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


I saw this You Tube video which was posted by Headphones.com which at the beginning talked about the site taking the side of Golden Sound (GS) & then GS himself going through the details of what happened (his side of the story).

https://youtu.be/R7NxRFT6FiI

While I am not taking any sides until DCS comes out with their story publicly. While we all are aware that many times companies force reviewers to remove the criticism of their products by employing different ways. But what should be the way forward about the reviews for reviewers and companies?

Can we as the end consumers and as a community come-up with the framework around reviews?

 

Regards,

Audio_phool

128x128audio_phool

David Steven said, in his second mea culpa, that he approved having a lawyer send a letter to Cameron as well, so I think that coming to his defense is rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. Lawyering up, when they dont get their way, is part of their culture and exactly who they are.

Some of the blame lies squarely on the head of gullible consumers who place too much credence on what any reviewer has to say.

Navigating the confusing landscape of high end audio can be daunting hence the emergence of sites like ASR. 

@viridian.  The exact words:

 

In May 2024, my colleague in the USA instructed a lawyer to communicate with GoldenSound in an attempt to reach a resolution. I was aware of this letter and my intention at this point was to reach a solution by mediation or another process – not to instigate a seven-figure lawsuit. However, I appreciate that in the context of additional communications that have since come to light, this is not how this will have been construed and I apologise for any distress caused as a result of this

Of course I have read that. I do not believe that Mr. Steven sent his lawyer to reach a resolution, it speaks to Mr. Steven trying to compel a certain behaviour through implied threat. And he says the lawyer was sent to initiate mediation, or "another process". We all know what that other process is, litigation. He is being intentionally opaque.

And we have both Mr. Steven and his employee each sending legal threats, both overt, and implied. That speaks to a culture of lawyering up to resolve these issues that dcs had with the review, in my opinion. That is what dcs is about and who Mr. Steven is.

I will also tell you, my experience working for Corporations is that the folks that engage the lawyers are not the ones that approve the bills, so normal checks and balances indicates, to me, that someone else would’ve been aware of the lawyers, and what they were doing for the corporation. If not, they have even more problems there.

I find Mr. Steven’s explanation in his most recent communication as credible as his outright lies in his first communication. If it quacks like a duck...