a lack of arguments for the rather glaring extra price -which will not escape anyone- would be to declare that all this is just entertainment. So it escapes reason.

There they enter into arguments that are dangerous for them, such as listening or performance, and can only lose all credibility.
Stick to the beautiful heavy boxes which look serious on the outside (even if very empty inside), the beautiful gold or (optional) rhodium sockets, the velvety touch of the buttons, the clarity of the display.

Whether they are capable of doing so is another subject unfortunately.

 

[voodooless]

May well be.

There are some comments in the dCS community's own thread on the Bartok review:

Negative Bartok review that I simply can't understand

Seriously, I can’t even begin to grasp what he’s saying, as without a word clock the Bartok is actually a little bright and harsh on initial attack, certainly not laid back or “too smooth.” dCS Bartok Review - Smooth, too smooth

dcs.community

A member there using the name wusplay posted:



This would indicate that dCS may not just sue over the review but include subsequent (and maybe less well supported) comments from a person who is involved with a key rival company.

This is worth noting. I wouldn't want to see @amirm or ASR involved in what turns out not to be a dispute purely over an independent review but also over subsequent behaviour that may be less defensible.

There are also lessons for independent reviewers here - one being to stay independent and visibly so, and another being to treat everyone fairly. The argument being presented that Cameron favoured a rival could, if it sticks, be applied to other behaviour that we may believe ethical. Here, products sent by companies for review are treated in a different way to those sent in by members: could that be enough to justify a lawsuit by a manufacturer who receives a poor review?

That DAC was introduced earlier this year, long before the review was posted, and even before the first correspondence between Goldensound and dCS.

 

[voodooless]

The letter was from US but Cameron is in UK. They would have to hire a local attorney to sue him there and follow their laws. I don't recall if the attorney was from UK. Was he?

Why? They can just sue him in the US… why else would a UK company send a letter from a US lawyer via their US arm?

 

[yewneek]

I'll just leave this here....UK-based law, and UK-based parties. dCS are stuffed IMO

Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) - Warning notice

Warning notice: there is a concern that solicitors and firms are engaged in a type of abusive litigation, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), on behalf of their clients.

www.sra.org.uk

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Why? They can just sue him in the US… why else would a UK company send a letter from a US lawyer via their US arm?

Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) - Warning notice

Warning notice: there is a concern that solicitors and firms are engaged in a type of abusive litigation, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), on behalf of their clients.

www.sra.org.uk

Because they can not do it in UK, or it would be very hard!

Keep knocking UK down, we are on the right track (at least on this isolated case)

 

[Robbo99999]

Well I've just watched the whole video. dCS behaving very poorly, and reviewers are right to stand up to companies that behave like this. I'm assuming nothing will come of this re suing as it seems invalid, just like the Tekton saga. I'm not particularly interested in the contents of the review though, as DACS are already a done deal & not really an interesting aspect of audio, but yes it's true that dCS should not be behaving like they are.

 

[threni]

But that could backfire.
If the court finds that neither the measured values nor the listening results are better than with a $1000 or $3000 DAC, that would have disastrous consequences for dCS and many high-end companies.
Once it's before the judge, he sets the roadmap. If the judge commissions an expert to measure the devices and check the company's statements in a blinded test, dCS can no longer influence the outcome.

That was my point. It's why they might not actually want to air this business in court.

 

[OCA]

It is nice that Amir assists here, as one must confront this behavior from manufacturers, but I still don’t think that Cameron is a honest person, or at least he is deluding himself with all the supposed differences he hears and in the end it is just a smidgeon of almost inaudible difference above 20kHz.

I disagree that he's dishonest, but does it really matter? Viewers can make up their own minds. He could claim dCS Bartok is a washing machine and critique its laundry skills for all it matters. No one's forced to watch hence no one has the right to sue.

 

[Bjorn]

The way I see it dcs should drop this nonsense about litigation and rather give a formal response to why they believe the review is misleading.

And Golden Note should have done at least a proper AB test vs another well measured DAC with volume matching after dcs approached him. Or a blind test if possible. Until than the review should have been removed.

Reviewers also need to be held accountable, and it's very difficult to believe the subjective review part when seeing his own measurements.

Is it ok to leave a review in public that can greatly damage a brand if the review is simply baloney?

 

[prerich]

Dang.....This is getting way out of hand...dCS...for shame!!! I have one comment about the "borrowed bartok", was it in full operational order, and was it up to specs? That's an issue that needs to be taken into consideration when reviewers used borrowed gear. Recently a reviewer received a speaker with a defective crossover (defect was verified by testing the other speaker). There are quite a few variables that we must take into consideration - even when testing new or mint gear. dCS - these actions have harmed you more that a review with less than 300 views could have ever done. It would have been more sporting to send a new Bartok in to have him re-test it.

