DCS Suing GoldenSound!

Currawong · July 15

I think I see what has actually happened now. I realised it was John Giolas of dCS Americas who initiated this, not the UK company. Cameron is in the UK. John possibly didn't realise this. The (US-based) lawyer sent what I consider a rather flawed letter mentioning "reviews" when it is supposed to address a review plus social media comments? Unless it's just badly worded, as it lumps twitter in with this, but he linked to not the actual site review, but a search page on GoldenSound. Cameron addressed the rest of it.

The "factory tour" mention in one of the letters suggests that they had wanted to woo Cameron much as typical 2-channel reviewers are, but he wouldn't go along, which pissed them off. I speculate that they just hoped that with a letter from a lawyer he'd delete the review and avoid reviewing dCS products ever again. Instead, the actual company in the UK has now woken up on a Monday to a total shitstorm caused by their US distributor.

The Computer Audiophile · July 15

43 minutes ago, Currawong said:

The "factory tour" mention in one of the letters suggests that they had wanted to woo Cameron much as typical 2-channel reviewers are, but he wouldn't go along, which pissed them off

You are really stretching the truth here.

44 minutes ago, Currawong said:

Instead, the actual company in the UK has now woken up on a Monday to a total shitstorm caused by their US distributor

They don’t have a distributor in the US.

The Computer Audiophile · July 15

9 hours ago, Currawong said:

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?

Perhaps Cameron pissed someone off. Who knows. Just because we don’t know, doesn’t mean someone was about to “destroy him.” Contrary to your belief, I don’t believe a Twitter post or YouTube video can come close to destroying anything / anyone.

The MQA situation involved years of sketchy behavior, without a decades long track record of the opposite. I can’t even think of a single parallel situation to this current one, even though I know they happen frequently. The reason is that it’s not Earth shattering or game changing. People get whipped up and think the world revolves around very little things, when the truth is the opposite.

Plus, we still haven’t heard from dCS. I’m a bit surprised at how many people are just assuming they have the whole story and are accepting what was presented as a closing argument, as all the facts.

ecwl · July 15

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

Obviously, providing PGGB'd music for free to paying Patreon subscribers is wrong. Especially when PGGB author provides music for free for people to test. Although I don't see that as something he listed as a Patreon service. So I'll trust your sources on this.

With respect to "publicly releasing a reverse engineered headphone filter designed by Mitch Barnett", I ended up doing some searches and reading on this. While I 100% agree with you that it was a highly problematic and inappropriate move, I think in this situation context matters. And unfortunately, on Head-Fi, some of the original posts were removed so I can only re-construct what happened based on some guesses. My understanding was that GoldenSound was saying that given a convolution filter, you can usually create an equivalent set of parametric EQs to mimick the convolution filter. And then somebody said they tried to do that with Mitch's filter and it didn't sound the same. So GoldenSound took Mitch's filter and created an equivalent set of parametric EQs and posted it online.

Like I said, I 100% agree with you that I don't think GoldenSound should have done that. However, if I want to prove the equivalency (or closeness) of a set of parametric EQs vs a convolution filter, and I just randomly generate a convolution filter with an equivalent parametric EQ, nobody is going to try it and people are going to argue that my example is very specific and I won't be able to do that with Mitch's convolution filter. So ultimately, GoldenSound had to" reverse engineer" a convolution filter people would actually use as demonstration.

Hence, my take on it is that I don't have a problem with him "reverse engineering a headphone filter designed by Mitch Barnett". After all, I think we have discussed this before about HQPlayer and PGGB vs Chord WTA filters that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I do think that GoldenSound could have just privately sent the set of parametric EQ settings to the individuals who owned/purchased Mitch's convolution filter and let them compare themselves.

Of course, if I am mistaken in my understanding of the situation, please enlighten me further.

The Computer Audiophile · July 15

32 minutes ago, ecwl said:

Obviously, providing PGGB'd music for free to paying Patreon subscribers is wrong. Especially when PGGB author provides music for free for people to test. Although I don't see that as something he listed as a Patreon service. So I'll trust your sources on this.

