GoldenOne

Hard to be certain but based on the 1-bit nature and the physical layout it's almost certainly a thermometer coded/moving average FIR filter. Similar to whats found in the Holo DACs for their DSD output and what Jussi's open source design does. So oversampling/conversion to 1-bit would be required

I don't mean irrelevant entirely, just in this thread. My own (or anyone else's) review approach is certainly valid to debate and I'm happy to do so elsewhere. I just mean it's irrelevant to the topic of manufacturer retaliation. Someone being threatened over a review is not OK, regardless of whether I agree with their approach to reviewing or not.

This tbh. If people just want data with minimal to no subjective commentary, that's what I post on https://goldensound.audio If people want my subjective input, it's available in my videos (typically without in depth discussion of the measurements) I intentionally keep the two somewhat separate. If people have a strong objection to subjective reviews, the objective data by itself is available. But that's not really the point of this whole debate. Whether or not someone likes what I say is irrelevant. Amir certainly dislikes my reviews for instance, but he was still happy to provide input because this isn't about whether you agree with a particular person's views or style of content. It's about reviewers being able to actually share their opinion or objective testing in the first place without fear of retaliation from manufacturers. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

He apparently has even been messaging the FBI.... He's had some sort of obsession ever since the MQA video, since he was/is a very vocal proponent of MQA. Got himself banned from various forums for some of the disruptive harassment and rants he was doing, so decided an anonymous twitter acc was clearly needed...

That guy's behaviour is outright stalkerish at this point tbh

Yes, as I explained at length in the video, these were not factual errors. I stand by this, some of the points I've had third parties provide backing for, and some are just so clear cut that it would be ridiculous to argue the contrary anyway (such as DSD being the default mode for example, see the clip I included in the video of me factory resetting a unit and it reverting to DSD mode). Additionally, most of these points I was NOT told about until the demand letter arrived. It's not like this list was sent previously but I ignored it and then they got a lawyer involved. The communication from the lawyer was the first instance of most of these points being mentioned to me at all. I'd discussed some prior to this with David, such as the setup during filming, but I'd given my explanation to him, and he provided no contest/response to that, and so I'd considered the matter resolved. I am always willing to correct genuine factual errors. I have done this with other content before, and in this instance I did correct the mention of the 10Mhz clock for example. But just because a manufacturer asserts something, does not make it true, and I am not going to remove or 'correct' something that was not incorrect in the first place. I am looking forward to discussing these points with them in person on Thursday and will update once I've done so.

I do not know what you mean. Humility in what way? This is a screenshot of the communication from the lawyer sent to me. As above, I'd again ask what exactly you feel I did incorrectly and what should have been done instead.

I don't agree that reviews need be sent to a manufacturer prior to publication, but more to the point, I HAD asked them for information about what they thought was incorrect....twice....and took down the video as a gesture of good faith even after being insulted in their emails to me. They did not provide the information for 7 months, and then sent a threat to sue. I'm going to hold off replying further as I don't think it'll be beneficial. I'm looking forward to speaking with them in person on Thursday.

The issue here is that with the exception of the minor point about the 10Mhz clock, the other points that dCS claimed were incorrect were not in fact incorrect. I'm thankful for dCS' apology, and based on that, the other actions taken, as well as speaking at length with David on the phone, I do feel that he is sincerely trying to move things in a better direction. But I would like to make clear that I stand by everything I said with regards to the factual points of contention in my video. This is something I'll be discussing with them on Thursday

I'm unsure as to what you're trying to say. What would you suggest I should have done?

Because the review was made before I joined headphones.com and on my own channel. It's nothing to do with them. I'm thankful for them allowing me to speak on the issue on the headphone show, but it'd be unfair to expect them to cover costs and I wouldn't ask them to do so unless I was unable to do so myself. I'm sure if I'd asked they would have been willing to help, but I don't want to ask people for money unless it's necessary. Plenty of people reached out to me directly asking if they could contribute financially and I thanked them but said I won't do that unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Whilst it didn't go to court thankfully, I still had to consult with a lawyer multiple times throughout this process which did cost a reasonable amount. Hence I sold some stuff to cover the costs.

I'm not exactly sure how much calmer I could have been. Am I supposed to just keep quiet and not talk about it? Just do what they ask to avoid making a fuss?

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

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.