DCS Sending Legal Notice To Reviewer (Golden Sound) Over an Old Review of Their Bartok DAC

Now all the drama has ended, dCS has released their statement apologizing for the entire fiasco.

https://dcs.community/t/goldensound-headphones-com-dcs-an-update/6740

Regards,

Audio_phool

@laoman, whatever happens in this case will happen, but my point is beyond this case. I think it's high time that there needs to be some standard guidelines set for reviewers and manufacturers.
Because of the lack of regulation a manufacturer can pressure the smaller reviewers in not publishing the negative reviews. Or vice a versa big reviewers can threaten small boutique manufacturers into asking for money else they will be threatened with bad reviews.

Both manufacturers bullying & threatening reviewers and reviewers asking for money & not disclosing it is very much prevalent in the industry. As the end consumers we want honesty from manufacturers and reviewers alike.

Regards,
Audio_phool

Now I am just waiting to see the response from dCS...that will shade more light on this whole matter.

Regards,

Audio_phool

There is problem with both parties (I am not talking about DCS vs Golden Ear case), manufacturers and the reviewers. Such incidents is just showing the issues with big manufacturers.

Whats about the reviewers/review sites offering rewards to to each and every product they review or whatever they review is the best thing thing they have heard till date?

Regards,

Audio_phool

So-called professional reviewers is just an unnecessary leeching layer to the industry. They all naturally driven by free buck and indeed have no credibility.

But these manufacturers are also happy to feed such reviewers who in turn provide glorious reviews which definitely provide provide them the required attention & sales. It's a manufacturer and reviewer nexus if you may call it, so just blaming one is not the solution for sure.

Regards,
Audio_phool

What would you do, dilute the First Amendment? There is already a process in place for dealing with things like this.

First amendment is applicable only if both manufacturer and the reviewer are in US. So for a lot of cases it is not going to be applicable e.g. what if the reviewer was in Hong Kong in that case do you think first amendment is going to be even applicable?

That is why a framework is needed which then could be agreed and imposed upon both manufacturers and reviewers, just like your various standards e.g ISO.

Regards,
Audio_phool

@Cleeds you are not talking about anyone outside US, what’s your solution there?

Besides how can be sure that if any such standard formation happens it would be detrimental to people in US? Do you even know what those standards would be even before they are formed? You are just being paranoid to the seed or the idea of such standards.

Regards,

Audio_phool

@cleeds I think you missed what I was getting at, you are going to have manufacturers and reviewers all over the world, so just talking about the first amendment is irrelevant. That's why we need some sort of standards which would be adhered to by both manufacturers and reviewers which are specific to Audio Industry

Regards,
Audio_phool

So dCS MD David Steven has responded on the dCS forum. Here is the link.

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

Regards,
Audio_phool

All of the guys who are discussing the First amendment need to know that neither dCS is an American company nor Golden Sound is an American Resident, so First Amendment is not applicable in the first place. Hence I was talking about a framework which would be laid down for manufacturers and reviewers. I tried to explain this to cleed by givig an example of Hong Kong but he is not able to understand that which is ok.

Regards,
Audio_phool