With respect to "publicly releasing a reverse engineered headphone filter designed by Mitch Barnett", I ended up doing some searches and reading on this. While I 100% agree with you that it was a highly problematic and inappropriate move, I think in this situation context matters. And unfortunately, on Head-Fi, some of the original posts were removed so I can only re-construct what happened based on some guesses. My understanding was that GoldenSound was saying that given a convolution filter, you can usually create an equivalent set of parametric EQs to mimick the convolution filter. And then somebody said they tried to do that with Mitch's filter and it didn't sound the same. So GoldenSound took Mitch's filter and created an equivalent set of parametric EQs and posted it online.

Like I said, I 100% agree with you that I don't think GoldenSound should have done that. However, if I want to prove the equivalency (or closeness) of a set of parametric EQs vs a convolution filter, and I just randomly generate a convolution filter with an equivalent parametric EQ, nobody is going to try it and people are going to argue that my example is very specific and I won't be able to do that with Mitch's convolution filter. So ultimately, GoldenSound had to" reverse engineer" a convolution filter people would actually use as demonstration.

Hence, my take on it is that I don't have a problem with him "reverse engineering a headphone filter designed by Mitch Barnett". After all, I think we have discussed this before about HQPlayer and PGGB vs Chord WTA filters that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I do think that GoldenSound could have just privately sent the set of parametric EQ settings to the individuals who owned/purchased Mitch's convolution filter and let them compare themselves.

Of course, if I am mistaken in my understanding of the situation, please enlighten me further.

I think the bottom line is that all of these situations are avoidable and they take away from enjoyment of our hobby.

There are always three sides to stories and at least two parties responsible for getting the situations to where they are. The older I get (48 years old) and the more years I've run my own business (17 years), the more averse to this stuff I've become. In my younger days I'm sure I would've been all over these things, as if they really mattered and as if I knew the whole story. I've had my share of public spats and have learned quite a bit from the experience.

Chris A · July 15

35 minutes ago, ecwl said:

...My understanding was that GoldenSound was saying that given a convolution filter, you can usually create an equivalent set of parametric EQs to mimick the convolution filter...

Hummm...

I don't believe that's true if mimicking the FIR phase response is part of the "equivalent set of parametric EQs". PEQs only directly affect amplitude response, and indirectly affect phase (i.e., the minimum phase properties of IIR filters). But if you ignore phase, you can get close to mimicking the amplitude portion of the transfer function. It won't sound the same as the FIR case, however, if FIR phase correction was as large as ±50 degrees (about), which is approximately the minimum phase deviation that's audible in the midrange band under nominal room conditions. If using headphones, all bets are off.

Do I believe that violates what Mitch Barnett provided (,,,again, a link would be nice here...) in apparent confidence? That's actually debatable, since the PEQs are only half of the transfer function.

Chris

shuppatsu · July 15

We have dCS's side to the story. It's laid out in their lawyer's nastygram. Unless we're worried that Cameron forged the letter, there's not much else to be said. What hypothetical scenarios could exist wherein the statements made in the cease-and-desist could be justified?

GoldenOne · July 15

57 minutes ago, Chris A said:

Hummm...

I don't believe that's true if mimicking the FIR phase response is part of the "equivalent set of parametric EQs". PEQs only directly affect amplitude response, and indirectly affect phase (i.e., the minimum phase properties of IIR filters). But if you ignore phase, you can get close to mimicking the amplitude portion of the transfer function. It won't sound the same as the FIR case, however, if FIR phase correction was as large as ±50 degrees (about), which is approximately the minimum phase deviation that's audible in the midrange band under nominal room conditions. If using headphones, all bets are off.

Do I believe that violates what Mitch Barnett provided (,,,again, a link would be nice here...) in apparent confidence? That's actually debatable, since the PEQs are only half of the transfer function.

