Poor Russ Andrews
- Thread starter aliEnRIK
- Start date
True
I kinda feel sorry for the guy to be honest. He had measured proof that they reduce RFI, which wasnt good enough for the ASA who probably dont even understand what theyre ruling over
They also didnt like that he didnt have ABX blind tests, and if we go down that route then all amps sound the same
Be interesting to see if he gives up or takes them on again
I kinda feel sorry for the guy to be honest. He had measured proof that they reduce RFI, which wasnt good enough for the ASA who probably dont even understand what theyre ruling over
They also didnt like that he didnt have ABX blind tests, and if we go down that route then all amps sound the same
Be interesting to see if he gives up or takes them on again
scene
Well-known member
It's the bit that says something like 'RFI doesn't have any effect, but our expert says the cables don't filter out the kind of RFI that has an effect' that gets me - well, that and the assumption that we're talking about RFI carried on the incoming mains supply, rather than picked up on, or radiated by, cables and equipment within the home.
Alienerik, the ASA understood fully what they were ruling over, which was firstly that the claims in the advertisement could not be substantiated, and secondly the likelihood of the advertisements to mislead. For the technical aspect they called in an expert.
Your comment about ABX blind tests is irrelevant.
The second part of the ruling clearly states that there are two parts to RFI, differential mode (DM) and common mode (CM), and that the design of the cables meant they could only filter the DM, and not the second. They also pointed out that the technical papers provided by Russ Andrews focussed only on DM. The final part of the verdict is quite clear:
"We considered that, because the products did not have an effect on CM RFI noise, and given the experts concerns about the lack of protective conductor and unrealistic termination impedances in the testing of DM RFI noise, the evidence we had seen was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the PowerKords products were effective in reducing mains-borne RFI."
Seems fair enough to me.
Your comment about ABX blind tests is irrelevant.
The second part of the ruling clearly states that there are two parts to RFI, differential mode (DM) and common mode (CM), and that the design of the cables meant they could only filter the DM, and not the second. They also pointed out that the technical papers provided by Russ Andrews focussed only on DM. The final part of the verdict is quite clear:
"We considered that, because the products did not have an effect on CM RFI noise, and given the experts concerns about the lack of protective conductor and unrealistic termination impedances in the testing of DM RFI noise, the evidence we had seen was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the PowerKords products were effective in reducing mains-borne RFI."
Seems fair enough to me.
For the purposes of balance, here's a link to the ASA adjudication, and the response from Russ Andrews:
"ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY RULES AGAINST RUSS ANDREWS AND THE HI-FI INDUSTRY
BUT ITS OWN EXPERT CONTRADICTS THE VALIDITY OF THE RULING
The Advertising Standards Authority today ruled against Russ Andrews Accessories Ltd., and by inference against the hi-fi industry, in the latest round of its investigations into the company's claims of RFI reduction by its mains cables. However, the ASA's own expert witness raised doubts about whether the circumstances in which there is a ruling to be made should even exist.
After many months of protracted expert witness testimony, the ASA has found against the comprehensive body of evidence gathered during Russ Andrews' substantial testing of its cables for RFI rejection. It has stated to the company that: "The advert must not appear again in its current form. We told Russ Andrews not to imply that RFI from mains electricity was a perceptible problem or that their products could reduce mains-borne RFI, unless they held robust substantiation to show that was the case." It is worth noting that at no time has the ASA stated that the company's cables do not improve sound quality.
This ruling raises several very important issues: for the integrity of the ASA's procedures, for Russ Andrews and for the wider hi-fi industry.
The complaint was made on 28 April 2009, following an earlier complaint from 2008, which also found against the company. The original investigation was fundamentally flawed, as the ASA's chosen expert witness was an acoustician and not an electronics expert. The company believes that this latest investigation is also flawed, as during the period from April 2009 until now, the ASA has changed the wording of its requirements on two occasions. In a letter dated June 2010 the ASA had adjusted the original complaint from "the ad was misleading because he believed Russ Andrews Accessories' research did not support the claims that the cables could reduce RFI" to "the ad was misleading because he believed Russ Andrews Accessories' research did not support the claims that the cables could reduce mains borne RFI".
This subsequently changed again, in the draft ruling received on 5 November 2010, to "the ad was misleading because he believed Russ Andrews Accessories' research did not support the claims that the cables could reduce mains borne RFI beyond a standard mains cable which could be used to power the equipment in question." In fact the Russ Andrews testing procedures did measure the RFI rejection properties compared to standard IEC mains cables and this evidence was submitted to the ASA. But, that aside, the ASA should not be changing the nature of the complaint to suit its recommendation. Secondly, after being asked to submit evidence to support the company's claims, the ASA changed the nature of its request to the submission of robust evidence. Whilst Russ Andrews firmly believes its evidence is both substantial and robust, the ASA should not be changing the specific nature of the request part way through the procedures.
