DCS Suing GoldenSound!

36 minutes ago, Currawong said:

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. 

I advise you to take a breather.
 

The news cycle today means nobody will care about this in 5 minutes and everyone who has worked with dCS for decades will be a little interested in the company’s side of the story but more likely will judge them on the long history. 
 

Both sides were far from in that video. You had one guy presenting his side and communication he received. He also presented the truth as he saw it, but not the whole truth. 
 

There are always three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth. 
 

I didn’t want to bring it up in this thread, but people seem to be making @GoldenOneout to be something more than he is. I supported him initially by donating to help him get an AP. However, more recently I was saddened to see him take the ASR tact of using measurement as a weapon (telling the truth but not the whole truth), and publicly releasing a reverse engineered headphone filter designed by Mitch Barnett, and providing PGGB’d music for free to paying subscribers of his patreon. It’s my understanding he sees nothing wrong with this. 
 

Nobody is perfect. Let’s all take a breather. We know a single side to these stories. 

38 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

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

Yes.
 

Airing this on YouTube is usually a sign that there’s something more to be gained by the public performance, and that one isn’t really concerned about legal action. 
 

In my experience, when one side looks perfect and another looks terrible, I’m usually watching CNN or Foxnews. In this case, we really don’t know the dCS side of the story. Sure, we know how it was presented, but that’s far from hearing directly from both sides. 
 

If I had to guess, I’d guess dCS won’t bother with responding. Just my own guess though. 

I was able to read the letter that the attorney sent him by pausing the video and viewing it on my big screen.  The attorney very clearly indicates what the misrepresentations are that need to be addressed - even providing the timestamp.  I un-pause it and the next thing I hear is Cameron claiming that this behavior from dCS is unethical and that if dCS just wants him to correct factual errors they should just tell him what they are.  

I suspect that Cameron’s assertion that manufacturers can’t just bully reviewers into censoring negative coverage of their products is going end up costing him a lot of money, but I base that only on a quick skim of those letters.  

I was just searching for the old Consumer Reports vs Bose case that was decided by the US Supreme Court, and Kagi showed me this. 
 

I think everyone knows that headline / title he used is false, even @GoldenOne

I’m going to wait for more information, before making any judgements. This is already taking away from enjoying music. 

38 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I advise you to take a breather.
 

The news cycle today means nobody will care about this in 5 minutes and everyone who has worked with dCS for decades will be a little interested in the company’s side of the story but more likely will judge them on the long history. 
 

Both sides were far from in that video. You had one guy presenting his side and communication he received. He also presented the truth as he saw it, but not the whole truth. 
 

There are always three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth. 
 

I didn’t want to bring it up in this thread, but people seem to be making @GoldenOneout to be something more than he is. I supported him initially by donating to help him get an AP. However, more recently I was saddened to see him take the ASR tact of using measurement as a weapon (telling the truth but not the whole truth), and publicly releasing a reverse engineered headphone filter designed by Mitch Barnett, and providing PGGB’d music for free to paying subscribers of his patreon. It’s my understanding he sees nothing wrong with this. 
 

Nobody is perfect. Let’s all take a breather. We know a single side to these stories. 

That is sad to hear.

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think everyone knows that headline / title he used is false

Not the smartest move given that dCS asserted that Cameron was trying to maliciously harm dCS.  

8 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Not the smartest move given that dCS asserted that Cameron was trying to maliciously harm dCS.  

Again, I have no dog in this fight. Also, I didn't see or feel anything was defamatory from his Bartok review. But here's my tactical / red-team perspective on how I see the state of play based on GS’ actions:

Publicly airing dCS' attempts to have GS remove content he makes a living off of negatively impacts GS. dCS claims GS' videos are impairing their reputation (and likely their ability to sell product). GS claims he has corrected his mistake re: the clock, and that he believes dCS's pending claims are not valid / truthful. If GS believes he is right, and he stays quiet, he may not have the ability to fight with as many resources as he can muster. Therefore, going public may make sense because he: 

1. Raises awareness among his supporters - which can be used to raise money for his legal bills. 
2. Compels others associated with him and dCS to choose a side (as headphones.com has already done).
3. Increases his own visibility for his business.
4. Demonstrates his willingness to engage dCS in the public square - which could imply his willingness to engage in litigation as well. 
5. Publicly paints dCS in a negative light among dCS core existing and possible future customers - audiophiles that aspire to own the best possible digital gear. 

I'm sure dCS took these possible outcomes into consideration when attempting to compel GS to remove his video. Given that this started in late 2023 and no private settlement of the issue has occurred in the intervening 9+ months, GS' public declaration challenging dCS' claims is an escalation and signal to dCS that GS thinks he has a winning case if this were to go to court. This is, in Thomas Schelling's words from Arms and Influence, "bridge burning" behavior that demonstrates a willingness to escalate because you know you can win the final battle, were it to come. This should send a signal to the dCS to either back down or fight. 