Chris

To be clear, part of the issue was that many people understood Mitch's filters to be doing some sort of special phase correction outside of what the effect would be from just EQ'ing, when they were not. They are minimum phase corrections, same as EQ'ing or making a convolution without any further adjustment yourself.

I also would take issue with the argument of 'reverse engineering' when Mitch provides the before/after effect for each filter on his own product page and it takes at most 2 minutes to put it in REW and make the convolution yourself.

I've nothing against people buying and enjoying Mitch's filters. But the point was to refute the arguments that Mitch's filters were outright 'better' than EQ'ing or making a convolution yourself, and they could be replicated effectively identically with EQ for free.

ecwl · July 15

https://dcs.community/t/a-response-to-recent-claims-regarding-dcs/6722

Yes. I am quite satisfied with dCS's response. To me, a lot of these situations arise because people misunderstand each other and then things started escalating more and more because bad feelings about each other started developing in these types of conflicts. You can kinda tell from the VP marketing/lawyer emails to GoldenSound that there is a lot of anger/frustration in the tone that seems a bit out of proportion to the content and subjective opinion. Sometimes, near the end, people don't even remember what they were arguing about in the first place.

I hope dCS and GoldenSound can settle their differences in a satisfactory manner.

And I think we can all go back to listening to music that we like with gear that we like.

The Computer Audiophile · July 15

Ok, some final comments from me, now that we've seen the dCS response.

First, and I repeat, we have the dCS side, Cameron's side, and the truth. Each side of course presents the facts as they believe them to be and/or to put their side in the best light. This is a fact of life. It's how humans work. There's nothing wrong with it, as long as it's done with good intentions.

I believe most people overreacted to this entire situation, including dCS initially, Cameron, and people claiming, REM style, that it's the end of the world as we know it. We all make mistakes. I've made so many it's laughable, including some similar to the issue at hand. Perhaps because I've been in Cameron's shoes and understand this world of publishing, I may be a little harsher on him (fair or not). It's very tempting to blow the lid off something, release earth shattering information, use a headline that gets more views but isn't totally accurate, stand up to the Man, or make a few extra bucks, etc... Not saying I know Cameron's motives, but I've been down this road before quite a few times.

If I had to guess, I'd say there will still be some people who take the political approach and won't believe one of the parties involved in this issue, just because they will never believe them. They are on the other "team." That's unfortunate, but also a reality.

I'm sure others will think everything I said is ridiculous, and I'm totally fine with that. We are a global community of people with very different backgrounds, morals, ethical beliefs, etc... It's part of what makes us as a whole, great.

How about we listen to some music :~)

The Computer Audiophile · July 15

1 hour ago, GoldenOne said:

I've nothing against people buying and enjoying Mitch's filters. But the point was to refute the arguments that Mitch's filters were outright 'better' than EQ'ing or making a convolution yourself, and they could be replicated effectively identically with EQ for free.

However, Mitch did all the work and went through the expense of measuring the headphones and creating the filters. You used this work and released something that you say makes his work needless. Can you not see the dead end this leads to? Nobody is going to go through the trouble to create anything, if guys like you then take their work and release a free version.

The work Mitch does can't be replicated for free, without Mitch first doing the work. You can't listen to a headphone and know exactly how to EQ it to match a target curve. He has the skills and equipment to do this. Joe Sixpack doesn't.

taipan254 · July 15

Eeeek! I think it is difficult for rational thinkers to take dCS' comments at face value given dCS' very obvious misstatement re: the threat of litigation. I'm not saying that we should take everything GS says at face value, but at least GS has corroborating evidence presented demonstrating that dCS is being dishonest about their communication with GS.

ICYMI

The Computer Audiophile · July 15

Nobody is being helped by the fact that this is internet based, asynchronous, communication, using snippets. There's context and nuance involved in everything. There's truth somewhere in the middle.

mitchco · July 15

Thanks @The Computer AudiophileYah the filters takes days/weeks to develop, with repeated tweaking/listening sessions. In the professional software world where I come from this is considered copyrighted, intellectual property. It is not open source or free. When folks purchase the filters, there is a note that says the filters are for your own private and personal use. I trust most people are honest.