 

[JSmith]

That's an issue that needs to be taken into consideration when reviewers used borrowed gear.

I must say it's generally very easy to tell under test if something is broken and way out of spec.


JSmith

 

[DSJR]

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/maudioaudiophile/index.html

Well, we already got transparent enough sound cards for $200 (especially relative to transducers) in 2002.

I take your point, but I suppose I was talking real measurements here, which is what dCS traded on back then I remember. Funny you should say that about the 2496 I still have one of these and found it 'okay' via the RCA audio outputs (i was still fooled a good bit by subjectivism back then). When I upgraded the entire PC, I got a SPDIF/Toslink card and plugged it into the dedicated 'digital' connectors on the motherboard. I now use a USB cable from said computer to the SU1 and I'm darned if I can 'hear' a difference using the PC as power supply compared to an external one. I admit I never bothered overmuch in the deeper features of said sound-card, so maybe I was severely under-using it.

 

[Ismapics]

No, ... "we desperately need ... [to] ... protect the internet as a safe environment for ... [opinion].

As much as I hate and loathe the stupid, superficial, unscientific drivel that these "reviewers" spew, THE RIGHT OF ANYONE TO SAY ANYTHING - AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT PROMOTE HARM TO OTHERS - MUST BE DEFENDED. That means defended from censorship by religious groups, by the government, and by misuse of legal threats, corporate or otherwise.

Yes, I know that this appears to defend people that I have, for years, criticized as wrong-headed and idiotic. And I haven't changed my mind. But the minute that you start to suppress someone else's opinion, you foster an atmosphere that can (and probably will) lead to universal suppression.

We have a few of those types of societies active in the world today. Do you really want to live in that kind of environment? I certainly don't!

As long as we continue to point out that this type of "review" is not "honest consumer advice" but simply unsupported bullshit, I believe that the best interests of the average consumer will have been served. Let's keep the court action (or the threat of court action) out of it.

Jim

I agree with you. The Cameron person wants to appear as a legitimate reviewer with an Audio Analyzer to then make a review ignoring the findings and blabber about not having the "feeling" he was expecting and that the gear was dull. Either fish or cut bait. That is where he fails. If he wants to have a scientific approach, describe, test, report asses and conclude. Not that it lacks the edge and all that BS.

 

[Human Bass]

The way I see it dcs should drop this nonsense about litigation and rather give a formal response to why they believe the review is misleading.

And Golden Note should have done at least a proper AB test vs another well measured DAC with volume matching after dcs approached him. Or a blind test if possible. Until than the review should have been removed.

Reviewers also need to be held accountable, and it's very difficult to believe the subjective review part when seeing his own measurements.

Is it ok to leave a review in public that can greatly damage a brand if the review is simply baloney?

dCS doesnt want to go this route, it is business suicide. They are a luxury brand, they need customers to believe in some magical mojo.

 

[mhardy6647]

We've improved the lighting.

We're still pro-kinky, though, right?
I mean...
umm...
asking for a friend, you know?

 

[AndreaT]

One of the reasons to stop my subscriptions to audio magazines was the lack of negative reviews, or the almost uniform praise of any audio product that was reviewed. This absence of any selective judgment made the reviews almost equivalent to reading the manufacturer’s brochure. While the issue of audibility of 0.1% IMD, jitter and aliases is open to debate, I am happier to spend my money buying audio equipment that offers the best possible quality/price ratio.

 

[somebodyelse]

The way I see it dcs should drop this nonsense about litigation and rather give a formal response to why they believe the review is misleading.

And Golden Note should have done at least a proper AB test vs another well measured DAC with volume matching after dcs approached him. Or a blind test if possible. Until than the review should have been removed.

Reviewers also need to be held accountable, and it's very difficult to believe the subjective review part when seeing his own measurements.

Is it ok to leave a review in public that can greatly damage a brand if the review is simply baloney?

Do you propose that every other subjective review should be taken down too? Otherwise you'd be holding Goldensound to a higher standard than almost all other reviewers. Or does it just apply to negative baloney, and you're fine with positive baloney that unjustifiably benefits undeserving brands at the expense of their customers? Much as I'd love reviewers having to employ properly controlled blind tests, that is not where the vast majority are today.

 

[JSmith]

report asses assess

Fixed... I think?


JSmith

 

[Keith_W]

Do you propose that every other subjective review should be taken down too?

YES!!! If we could do that, that would be great!!!