Cable vendor slapped for unproven claims (UK)

[Knuckledragger]

Odd. The emoticon isn't working in original messages, but it's working in quotes.

:basement:

:basement:

Also odd. (second one has spaces)

[HeadphoneAddict]

Mr. Eddy, i'd be more than happy to delete your account if you find the forum distasteful but also find that you are unable to restrain yourself from visiting.

I'm actually very curious to read what he says next, after his request to go bye bye.

[The Monkey]

Very interesting, Craig. Please keep us posted.

[Craig Sawyers]

Very interesting, Craig. Please keep us posted.

Will do.

I think the thing that bewilders me particularly is the power of the ASA. They investigate every case, even made by a single individual (as with the two cases regarding Russ's mains cables). And once they have made up their mind using the ASA Council, there is absolutely nothing can be done. Major, billions turn over companies like Tesco and RyanAir just roll over.

I even tried to find if anyone had taken out a legal case against an ASA ruling. As far as I found, the answer is no.

So the ASA is all-powerful. In a court of law, you see your accuser. With the Government you can demand the information using the Freedom of Information Act. But with the ASA you have no such rights.

Unfortunately this case has very dangerous implications for the Audio industry as a whole, for both products made and sold in the UK, but also for imported products promoted using literature supplied from the manufacturer. So it can and will hit any audio product imported into the UK from (for example) the US. It leaves it open to every frivolous claim that a product is advertised using wording that the ASA believes is either Untruthful or is Unsubstantiated by their own definitions.

For example, Quad's famous "For the closest approach to the original sound" would be disallowed for the above reasons, and would have to be reworded "Quad believes that our products provide a close appromation to the original sound".

[Tyll Hertsens]

Thanks for taking the time to post long, Craig.

[justin]

Craig, did you ever read about how Virtual Dynamics had undergrad students do a "study" to prove their power cables were superior?

[Pars]

Yeah, that gives a lot more insight into things, and makes my snarky post sound, well... snarky.

So if the Appeal is ruled in favor of the plaintiff, what will the effect on Russ' business be? Is it a monetary judgment, cease and desist on the product in question?

[Craig Sawyers]

So if the Appeal is ruled in favor of the plaintiff, what will the effect on Russ' business be? Is it a monetary judgment, cease and desist on the product in question?

It is all to do with the wording of promotional material as defined by the ASA. Russ's 2006 document that is being objected to makes the claim that the improvement in sound quality by using one of his mains cables is down to its ability to attenuate mains borne rfi. It fortunately (for Russ Andrews Ltd) does not mean that he has to cease manufacture of any product, nor are their any punitive damages if he complies. Rather, Russ has tackled this from the perspective of fairness - that a complaint to the ASA from a single individual can trigger a three year battle by a tiny company frankly just ain't right.

Whether there is actually an improvement in sound quality is of course open to all the usual ugly discussions on the various general audio forums out there, and I don't comment on that.

But the ruling means is that you have to couch every statement you make with "We believe", "In our opinion" and so forth. You cannot say "It sounds better than a conventional mains cable", you have to say "In our listening tests, we believe that it sounds better than a conventional mains cable". To make a stronger claim, the ASA demands "robust" evidence to support that. The difficulty arises in that there is no formal definition of "robust", and the ASA has complete freedom to subjectively interpret it as they like. In fact they reinterpreted it at least twice during the last three years, each time after each submission of information from Russ Andrews.

So, although having shown that both DM and CM conducted RFI are reduced as compared with a conventional mains cable by rigorous measurement, and measured an increase in harmonic distortion of an audio amp when RFI is injected into the mains using a full Audio Precision test set, and supplied endless reports and data to the ASA in support of that, they still find that the evidence is insufficiently "robust".

The ASA's powers are being extended to much more comprehensively cover web advertising, starting on March 1st, opening a whole new can of worms. If you browse around in the Russ Andrews website, you'll see that they have already expurgated the strong statements and worded everything much more loosely in anticipation of the next individual complaint. Or the same individual complainant coming back for another pop.

Now there are opinions one way and the other about Russ, which is fine. But helicoptering above all that, what we have now is a precedent regarding the claims made by the Audio industry at large.

The safe hands (irony) that the ASA decisions are made by can be found here http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/ASA-Council.aspx . As I said previously, there is not one single technical bone in any of their bodies, as you can see from their on-line CV's.

[Beefy]

So, although having shown that both DM and CM conducted RFI are reduced as compared with a conventional mains cable by rigorous measurement, and measured an increase in harmonic distortion of an audio amp when RFI is injected into the mains using a full Audio Precision test set, and supplied endless reports and data to the ASA in support of that, they still find that the evidence is insufficiently "robust".

Well, I've got to agree with them, on the face of what I've seen - and pre-existing prejudices of course

Even if you can prove that it does shield, and does prevent negative effects from deliberately-injected radio signals, this says nothing of the typical usage scenario and what they claim. Tens or hundreds of km of power lines acting like an enormous antenna. Bog standard internal wiring. Then somehow shielding the last metre inside the house is going to make all the difference? Where is the evidence that a power cable would normally pick up a significant portion of the total RFI at this point? Where is the evidence that the RFI from this last metre is audible?

Reks is spot on. A DBT in a typical listening scenario is all that is required to put this issue to bed.

[Craig Sawyers]

a simple double blind test (perhaps repeated twice with different pools of subjects) is all that would have to be done to show whether the attenuated RFI actually makes a difference in sound quality. i've done a bunch of DBTs, with all kinds of cables, interconnect and power, so i can imagine what the results will show, but it wouldn't be difficult or time consuming for anyone involved.

It certainly does require a significant time committment, and very careful set up and analysis. Listener fatique and the skew that this introduces into the statistics has to be taken into account.

We used ABX testing during loudpeaker development when I was CTO of Wharfedale, with an acoustically transparent curtain between the listeners and the speakers, so I'm certainly not against the technique.

But the ASA case has nothing to do with being able to tell what the subjective differences, or otherwise, are. You have to look at the ASA website - an ABX test would simply be an "opinion" and hence not "robust" evidence - their italics. Russ Andrews promotional materials were judged to breach CAP code 3.1:

"Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation."

and CAP code 7.1

"No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise."

The only response to which is hard technical measurements - their case is down to objectivity, not subjectivity.

I really don't want to get into a tussle about this, because that is a no-win situation all round. But to put the data here, this a typical graph of rf attenuation (well it not technically attenuation - what does not get through is reflected) vs frequency.

[Craig Sawyers]

it's not a no-win situation at all, if a win is defined as knowing as definitively as possible whether the claims have merit. a DBT would be a reasonably definitive test, to me, and thus a winner. your tests would be adequate if the claims were simply about whether or not the cable rejects RFI better than other cable designs, but that doesn't seem to be what the claim actually is. it's the hearing that matters in audio, yes?

I'd certainly be interested in such a trial. The perception is that the difference between a Russ Andrews/Ray Kinber power cable and a regular kettle lead IEC is remarkable and non-subtle. The same is probably true of other cables based on more than smoke and mirrors, like Cardas. If that perception (and by implication the 97% who keep these expensive cables and don't return them in the 60 day trial period) is correct, it should be possible to hear by doing a high quality comparison.

I might weill set up a simple test using a pair of high current relays, arranged so that the cables are paralleled for a fraction of a second so that there is no perceptible changeover click. If I get around to this, I'll post a few first impressions.

But alas this is not the game the Advertising Standards Authority play. And they are immeasurably more used to ruling on a second hand car dealer who is misrepresenting his wares.