RA Lost the ASA Case
Posted by: Mike-B on 13 January 2011
Just reported in “The Register”
The Advertising Standards Authority has found against Russ Andrews for claiming its mains cables reduce radio interference on the power line.
The RA claims that PowerKords reduce noise in the mains supply because they are woven conductors enabling the company to charge in excess of £1000 for a what Register call a “kettle cable”.
ASA disagreed with RA & upheld complaints that radio-induced interference in the mains supply isn't a perceptible problem, and that even if it was, the PowerKord couldn't reduce it.
The Register conclude that this will not stop some people spending a grand on a kettle cable. The ASA can only prevent the Russ Andrews making the same claims again, not stop fools with too much money splurging it on unnecessary kit.
How does that compare with claims that other mains cables sound "better"
The full Register reportPosted on: 16 January 2011 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Science isn't alway clever enough to come up with genuine, meaningful, objective studies.
Maybe not, but a blind test yielding consistent and repeatable results might help, IMO.
Posted on: 16 January 2011 by Andrew Randle
RFI is a problem that has been recognised for a long time. Its been the reason why grid stopper resistors have been used in valve designs over the last century.
I had a glare problem from an ECC99, which was solved by using a ferrite bead instead of a grid resistor (applying an impedance at RF and no resistance at AF - a bead was better than a resistor at preserving the vitality of the music).
Some designers will apply heater resistors as well as grid stopper resistors to remove RFI from the heater power to the valve.
Andrew Randle
Posted on: 16 January 2011 by likesmusic
That may well be true Andrew, and neither the ASA nor their independant expert disagreed that RFI exists, but they did dispute that the RA Powerkords had a significant effect on reducing it.
Posted on: 16 January 2011 by Rocker
The real cost to us audiophiles is that it now has become impossible to state that one product is better than another without 'providing robust proof'. So how can one prove that a costly M/C cartridge is better than a freebie M/M? Or a 250 is better than a 140?
Simply cannot be done.
My question is what was the motivation of the complainant? To me it also seems that the 'expert' did not really carry out much research before coming up with his findings. One persons opinion has seriously limited an entire industry. To my way of thinking that is absurd.
Posted on: 16 January 2011 by deadlifter
I have known RA kit to be referred to as Russ Abbot before now
Posted on: 16 January 2011 by likesmusic
It is perfectly within the ASA code to say that you prefer something on the grounds of subjective opinion. What is not permissible is to make a claim that is susceptible to objective verification that you cannot produce the evidence for. RA made a technical claim, which they couldn't prove. Claiming it was a personal attack is just a red-herring. You can read the expert judgement
here. Seems pretty straightforward to me. They don't work as claimed.
Posted on: 16 January 2011 by Don Atkinson
quote:
a blind test yielding consistent and repeatable results might help, IMO.
Jon, when I mentioned the 100 sample, it was just a generality, but implied the usual rules including blind testing, extended listening in your own system (not 100 bods in a room for a couple of hours) etc etc.
I was simply suggesting that our ears can often be a better guide to enjoyable sound rather than some scientific formula or specification.
I think we might be in some sort of loose agreement?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 16 January 2011 by JonR
To the extent that we all hear different things, Don, I'd certainly agree with you there. I take your point that blind testing was implied in your '100 people' example. The reason I stress it is for the past couple of years I have become increasingly sceptical of the claims made by cable manufacturers and wonder to what extent our perception of any such sound quality differences is coloured by expectation, based on awareness of the specific cable in use.
Posted on: 17 January 2011 by Rocker
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
It is perfectly within the ASA code to say that you prefer something on the grounds of subjective opinion. What is not permissible is to make a claim that is susceptible to objective verification that you cannot produce the evidence for. RA made a technical claim, which they couldn't prove.
I do not want to annoy anyone or start a mini war but as I understand it, the ASA report did state that RA included some subjective opinion as well as the objective report in his submission. From the ASA report, I cannot see how anyone can now say that X is better than Y without ROBUST PROOF [whatever that is]. Even the legendary demos by Lars are now in question as a result of the ASA ruling.
Posted on: 18 January 2011 by likesmusic
What you can't say is that 'my cable reduces RFI' (which is measurable) without producing proof. Andrews produced no adequate proof. except one poor study which he commisioned after the first judgment went against him. Other manufacturers, such as Elucidate, publish the measurements on their websites, so it is possible to measure these things, and publish the evidence. Whether the effects of RFI are perceptible is a separate matter - though Andrews produced no evidence of that either. I'm sure Naim can easily show that their cables affect the performance of their amplifiers - for example, in this month's HIFi sound a review mentioned that without Naim cable the Naim amp on test was unstable. Just because Andrews' claims had no basis in fact does not invalidate all claims for cables.