As part of its ruling, the ASA stated "not to imply that RFI from mains electricity was a perceptible problem". The issue of RFI as a contributory factor to the distortion levels within hi-fi equipment and subsequent degrading of the reproduction is well known throughout the industry. The company measured an increase in distortion when RFI was applied to a component's power supply via the mains. Russ Andrews submitted in excess of 20 references from academic textbooks on the subjects of distortion and its effect on sound, noise and how it enters a system and perception of distortion. In addition, numerous testimonials were submitted from respected hi-fi journalists. The ASA chose to ignore all these submissions, with the result that Russ Andrews can no longer talk about RFI being a problem in hi-fi; in effect putting the onus on Russ Andrews to bear responsibility for the whole industry. Furthermore, no audio company will be able to make any claims about the effect their product has on the sound without providing substantial, robust evidence to prove their claims.
Russ Andrews, Managing Director, said "This complaint against our company has been made by one person with his or her own agenda, working to disrupt the business of a long established company and in so doing also affecting the whole of the specialist hi-fi industry." He went on to say "I do not accept the ruling of the ASA as our testing was both substantial and robust and proved the industry's accepted problem of RFI and the ability of our cables to reduce the effect. We will be appealing against the ruling."
In an intriguing twist, the ASA's own expert witness questioned the validity of the whole process and the fact that we are in a situation where the ruling has been made, by saying "Had Russ Andrews come to me in the first place, I am confident that this argument with ASA would not be taking place."
"ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY RULES AGAINST RUSS ANDREWS AND THE HI-FI INDUSTRY
BUT ITS OWN EXPERT CONTRADICTS THE VALIDITY OF THE RULING
The Advertising Standards Authority today ruled against Russ Andrews Accessories Ltd., and by inference against the hi-fi industry, in the latest round of its investigations into the company's claims of RFI reduction by its mains cables. However, the ASA's own expert witness raised doubts about whether the circumstances in which there is a ruling to be made should even exist.
After many months of protracted expert witness testimony, the ASA has found against the comprehensive body of evidence gathered during Russ Andrews' substantial testing of its cables for RFI rejection. It has stated to the company that: "The advert must not appear again in its current form. We told Russ Andrews not to imply that RFI from mains electricity was a perceptible problem or that their products could reduce mains-borne RFI, unless they held robust substantiation to show that was the case." It is worth noting that at no time has the ASA stated that the company's cables do not improve sound quality.
This ruling raises several very important issues: for the integrity of the ASA's procedures, for Russ Andrews and for the wider hi-fi industry.
The complaint was made on 28 April 2009, following an earlier complaint from 2008, which also found against the company. The original investigation was fundamentally flawed, as the ASA's chosen expert witness was an acoustician and not an electronics expert. The company believes that this latest investigation is also flawed, as during the period from April 2009 until now, the ASA has changed the wording of its requirements on two occasions. In a letter dated June 2010 the ASA had adjusted the original complaint from "the ad was misleading because he believed Russ Andrews Accessories' research did not support the claims that the cables could reduce RFI" to "the ad was misleading because he believed Russ Andrews Accessories' research did not support the claims that the cables could reduce mains borne RFI".
This subsequently changed again, in the draft ruling received on 5 November 2010, to "the ad was misleading because he believed Russ Andrews Accessories' research did not support the claims that the cables could reduce mains borne RFI beyond a standard mains cable which could be used to power the equipment in question." In fact the Russ Andrews testing procedures did measure the RFI rejection properties compared to standard IEC mains cables and this evidence was submitted to the ASA. But, that aside, the ASA should not be changing the nature of the complaint to suit its recommendation. Secondly, after being asked to submit evidence to support the company's claims, the ASA changed the nature of its request to the submission of robust evidence. Whilst Russ Andrews firmly believes its evidence is both substantial and robust, the ASA should not be changing the specific nature of the request part way through the procedures.
As part of its ruling, the ASA stated "not to imply that RFI from mains electricity was a perceptible problem". The issue of RFI as a contributory factor to the distortion levels within hi-fi equipment and subsequent degrading of the reproduction is well known throughout the industry. The company measured an increase in distortion when RFI was applied to a component's power supply via the mains. Russ Andrews submitted in excess of 20 references from academic textbooks on the subjects of distortion and its effect on sound, noise and how it enters a system and perception of distortion. In addition, numerous testimonials were submitted from respected hi-fi journalists. The ASA chose to ignore all these submissions, with the result that Russ Andrews can no longer talk about RFI being a problem in hi-fi; in effect putting the onus on Russ Andrews to bear responsibility for the whole industry. Furthermore, no audio company will be able to make any claims about the effect their product has on the sound without providing substantial, robust evidence to prove their claims.
Russ Andrews, Managing Director, said "This complaint against our company has been made by one person with his or her own agenda, working to disrupt the business of a long established company and in so doing also affecting the whole of the specialist hi-fi industry." He went on to say "I do not accept the ruling of the ASA as our testing was both substantial and robust and proved the industry's accepted problem of RFI and the ability of our cables to reduce the effect. We will be appealing against the ruling."
In an intriguing twist, the ASA's own expert witness questioned the validity of the whole process and the fact that we are in a situation where the ruling has been made, by saying "Had Russ Andrews come to me in the first place, I am confident that this argument with ASA would not be taking place."