@GoldenOne The published graphs on my web site are simply 1/12 octave representations of the filters, not the actual responses themselves. The fact you think it is OK to reverse engineer someone else's copyrighted intellectual property that took weeks for me to develop and post it on a public web site speaks volumes about you.

PEQ filters does not equal a frequency dependent windowed measurement. Had you reached out to discuss or even read how the filters are developed in the first place may have resulted in a fun conversation. Instead, you chose the dishonest path. You did not even pay for the filters in the first place. And spare me the trope of you are doing this under the guise of an independent reviewer bullshit. I have nothing more to say to you.

taipan254 · July 15

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nobody is being helped by the fact that this is internet based, asynchronous, communication, using snippets. There's context and nuance involved in everything. There's truth somewhere in the middle.

I respectfully disagree. The way businesses like GoldenSound and dCS handle public disagreements is important to many consumers, including myself. Although I can't afford dCS gear, I've admired their Ring DAC and overall approach for years. I also enjoy GoldenSound's content and follow him on multiple platforms. For me, this situation affects both GoldenSound's credibility and my perception of dCS' management and business acumen. While the latter may not influence my purchasing decisions, it does impact my overall opinion of the brand.

GoldenSound presented evidence suggesting that dCS threatened him with litigation, while dCS claims they did not. This leaves us with two possibilities: either GoldenSound is telling the truth, which would mean dCS is lying, or dCS is telling the truth, implying that GoldenSound fabricated or altered the documents he presented.

Is there any middle ground or nuance I'm missing here? Ultimately, I don't want to support content from an entity proven to be dishonest.

taipan254 · July 15

As an afterthought, this is occupying more of my brainspace than I'd like! I'm gonna focus on some other things for a bit! This is one crazy world we live in, and I have more important things to focus on.

bambadoo · July 15

ok

shuppatsu · July 15

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nobody is being helped by the fact that this is internet based, asynchronous, communication, using snippets. There's context and nuance involved in everything. There's truth somewhere in the middle.

I really don't understand this perspective. It could not be clearer to me that dCS is asking us to disbelieve our lying eyes. If context and nuance are being omitted, I'd like that to be provided. dCS certainly had an opportunity to do so, but they chose to lie. They threatened litigation, full-stop. Those "snippets" prove it. I don't understand how internet-based, asynchronous communication distorts this plain fact.

After that bald-faced lie, the rest of dCS's statement is just mealy-mouthed whinging and half-hearted attempts at reframing, with absolutely no substance related to the alleged factual inaccuracies in Cameron's review, and no reproductions of communications that would contradict Cameron's account of their interactions. Hardly exculpatory.

Cameron and Headphones.com behaved responsibly in publicizing dCS's threats of litigation. Reviewers must be able to give their frank opinions about the products under review, else their credibility is shot. dCS tried to strong arm a reviewer by threatening litigation. It's important that the public be aware that this is something that dCS does.

GoldenOne · July 15

https://forum.headphones.com/t/dcs-response-and-story/23779

Chris A · July 15

Next topic of conversation...?

Chris

The Computer Audiophile · July 15

1 hour ago, taipan254 said:

I respectfully disagree. The way businesses like GoldenSound and dCS handle public disagreements is important to many consumers, including myself. Although I can't afford dCS gear, I've admired their Ring DAC and overall approach for years. I also enjoy GoldenSound's content and follow him on multiple platforms. For me, this situation affects both GoldenSound's credibility and my perception of dCS' management and business acumen. While the latter may not influence my purchasing decisions, it does impact my overall opinion of the brand.

GoldenSound presented evidence suggesting that dCS threatened him with litigation, while dCS claims they did not. This leaves us with two possibilities: either GoldenSound is telling the truth, which would mean dCS is lying, or dCS is telling the truth, implying that GoldenSound fabricated or altered the documents he presented.