Ball seems in dCS' court - do they make good on their threat to pursue legal options against GS because they really believe their claims hold water and think GS is wrong? Does this compel more private negotiations that work towards a resolution - perhaps facilitated by a good Samaritan that knows both parties? Does dCS make public evidence supporting their claims that GS is spreading mis or disinformation about their products to mitigate any reputational damage done by GS’ public rebuttal of dCS' claims? 

38 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

I was able to read the letter that the attorney sent him by pausing the video and viewing it on my big screen.  The attorney very clearly indicates what the misrepresentations are that need to be addressed - even providing the timestamp.  I un-pause it and the next thing I hear is Cameron claiming that this behavior from dCS is unethical and that if dCS just wants him to correct factual errors they should just tell him what they are.  

Hmmm… Okay. But in the longer YouTube video on The Headphone Show (that I linked to), GoldenSound addresses all the “misrepresentations” listed in the final attorney letter. 

Can you specify on which items you feel GoldenSound is being disingenuous or inappropriate on?

9 minutes ago, taipan254 said:

 

 

Again, I have no dog in this fight. Also, I didn't see or feel anything was defamatory from his Bartok review. But here's my tactical / red-team perspective on how I see the state of play based on GS’ actions:

Publicly airing dCS' attempts to have GS remove content he makes a living off of negatively impacts GS. dCS claims GS' videos are impairing their reputation (and likely their ability to sell product). GS claims he has corrected his mistake re: the clock, and that he believes dCS's pending claims are not valid / truthful. If GS believes he is right, and he stays quiet, he may not have the ability to fight with as many resources as he can muster. Therefore, going public may make sense because he: 

1. Raises awareness among his supporters - which can be used to raise money for his legal bills. 
2. Compels others associated with him and dCS to choose a side (as headphones.com has already done).
3. Increases his own visibility for his business.
4. Demonstrates his willingness to engage dCS in the public square - which could imply his willingness to engage in litigation as well. 
5. Publicly paints dCS in a negative light among dCS core existing and possible future customers - audiophiles that aspire to own the best possible digital gear. 

I'm sure dCS took these possible outcomes into consideration when attempting to compel GS to remove his video. Given that this started in late 2023 and no private settlement of the issue has occurred in the intervening 9+ months, GS' public declaration challenging dCS' claims is an escalation and signal to dCS that GS thinks he has a winning case if this were to go to court. This is, in Thomas Schelling's words from Arms and Influence, "bridge burning" behavior that demonstrates a willingness to escalate because you know you can win the final battle, were it to come. This should send a signal to the dCS to either back down or fight. 

 

Ball seems in dCS' court - do they make good on their threat to pursue legal options against GS because they really believe their claims hold water and think GS is wrong? Does this compel more private negotiations that work towards a resolution - perhaps facilitated by a good Samaritan that knows both parties? Does dCS make public evidence supporting their claims that GS is spreading mis or disinformation about their products to mitigate any reputational damage done by GS’ public rebuttal of dCS' claims? 

 

 

This is why I love you guys. Thought provoking perspective, that’s reasonably written. 

11 minutes ago, ecwl said:

Can you specify on which items you feel GoldenSound is being disingenuous or inappropriate on?

I never used those words.  What I offered was the opinion that his actions are going to cost him.  That video makes it more likely he will get sued in my humble opinion and likely made it more expensive for him to get this behind him.

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I advise you to take a breather.

I've known about this for some time.

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The news cycle today means nobody will care about this in 5 minutes and everyone who has worked with dCS for decades will be a little interested in the company’s side of the story but more likely will judge them on the long history. 

On the contrary, this will be all over the 'net shortly. In the past, when there has been drama over an audio company's actions or issues, it has been brought up repeatedly for years afterwards. dCS will soon no longer be a high-end audio company whom people aspire to own their products, but "the company that sued a Youtuber". People wont forget. I've seen this, repeatedly. Heck, look what happened to MQA.

Down the track, young people, as they go through university, become professionals and start to earn enough money to buy a serious audio system will remember what happened and avoid dCS. They've just condemned themselves to losing millions in sales.

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Airing this on YouTube is usually a sign that there’s something more to be gained by the public performance, and that one isn’t really concerned about legal action. 

As far as I'm aware, the video was only written and posted after Cameron had gotten legal consultation. 

The motivation is clear: To discourage companies from using legal action to squash negative reviews.

