Here's my post in question:
Please do read it.
To complain about price is one thing. It's an expensive thing, and perhaps you'll even use it and still find it overpriced. And that's fine.
What I have no patience for--and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether a company is a sponsor or not--is the use of completely unsubstantiated or false statements for the sake of bolstering one's arguments. We have had amp manufacturers (mostly non-sponsors) publicly accused of stealing other amp makers' designs and selling them as original (and I mean assertions beyond use of prior art, which every amp maker today essentially has to do--we're talking accusations of outright theft, value for value). So far, overwhelmingly, those accusations have been false, and those posts deleted. We have had a couple of cases where there was indeed outright theft of design. In one such case (much of which played out on these forums), the original designer sent us the schematics to prove that a company was selling his design commercially, and the accused owned up to it (and, if I recall correctly, was banned from this forum).
This website is read by around two million people per month. We expect anyone posting to it to show some responsibility, not just make blind accusations just to get behind a passionate position. Again, read my post above. The OP made the following statements:
- "And it is based on a free open source software that they could tweak as needed. There was no major investment in software code that much cheaper DAPs have had to do."
- The fact that was stated so authoritatively doesn't change the fact that it's false.
- "Their core DAC can't even be considered current gen..."
- My response can be found in that post, and I stand by it.
As I say in that post, reviewing something without having heard it (or even touched it) is a no-no around here. It happens, yes, and we don't actively look for every instance of it; but, when brought to our attention, we do at times step in when we feel it appropriate. To state as fact that there was no major investment in the software code is simply false--and that it's false is something I can say with certainty, and know I'm right about it. Like I said in that post, if the software was out there, freely available, the company's competitive peers would almost certainly jump on it in a heartbeat, rather than invest in their own.
The price bothers you? That's fine. It's expensive, I get it. Go ahead, discuss that. You want to start your own blog to spout nonsense or falsehoods as facts, that's your business--again, though, this website is currently read by around two million people per month, and as one of the custodians of the place, that won't fly here.