Leaderboard

Looks good, I'm not the world's biggest fan of IPB, but it's still approximately several thousand times better than Huddler.

Ah - I have to declare an interest here. I have both been working with Russ on his three year battle with the ASA, and also he markets one of my designs under license (The Superkord-SD range), where the S is for Sawyers). The problem is there is a lot of hyperbole about mains cables, one way or the other. But this particular tussle had its genesis with a guy called Ben Goldacre. He has a column in a UK daily newspaper called The Guardian called Bad Science. He's also published a book of the same name (which I have read and enjoyed), and has a website with a forum. Ben Goldacre is a practicing medical doctor, and makes an excellent contribution to debunking the Pharmaceuticals industry, homeopathy, and the media portrayal of health risks. However, he has neither the training or techical skill to pronounce on other topics. However, around four or five years ago, and (as above) based on no technical evidence whatever, attacked Russ in national media regarding claims about the attributes of his mains cables. A few months later, he phoned the sales people at Russ Andrews and bought one - after which it went kind of quiet, which could certainly be interpreted as Goldacre actually having heard a difference. The next thing that happened was a *single* complainant, who is listed as being a customer of Russ Andrews, raised three objections (All public domain - check the ASA's site). A response was made by Russ before I got involved, the ASA appointed their own expert - a Nottingham University academic, and in 2008 the complaints were upheld. Subsequently a second complaint was made, not dissimilar to the first. At this point I have to say that the ASA protects the anonymity of complainants - you have no right in law to get this information. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the ASA, since it is not a Government body. This puts the accused under significant pressure - for example if the complainant is a media figure, which might allegedly influence the ruling of the ASA decision - well tough luck, defendent. You also have no right to know whether the first and the second complainant are the same person (it is highly likely that they are). Russ then commissioned Ben Duncan to carry out a programme of work to demonstrate the RFI rejecting properties of the woven cables. I was asked to scrutinise Duncan's work to make sure that there were no technical flaws (I sought and received no pay for this; it was simply a cause worth the fight). Ben measured the attenuation of the Classic, Reference and Signature power cables as compared with a regular IEC cable and a reference RG58 cable from 100MHz to 1.8GHz using an HP spectrum analyzer). What came out was that there was a baseline attenuation and a comb-like filtering effect, both of wich improved as the number of cables in the weave increased. Technically this is a result of the very low characteristic impedance of the woven cables - in the range 11 to 30 ohms - and impedance mismatch at either end of the cable produces the attenuation effect. It is significantly higher attenuation as compared with a regular IEC cable. These measurements were performed in Differential Mode only, at this stage. The ASA appointed a second expert, this time in the field of EMC. He objected to Duncan's report on the basis that (i) DM rfi is not the main problem, CM (common mode) rfi is the dominant source of interference and (i) the 50-ohm environment is not representative of a real mains supply; he suggested using an ISN at 150 ohms (which is no more representative than 50 ohms). We subsequently measured CM RFI attenuation, and showed that this was also significant and had similar characteristics to DM. Eventually, after 15 months, the ASA upheld the secnd set of complaints. They cited the lack of CM measurements (which is clearly incorrect) and other major incorrect and inconsistent assertions that were all covered in the techical reports and measurements. Because of the failure of process and content, the ASA have (most unusually) granted an appeal post ruling, which is under preparation. The average time that the ASA takes to rule is 13 days after complaint. The Russ Andrews case is now in its third year. The ASA council, who eventually rule on cases, is predominantly humanities based (including Andrew Motion, the Poet Laureate), and ill equipped to rule on a highly technical case. Now two things are worth noting. First is that Russ Andrews is a micro-business. It employs less than ten staff. They work out of a unit in Kendal in the Enlish Lake District, which is an employment black spot. It is neither wealthy nor has significant financial reserves. In my experience, the staff are committed and highly professional. Russ has a 60 day no quibble returns policy - and currently returns of mains cable products are running at 3%. So there is actually zero customer risk - you don't hear a difference - send it back for a 100% refund. They have also had to take out bank loans to fund their activities againt the ASA. So there the matter rests. Candidly, and given the history of this case, going back to Goldacre's media attack, I suspect that the ASA will still uphold their decision. And at that point, there is nothing more to be done - a small, sub-million-pound turnover microbusiness with 8 employees will have lost. History aside - do these products work? Well, my system is wired with a selection of Russ's mains cable and signal cable products, and both systems (including the T2) are sitting on RA's torlyle racks. Which is all the evidence that I need.