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think everyone knows that headline / title he used is false,

Given how irrational the email exchange is, I don't believe that the Bartok review was the real reason for dCS' actions, so, in a sense, you're right. Why is it that someone deliberately altered a voicemail from Cameron in the first place? Is someone trying to destroy him?

3 hours ago, Currawong said:

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.

Actually it's even more bizarre. According to the video:

1. In his first explanation GS wrote that he was talking about a different DAC and that he found this DAC was using DSP,
2. a couple of emails later the dCS guy copied only the part about "this DAC was using DSP" and insisted again that GS was talking about dCS DAC there,
3. GS repeated that this was about a device from another manufacturer,
4. Several months later, in the lawsuit one of the points accuses him again of saying that dCS DAC uses DSP.

🙄🤦‍♀️

Btw, does anyone have a link to that twitter soundbite? 🙂

40 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think that’s a touch melodramatic 🙂

Really? So, what other explanation makes sense for why someone would get hold of a private voice message, alter it to give the impression of him saying something different, then post it on X/twitter? That, followed by the strange doubling-down on that narrative by dCS after he responded to them with the original voice message, that proved the truth?

Also, why would dCS care about a 2yo review of a product that has since been updated?

As the plot thickens, something along the lines of Streisand effect / McLibel etc. should be mighty interesting if Linus Sebastian were actually taking a crack at this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/1e36b9z/dcs_is_threatening_me_with_a_7figure_lawsuit_over/

Quote

LTT left a comment on the video saying they have their full support and will push this story on their news shows this week. dCS just goofed in a big way.

Quote

Whatever your feelings are of LTT, Between TechLinked and WAN Show, this news will be seen by a lot more eyes due to LTT spreading the news

Quote

Exactly. Let's not forget that independent tech media is their whole MO, they've spent millions of dollars on equipment for the sole purpose of publishing independent reviews, so Linus is of course a huge proponent of independent reviewers. Combine that with the friends in high places that Linus has in the tech industry, he's a powerful ally to have. I wouldn't be shocked if he got his other big tech youtuber friends to discuss it as well.

2 hours ago, Currawong said:

Also, why would dCS care about a 2yo review of a product that has since been updated?

The information that the review still conveys is the only thing that’s relevant.  There are many reasons why it could have taken them so long to react and none of them matter if the review continues to contain misinformation that they believe has done them harm.  
 

The question that people should be asking is why dCS wasn’t given the opportunity to comment before the review was posted.  And why wasn’t action taken to diffuse the situation.  The optics are terrible as it looks like a negative review was the goal.

I will say this here because I see dCS advertise on CA:

I would never rule out a manufacturer because of one review of a single product posted on YT (assuming I had even come across that review), but I would and will refuse to deal with a manufacturer over its behaviour. From now on, I will never buy a product made by dCS.

The whole thing looked very much like what just happened not too long ago, they're simply trying to use the legal system to "control" what we could / couldn't talk about on YouTube these days

https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyFhQ525tZk

https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZemkG6Vj7hc

if DCS reacts like this it means that it has a lot to hide and that it doesn't know how to accept different opinions.
It should be boycotted... so that no one buys its devices anymore

I guess I have to say that this isn't the way that I envisioned becoming informed of all the back stories presented in very fragmented fashion here. If you make a comment about back history, the courteous thing to do is to provide some sort of valid link supporting the comment you're making.  If you're too lazy to do this, then perhaps you shouldn't be taking the time to post to the thread at all.  It's actually very discourteous to the readers trying to understand and perhaps agree with your position(s).  Without backup links, I think it breeds negative reactions from those not immediately conversant on all the nooks and crannies of any apparently argument-nullifying counter arguments.

It would be nice to get a link to the "DAC uses DSP" comments.  I'm thinking my comment earlier about the DAC design potentially trying to correct for hard clipping might be a reason why the DAC sounds different (and that doesn't necessarily equate to "worse"). I'm currently thinking the spurious "DAC with DSP" comments are an allusion to that potentiality.

As for the supporting arguments for the manufacturer (and once again, I've seen the reviewer's YouTube video in question in its entirety): it never appears to rise to the level of abuse that I see every day elsewhere.   I can't imagine anyone taking real umbrage with what I saw/heard...but it is quite easy to imagine a manufacturer trying to suppress opinions they don't like.  You'd have to be really spring loaded by prior events not related directly to that particular review to take legally imperiling action to that review.

So it has to be a breaking-the-camel's-back situation somewhere to initiate all that we're seeing from the company.  I don't see how to give the manufacturer the benefit of the doubt.  Calling a spade a spade is appropriate in this situation, unless a great deal more information is being hidden by one or both parties.  The manufacturer had other courses of action to take besides the legal one they are apparently taking.  Why would they pull the big red lever on this?  Occam's Razor apparently applies...once again.

Chris