DCS Suing GoldenSound!

I don’t know the details about this situation and only speak for myself. I think it’s wise to withhold judgment or render an opinion, without hearing from all sides. 

Agree, and I should also underscore the fact that here on AS, we always give manufacturers the opportunity to fact check our reviews prior to publication.

2 hours ago, Nikhil said:

Not sure why DCS couldn't handle a negative review.

Really?  I believe I could. 

What DAC costs the company ~$19,500 USD to build...or even a tenth of that?  These boutique equipment guys could simply have posted their own rebuttal on-line and left it up to the prospective buyers to decide. It would be a bit more refreshing, in fact, that they would dare to elaborate on their gear's technical approach and outcome for the typical buyer to read what they're actually trying to do (and I think there could easily be more to that story in the realm of "DAC demastering" of severely clipped source music albums and tracks that might be revelatory for prospective buyers behind that design approach). 

Note that I have seen cases where a relatively inexperienced reviewer has really missed the mark on what the manufacturer was trying to accomplish (and I believe one or two of of them were actually named above), but nowhere (except the two cases cited, above) have I seen a manufacturer simply threaten an online reviewer with litigation to take down an entire review--and without detailed reasoning and rebuttal points.

This is plainly bad manners for the manufacturer--and makes me think that they want to intimidate their audience in the boutique gear marketplace so that they can continue to charge 10x or more than it costs them to build and ship a piece of hi-fi gear. 

Think of it this way: would a very large manufacturer like Yamaha, JBL/Harman, Klipsch, etc. ever threaten a single reviewer based on a single negative review?  I seriously doubt it.  They would probably just ignore the reviewer's posting. 

Chris

I should note at the outset that my career before I retired was as a trial lawyer. I have seen this happen before in my practice. I watched the full video. Quite simply, I do not think dCS has much of a case, but that is not the point of the threat. Litigation is expensive. Very expensive, time consuming  and nerve racking. I have seen companies, knowing this, threaten litigation to simply scare the other side into capitulation. Believe me, litigation, especially jury trials  can really wear on you, even the lawyers. Nerve racking to be sure. I am not saying dCS is doing this here, but if they are, shame on them. The bad publicity will be much more damaging than the negative review which was probably not seen by many. I knew nothing of it before this.

45 minutes ago, Chris A said:

Please elaborate

I’m just not interested in writing about this type of stuff anymore. It has happened since the beginning of product reviews, and will happen forever. While I take this site seriously and my writing seriously, I don’t take myself too seriously. I’d never produce an overly serious performative video as if the world turned on something I wrote about a product and my beef with a manufacturer. It’s just not me nowadays. 
 

I’d also like to think that the writers at Audiophile Style have done a very good job of avoiding these types of situations long before they happen. 
 

P.S. We must also keep in mind that there’s money to be made by airing your beefs with others publicly rather than dealing with them privately. 

+100 to this.  Civility and reasonableness goes a long way

10 minutes ago, taipan254 said:

 

Agreed. And quite honestly, publicly airing what has, up until know, been private conversations could very well be a completely rational and appropriate next step from GS' point of view. I certainly don't have beef with dCS. I also love AudiophileStyle.com and understand dCS is a sponsor of this site, and do not want to ruffle any feathers. 
 

So before I offer any other unsolicited perspectives, I should ask: 

 

@The Computer Audiophile - what are the ground rules for discussion here given AS' relationship with dCS? I don't want to get inadvertently banned from my favorite forum! 

I will never ban anyone who is reasonable and being honest, or expressing a honestly held opinion that may be factually incorrect (you don’t know what you don’t know). The unreasonable people are usually trolling, being vindictive, and generally only here to cause problems. Nobody needs more troublemakers in their life. 
 

The members of this community are absolutely fantastic and wonderful people. I’m sure we can all discuss this specific incident, or any anything else about any site supporter, and keep the discussion reasonable.

P.S. Discussions can also question me, my own behavior, or that of any writer on the site. We have nothing to hide and nothing to gain by stifling reasonable discussions. However, much of this stuff gets boring and we’d prefer to stick to how to make our wonderful hobby more enjoyable. 

I didn’t hear anything defamatory - or even close - in the review.

Basically, he said the item: a) had fantastic build quality; b) had a soft sound he didn’t like; and c) as a result, he didn’t think it was worth the price. 

A factual error or two simply need to be pointed out and corrected. I somehow sort of doubt that if Stereophile had written these one or two factual errors DCs would have reacted in the same way. 

I think I can understand why GS took this public. He tried working with DCs and basically all he got in response was threats. 

He’s one guy, and clearly doesn’t have the resources to fight them in court. So he saw this as his best way of protecting himself. 

Well, another company shooting themselves in the foot by threatening a little guy.

So, in grand summary, someone with a grudge against Cameron took a snippet of a voicemail he made to someone about external clocks, and edited to make it sound like he was saying dCS was using DSP, when Cameron was actually talking about another company's product. 

People at dCS found out, sent an accusing email, Cameron replied correcting the record, including providing the entire voicemail he'd sent and asked for details about anything that he had posted or said publicly that was incorrect. He didn't get any replies other than a bunch of accusations about his character, before being sent a legal threat full of questionable accusations. 

This sounds like a set-up of some kind. It's just incredibly weird. It obviously has nothing to do with the Bartok review. 

Public suicide for dCS though.

@The Computer Audiophile"Both sides" were in that email exchange Cameron posted. If I were in your position, I'd be suspending any association with them that you have. 

2 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

I don't understand the purpose of this youtube video by Golden Sound.

Did you watch the whole thing? The purpose is to discourage companies from using legal threats to prevent negative reviews of their products. If reviewers were afraid of saying bad things because they might be sued, you'd only have a sea of worthless reviews. 

A sensible company is run by people that understand that reasonable criticism of their products helps narrow down potential customers to the ones that will like the product. A bunch of people buying a product who end up hating it because they had no idea about its negative aspects, is actually worse for the company, as those people will just complain vocally online. 

More critically, technical analysis of products can often find arguable technical faults in a design. A good company will use feedback, including this criticism, to make better products. This happened in a huge way in the headphone world, when people started posting CSD plots, showing that many headphones have resonances that degrade the sound (or enhance it, if you like that kind of thing!). It prompted companies to improve their headphone designs quite significantly. 

2 minutes ago, Currawong said:

Did you watch the whole thing? The purpose is to discourage companies from using legal threats to prevent negative reviews of their products. If reviewers were afraid of saying bad things because they might be sued, you'd only have a sea of worthless reviews. 

 

A sensible company is run by people that understand that reasonable criticism of their products helps narrow down potential customers to the ones that will like the product. A bunch of people buying a product who end up hating it because they had no idea about its negative aspects, is actually worse for the company, as those people will just complain vocally online. 

 

More critically, technical analysis of products can often find arguable technical faults in a design. A good company will use feedback, including this criticism, to make better products. This happened in a huge way in the headphone world, when people started posting CSD plots, showing that many headphones have resonances that degrade the sound (or enhance it, if you like that kind of thing!). It prompted companies to improve their headphone designs quite significantly. 

Yes, I watched it. If I were being sued I am positive my lawyer would never tell me to air my grievances on youtube.

I think that this video is the most important sound related video this year!
I'd advice DCs to publicly address all points and / or correct their behaveour.

It's pure bullying IF it happened as described by GS, and bullying is simply NOT acceptable.
Peace.