Much has been said here that is correct and incorrect. In any case this isn’t about free speech, but is about poor business judgment. To start, I am a dCS Bartok owner and love my streamer DAC. I bought it some years ago at probably half the price of a new one today. I also am an active participant on the dCS owners forum.
My impression of dCS management and staff are that they have been in their own little universe and believe they have unique knowledge of the digital world. Rather arrogant. dCS was acquired in the past year or so by a large audio focused business aggregator, because, I believe, the brilliant but self involved people who run the place could not take the business to the next level. There are countless examples of highly successful companies whose founders had to be set aside to allow the business to really reach it’s full potential. The evidence of this is their attitude prior to the acquisition toward owners suggestions for product and service improvements. They exhibited a "look, we know best what’s good for you" attitude. Pleasantly, things seemed to have substantially improved since they were purchased.
Now, along comes this review. The reviewers opinion was just that, and the music he suggested as an example of the lack of irritating sound was ridiculous. Why would anybody listen to that stuff? How is that a problem? For dCS to react to those comments was just silly and a grevious mistake born of their own arrogance. I believe that review was done before dCS released a substantial software upgrade for the Bartok, which markedly improved the already great DAC’s sound quality to a level that approached the much more expensive next level dCS DAC . Cause and effect? Was dCS holding something back to assist sales of the better unit? Guess we’ll never know.
What’s next? Some serious damage control... and a visit from the audio group owners who will not be amused with what this error in judgement has done to their investment.