Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables (Read 10883 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Yet again, I like the ASA...

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Pu...F_ADJ_44177.htm

Quote
A customer challenged the claims:

1. "The key to success of our PowerKords is KIMBER's unique cable weave which has proven to dramatically reduce Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) already on the mains supply and to reject further pick up of RFI ...", because he believed the PowerKord cable would have little affect on conducted electromagnetic interference;

2.  "... Distortion levels inside equipment is vastly reduced, letting you hear a sound that is vastly clearer and purer, more detailed and far more dynamic ...", because he believed the Signature PowerKord cable would have little affect on measurable distortion in hi-fi equipment, and

3.  "... eliminate system sound fluctuation and help to create a super-quiet noise floor, allowing more believable dynamics, deeper bass and lower high frequency distortion ... Listen out for a quieter noise floor (expect more dynamic music and greater detail) and a much more cohesive musical sound ...", because he believed the advertised spike-protecting devices would have little affect on the noise floor in hi-fi equipment.


....


Our expert considered that the magazine articles did not provide evidence for the performance of the cables because experimental details for the perceptual measurements were not given and some of the reviews related to speaker cables and not mains cables.  We considered that the testimonials represented customers' opinions and therefore did not constitute robust scientific evidence.  Our expert disagreed with Russ Andrews assertion that sound quality variations were subjective and not capable of objective substantiation.  He said, in the field of audio, the ABX test method was well established and probably one of the most commonly used.  We considered that the evidence submitted was not sufficiently robust to show that PowerKords was proven to dramatically reduce RFI which was already on the mains supply and stop further pick up.  We concluded that the ad was misleading.


....


We told Russ Andrews not use the claims again unless they could substantiate them with robust scientific evidence.



Worth reading in full.

Interestingly, it seems the cables in question do reduce the "common mode" noise in the mains cable (i.e. noise that's present on both + and - conductors, so a device driven by the difference in voltage between the two conductors won't see it), but no evidence was provided that this makes any difference to the performance of audio equipment.

I guess now Russ Andrews needs to find some really badly designed piece of audio equipment with a useless power supply that puts common mode noise from the mains cable directly onto the audio output, though it would have to be a truly bizarre design to do so!

Cheers,
David.

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #1 –
Very interesting! Thanks for posting that.

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #2 –
This is good news.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I guess now Russ Andrews needs to find some really badly designed piece of audio equipment with a useless power supply that puts common mode noise from the mains cable directly onto the audio output, though it would have to be a truly bizarre design to do so!
I just thought how do design such a thing. Firstly, you would have to omit the power transformer or switchmode PSU, as both reject common mode noise too well. Perhaps a low power design (1W into 8ohms, maybe) could get away with being powered off a big voltage divider, and a bunch of caps. Even then, though, I would expect common mode noise would be rejected too well. Anybody with some ideas? 

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #3 –
Unless the AC supply to the two wires is exactly balanced (each being the exact inverse of the other relative to ground) there is already a common mode voltage. In the case of 120 VAC, one wire is near ground while the other has 120 VAC, so the common mode voltage is 60 VAC. Equipment sold in the US doesn't seem to have a problem with this.

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #4 –
I believe they were talking about RFI, hence radio frequencies, not 60Hz.

I'm not sure about your definition of common mode pdg. I can see why you can argue it's right, but it's not how I usually think of it. I could be wrong.

Cheers,
David.

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #5 –
I'll assume this is legitimate, coming as it does from a .gov.uk domain, but I'd really expect better grammar from a large organisation writing a formal account.

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #6 –
Quote from: tgoose on
I'll assume this is legitimate, coming as it does from a .gov.uk domain, but I'd really expect better grammar from a large organisation writing a formal account.


? It's not a government organization, and doesn't come from gov.uk.  It's a self-monitoring agency set  up by advertisers in the UK.

Quote
The Advertising Standards Authority is the independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes. The strength of the self-regulatory system lies in both the independence of the ASA and the support and commitment of the advertising industry, through the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), to the standards of the codes, protecting consumers and creating a level playing field for advertisers

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #7 –
Quote from: tgoose on
I'll assume this is legitimate, coming as it does from a .gov.uk domain, but I'd really expect better grammar from a large organisation writing a formal account.


You ever met a government employee? I'm not surprised...

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #8 –
Sorry, I'm going mad. Too many windows open. I do find it rather weird that the ASA can't find someone to write correctly, though. It makes it look like a spoof, or something.

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #9 –
Some people, crafty hi-fi salesmen included, try to justify themselves by claiming that it is their 'opinion', no matter it is devious, mis-leading or utter rubbish!

ASA Adjudication is very thorough. It ends by asserting,
"We told Russ Andrews not use the claims again unless they could substantiate them with robust scientific evidence."

Will Russ Andrews stop his tactics more suited to a snake oil merchant or will he, the sort of clever man that he is, find ways around CAP Codes?

I would also like to see withdrawal of some of his dodgy offerings; voluntarily or otherwise.

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #10 –
What surprised me on the ASA website:
Quote
Number of complaints: 1
Is that all it takes ?

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #11 –
Quote from: tgoose on
... I'd really expect better grammar from a large organisation writing a formal account.


It's clumsily written perhaps, but I see few problems with the grammar -- at least in that short extract.  (I didn't read the whole account.)

The first section is quoting PowerKords advertising material, so is irrelevant, since it wasn't written by the ASA but by PowerKords.


There is this:

Quote
Russ Andrews assertion


That should be a possessive: the assertion belongs to Russ Andrews.

And there's this:

Quote
show that PowerKords was proven


The correct past tense and past participle of "to prove" is "proved".  The word "proven" is a term from Scottish law that people have begun to adopt as a kind of elegant variation, but it's not correct for an ordinary past participle.

I can't see anything else there.  Someone might think there's a confusion of number here:

Quote
We told Russ Andrews not use the claims again unless they could substantiate them with robust scientific evidence.


But I don't think there is, because I don't think "they" refers back to "Russ Andrews".  I suppose the ASA should have written:

Quote
We told Russ Andrews not use the claims again unless PowerKords could substantiate them with robust scientific evidence.


But this is picking nits.

It's the kind of writing you can read every day in a daily newspaper.  It's not the kind of writing that, for example, some phishers betray themselves with.

UK's advertising standards authority say no to audiophile cables

Reply #13 –
Quote from: krabapple on
In the interest of scrupulosity [is that even a word?] here's a dissection of the ASA expert counterclaim  re: RFI

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....10#post13488510


From there:
Quote
Had the "expert" provided a complete analysis using transmission line theory, he would have not been so adamant that claim #1 was incorrect. For example, if the powercord impedance was indeed lower by construction, that will indeed cause a reflection of RFI on the line back away from the equipment.. This is trivially known, but ignored here. Instead, what was harped upon was the lack of documentation...

I've not claimed that kimber's assertions are correct or incorrect. Just that the process used to discount the assertion was not adequate to the task.

If I were to claim an IEC adapter with a common mode choke rejected RFI on the line, would my claim also be rejected on lack of documentation???
Indeed, as far as claim 1 goes, this seems to be correct. This means one specific thing however: the exact technical justification used by the ASA appears to have been incorrect. However, there are a couple of things it doesn't mean. First, it doesn't mean there is any improvement in sound quality - measureable or perceptable. Second, it doesn't mean that this noise gets through any sort of decent power supply - as the poster correctly pointed out. Third, it doesn't invalidate the other claims.

Honestly, though, power cord BS makes speaker cable BS look like excellent science. The debate, however, goes on.