ASA Adjudication on The Chord Company Ltd - Advertising Standards Authority

I think this was the right call (though I still find the ASA to be a nanny-state entity which is rightly deserved upon those who cannot make their own common-sense judgements). I also find the folks at The Chord Company to be very good people whom I hold in high regard and whose future success is persistently well-wished!

The problem is, given a highly-competitive audio accessories market, how does one stand out on principle when the very notions that make or break a brand's success might be easily copied unscrupulously by a competitor? Patent it. If there is something revolutionary to be had as regards a measurement or manufacturing / assembly process, then it probably has a practical application outside of the audio industry that could easily be substantiated as well as remunerated.

(start rant) There is nothing in the audio engineering discipline which cannot be measured, even if sideways (measuring the effects or artifacts rather than at its origin). With regard to Ethernet cables, this measurement can most certainly be done, has been done by others (including competing manufacturers within the industry) and can be easily stated from an analog RF perspective. (end rant)

Otherwise, statements of performance based on comparatively subjective demonstrations remain a subjective exercise which (in spite of my dislike for thought-police approaches to advertising standards) cannot (by definition) be held in some sort of objective light, when required.

Chord are introducing another ethernet cable:

The 'Schrodinger' (cat 5, 5e, 6 etc etc).

G

Probably...

Would you rather just let drug companies, for example, advertise claims that they have no proof for? Apart from "we asked some people to hold their hands up if they thought our pill made them feel better and some did"?

The ASA does a reasonable job; it is actually a very weak code - you are actually allowed to make ludicrous claims as long as they are clearly hyperbole! But it's better than nothing.

I repeat, if the claim is that Chord cables are audibly better, how hard is it for Chord personnel to demonstrate the truth of this claim by making the discrimination in a blind test?

I don't consider it to be relevant which potential consumers Chord are targetting, the ASA is there to ensure that adverts are clear and accurate. Chord can either change the wording to make them clear and accurate as I indicated, or provide the evidence to substantiate the existing wording. No big deal IMHO either way. Chord have probably got it all sorted out by now either way.

Its also irrelevant whether one person or a thousand people found the advert misleading, its the ASA who arbitrate - its not down to a referendum ! It would be nice to see other HiFi manufacturers looking carefully at their ads and modifying them if necessary in the light of this ruling. If they are all targetting Hifi Buffs, then certainly hifi Buffs will fully appreciate the value of "subjective" listening tests ie use them as a guide, but try before you buy !

The ASA report states

"Because we had not seen such evidence, we concluded the claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading."

Maybe Chord should have demonstrated the cable to the ASA? To be honest, I am more likely to agree with the ASA personally.

IF there is a vast difference, I ask a simple question, why are Cymbisosis not using expensive Cat 5 cables for there new premesis ?

"There is nothing in the audio engineering discipline which cannot be measured, even if sideways (measuring the effects or artifacts rather than at its origin"

Sorry, cannot agree with that. test equipment for analogue audio is stuck in the prehistoric era. 

Jon, not sure I agree, can you give some examples. I think some modern analogue  test equipment is great.. Spectrum analyzers, distortion and circuit analyzers, modern storage oscilloscopes and not to mention test simulators.

Simon

+1

The problem with designing test equipment to measuring something that we sense is that, to be complete, it has to model human perception, and that means understanding how the brain works.  We are a long way from achieving that.

Taking sound as an example, it has been shown that the human ear/brain combination can distinguish Time/Frequency information within the time period known as the Fourier Uncertainty (I've given a link in a previous thread).  Currently no mathematical model exists from which to build an instrument to do the same.

So here's just one example as to why not all effects can be measured objectively.

Chord made the claim that their cables have lower noise. Noise is measurable with existing test gear and no complete theory of how the brain works is required to measure it. They couldn't produce evidence to substantiate their claims. Nor could they produce a single person who was able to discriminate between chord cables and a standard cable. Their claims are bogus. Simple.

Maybe Chord will learn something from Russ Andrews on his experiences with ASA.  The well publicised first case over RA marketing claims about how a cable sounds was upheld (lost). I understand he engaged an independent lab to carry out measurements & have the lab format the presentation for the 2nd case & ASA found in his favour. 

I wonder who is making these cases against RA & Chord - anyone know??   

What did make a difference for me was a Chord Company sp/dif optical cable, I was using a £10 one from some high street retailer, the Chord one offered my a fuller bodied, better dynamic and more complete sound.

Has anyone taken them to task about quality sp/dif cables? No! There is an audible difference.

Sure, I have the fullblown Prism dScope3 system here, which is about as state of the art as you can get for audio analysis. Others prefer AP etc etc which is just fine

But its still a pile of junk at telling you what you hear, and how you hear it. We really havent moved on that much from a B&K 2010 and pen chart recorder. 

Jon, surely electrical measurement, and analysing what we hear are a world apart.

The science of the latter is evolving, albeit slowly, and I follow interesting developments with the AES expanding the boundaries here.

However the latter will I expect define models ultimately of greater accuracy, but I suspect they will still be dependent on physical, enumerated measurement from state of the art analogue circuitry / small signal test and measurement equipment.

Simon

I heard it is to be called the "Heisenberg."

Uncertain how to take these posts!

In that case I'd imagine it will have a rather cold, calculating, and straightforward sound

Well it is now...  after that observation.

To be or not to be, that is the question......

Will we eventually get the answer, perhaps

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...

Although I have not followed the story closely this reflects my understanding based on what I have read. The claim the ASA have sanctioned is reduction of noise levels. Clearly measurable, if true.

The price point was taking the proverbial. I'd want diamond-encrusted gold cables for this money.

I didn't say it was good evidence - I was merely responding to the OPs statement that they could find noone who could hear a difference - they evidently thought that they did have somone who could hear a difference as shown in their videos and in the trade press review - whether that is good enough evidence is a totally different matter.  To be fair he did say in a blind test and, as far as I know, these weren't.  I havn't heard the cable and I'm not defending the advert, the price or the cables capability

"Trade Press Reviews" Eh!  Well they are much more convincing than blind testing. NOT

If you look back at this industry there have been a series of Blind Tests that have generally proved that our aural ability to tell things apart is rubbish.

Just go back and read Linsley Hood's version of one he went on.  This had the aim of ranking a series of amplifiers and was a complete failure.  One individual voted one amplifier the best in one session and in a later made it the worse.  They could not tell silicon from glass amps!

Later, of course, the journos cried foul, claiming that they needed some sort of "visual reference".  Guess what group performed the worst.

Read the average review and marvel at the descriptive phrases these guys use and you won't be surprised they did so badly.