Is there any middle ground or nuance I'm missing here? Ultimately, I don't want to support content from an entity proven to be dishonest.

Your respectful comments are always welcomed and enjoyed as food for thought.

I look at this not with a microscope, but with a life's worth of experience (you have plenty I'm sure). Disagreements are almost never black and white. These things can turn on single words or actions, or even tones of voice and body language. This is why I mentioned asynchronous internet communication with snippets being less than desirable.

I've been in many disagreements in my life, as I'm sure everyone has, and I can unequivocally say that doing it over the internet in this fashion never produces the complete truth. It may produce the truth, but not the complete truth.

We are now in the phase of looking at sentences of a much larger issue. The is like saying a DAC that pushes the ultrasonic DSD64 noise up to 60 kHz isn't as good as other DACs because they push it up to 70 kHz. Technically this is the truth, but the whole truth involves the fact that nobody can hear at 60 kHz or 70 kHz, the difference here likely won't matter, and there is much more nuance to the discussion. However, those who use measurements as weapons, and those who like schadenfreude, will stop at the first sentence of a DAC that pushed this to 60 kHz just isn't as good. Add in a DAC from a manufacturer that charges more money than the reviewer likes, and it's a recipe for schadenfreude to the max.

The Computer Audiophile · July 15

Another thing I've learned over the years. When you see things like this, that are so opposite (We did ABC with you. No you didn't do anything with us), there's usually much more nuance, misunderstanding, or incorrect information provided to one or both parties doing the talking. When something this simple, provable, and seemingly black and white can't be agreed upon, there's usually a non-nefarious explanation.

AudioDoctor · July 15

42 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Another thing I've learned over the years. When you see things like this, that are so opposite (We did ABC with you. No you didn't do anything with us), there's usually much more nuance, misunderstanding, or incorrect information provided to one or both parties doing the talking. When something this simple, provable, and seemingly black and white can't be agreed upon, there's usually a non-nefarious explanation.

Someone isn't telling the truth. To me it's that simple. I don't know who it is. All I know is one side has become tired enough of it all to engage legal representation.

If it were just a miscommunication, then it would be super easy to clear up with some more clear and open dialog.

edit: a quick perusal of Headphones . com shows me there are no dCS products for sale there at the moment.

shuppatsu · July 15

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

Someone isn't telling the truth. To me it's that simple. I don't know who it is.

Well, we know that dCS lied, because they threatened litigation in no uncertain terms and then denied threatening litigation. Whether Cameron and Lissimore lied about the conversation never taking place is not currently known. But so far they have not been caught out in a lie and have been producing receipts left and right. It'd be nice in dCS could substantiate their side of the story with something, anything.

Currawong · July 15

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Another thing I've learned over the years. When you see things like this, that are so opposite (We did ABC with you. No you didn't do anything with us), there's usually much more nuance, misunderstanding, or incorrect information provided to one or both parties doing the talking. When something this simple, provable, and seemingly black and white can't be agreed upon, there's usually a non-nefarious explanation.

There's no nuance when a company responds with a flat-out lie, as with the litigation claim.

What appears to be happening is, dCS's response is intended for their fans and dealers. Just look where they said:

“On March 3rd 2024 GoldenSound then announced they had collaborated with a DAC manufacturer to create the WANDLA – Goldensound Edition DAC. This product has similar functionality to dCS digital to analogue converters.”

Without directly saying it (and directly slandering him) they are implying that something nefarious is going on. That way, fans and dealers, if asked, can just say that Cameron lied, or is conspiring with another manufacturer, even if neither are true.

A fan of a "team" (company, political party, etc.) isn't interested in the truth, they are only interested in what supports their "team" and/or belief system. They wont look into the details very carefully, because they aren't interested in the truth.

For everyone else, dCS' credibility has been destroyed.

DCS Suing GoldenSound!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in