Expensive cables - At last someone takes some action

bob_a_builder

"The Advertising Standards Authority has slapped hi-kit supplier Russ Andrews for claiming its super-duper mains cables could reduce radio interference on the power line."

"Russ Andrews provided a host of anecdotal evidence, and one study, claiming that radio interference was a real problem, but undermined that argument by accepting that it was also a matter of opinion"

About time too

LINK

aliEnRIK

To be fair to RA, he measureably proved that his cables do reduce the noise floor of an amp at its 'output' by reducing RFI

The ASA didnt like that no ABX blind tests could prove it, and yet ABX blind tests say amps all sound the same when I can tell you for a fact they dont.

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

googler

From other sources, it appears that those who conducted the study presented by RA to the ASA have publicly put their name to it, but the 'acoustic technician' acting as consultant to the ASA is still un-named, and it's unclear what relevant qualifications he/she has.....

Why is it 'about time too' ???

bob_a_builder

Been selling 'Snake Oil' for too long

"Ruled that the effect was not proven, although it was implied to have been by the advertising."

I assume if he can prove it, he'll get the ruling overturned. Ball in his court

aliEnRIK

Theyre not 'Snake Oil' as they MEASUREABLY affect an amps output by reducing the noise floor. Snake oil would mean they do nothing, and thats clearly not the case

googler

bob_a_builder wrote: »

Been selling 'Snake Oil' for too long

I assume if he can prove it, he'll get the ruling overturned. Ball in his court

Exactly my point - the plaintiff (RA) has provided documented evidence, but who at the ASA is qualified to assess it? Nobody. Which is why they called on their 'expert' who rubbished it. But the expert's qualifications for the job aren't on record, he/she hasn't been named, and he/she is described elsewhere as an 'acoustic technician', which seems to me the wrong field of expertise to be assessing electrical cables.

How would you prove RA's products to be 'Snake Oil', if we asked you to?

kwikbreaks

Why wasn't the the test data proving the measurable difference presented to the ASA then? The article says there was nothing proven?

====

Ah right - it was presented but discounted by the ASA. Time for m'learned friends to be rubbing their hands in glee then. I imagine that somebody flogging kettle leads for over a grand a pop must be able to afford some good ones.

tbourner

Need to do something similar with £150 HDMI cables and gold plated fibre optic *shudder* cable advertising next then.

Inactive

kwikbreaks wrote: »

====

Ah right - it was presented but discounted by the ASA. Time for m'learned friends to be rubbing their hands in glee then. I imagine that somebody flogging kettle leads for over a grand a pop must be able to afford some good ones.

Indeed, there really are some gullible punters out there.

Fifer

googler wrote: »

How would you prove RA's products to be 'Snake Oil', if we asked you to?

The onus should be on the advertiser to demonstrate clear and acceptable evidence of their advertised claims.

kwikbreaks

I assume the ASA is publicly funded so I'd rather they directed their efforts elsewhere on more mainstream dishonest advertising. The people buying into this sort of thing are never going to be convinced that they are buying snake oil anyway regardless of any testing. If they believe they've improved their system and are satisfied the money was well spent then who am I to argue.