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Andrew Everard:
For the purposes of balance, here's the response from Russ Andrews:
"ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY RULES AGAINST RUSS ANDREWS AND THE HI-FI INDUSTRY
BUT ITS OWN EXPERT CONTRADICTS THE VALIDITY OF THE RULING...snip...Furthermore, no audio company will be able to make any claims about the effect their product has on the sound without providing substantial, robust evidence to prove their claims.
Not really sure why that should be a problem? Seems a reasonable requirement to me.
For the purposes of balance, here's the response from Russ Andrews:
"ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY RULES AGAINST RUSS ANDREWS AND THE HI-FI INDUSTRY
BUT ITS OWN EXPERT CONTRADICTS THE VALIDITY OF THE RULING...snip...Furthermore, no audio company will be able to make any claims about the effect their product has on the sound without providing substantial, robust evidence to prove their claims.
Not really sure why that should be a problem? Seems a reasonable requirement to me.
John Duncan
Well-known member
the_lhc:Not really sure why that should be a problem? Seems a reasonable requirement to me.
You'd think. But...picking an advert at random from this month's mag, one makes the claim "Sounds great." What if I disagree? Can I claim the advert is misleading?
You'd think. But...picking an advert at random from this month's mag, one makes the claim "Sounds great." What if I disagree? Can I claim the advert is misleading?
For even more balance, note that Mr Andrews does not comment on the part of the ruling quoted in my earlier post, nor does he substantiate his claim, in evocative capitals, that "its own expert contradicts the validity of the ruling."
By the end of the piece this has been watered down to a mild " Had Russ Andrews come to me in the first place...I am confident that this argument with the ASA would not be taking place." This implies more of an amicable, out of court settlement so to speak rather than a contradiction of the validity of the ruling.
I'd be wary of the attempted refutation of the findings. I know nothing of Mr Andrews nor his products, but his statements don't endear me to them.
Also note that draft statements are just that, and often are redrafted for technical or legal reasons. There is nothing suspicious nor wrong in that.
By the end of the piece this has been watered down to a mild " Had Russ Andrews come to me in the first place...I am confident that this argument with the ASA would not be taking place." This implies more of an amicable, out of court settlement so to speak rather than a contradiction of the validity of the ruling.
I'd be wary of the attempted refutation of the findings. I know nothing of Mr Andrews nor his products, but his statements don't endear me to them.
Also note that draft statements are just that, and often are redrafted for technical or legal reasons. There is nothing suspicious nor wrong in that.
Or indeed "the world's first speaker to deliver true, soul moving sound from the tiniest and svelte design imaginable"
Now grammar aside - shouldn't that be 'sveltest' - I'd love to see the claims in that statement put to the test, dealing as they do with the ability to move the soul (the existence of which you would of course first have to prove), and the limits of imagination.
It goes on to say that the product "is waiting to instantly transport you to your favourite stadium, jazz club or opera house."
The complainant spent an hour sitting on the product, but didn't find himself at Anfield, Ronnie Scott's or the Met: he thus doubts that the product could possibly live up to the manufacturer's claims...
Now grammar aside - shouldn't that be 'sveltest' - I'd love to see the claims in that statement put to the test, dealing as they do with the ability to move the soul (the existence of which you would of course first have to prove), and the limits of imagination.
It goes on to say that the product "is waiting to instantly transport you to your favourite stadium, jazz club or opera house."
The complainant spent an hour sitting on the product, but didn't find himself at Anfield, Ronnie Scott's or the Met: he thus doubts that the product could possibly live up to the manufacturer's claims...
When we owned a BMW, the gas-guzzling monster wasn't 'the Ultimate Driviing Machine', either. And the Peugeot I learnt to drive in certainly wasn't the drive of my life. Nor, of course, is Carlsberg probably the best lager in the world....
chebby
Well-known member
I wish I could afford the life of such sybaritic splendour that my biggest worry was whether £1250 mains leads were really preventing my appliances from competing with CETI or not.
Big Aura
Well-known member
Maybe if he added some L.casei Immunitas to the mains cable?
"The original investigation was fundamentally flawed, as the ASA's chosen expert witness was an acoustician and not an electronics expert. "
So rather than proving there's a problem in theory, the ASA sought to see was there an ascertainable improvement (admittedly subjective, but still an 'expert' opinion).
show me all the graphs you want, but if I can't hear the difference, and an expert "hearer" can't hear it - I'm not that interested in paying £1,400 for a new mains cable.
"The original investigation was fundamentally flawed, as the ASA's chosen expert witness was an acoustician and not an electronics expert. "
So rather than proving there's a problem in theory, the ASA sought to see was there an ascertainable improvement (admittedly subjective, but still an 'expert' opinion).
show me all the graphs you want, but if I can't hear the difference, and an expert "hearer" can't hear it - I'm not that interested in paying £1,400 for a new mains cable.
Grottyash:Also note that draft statements are just that, and often are redrafted for technical or legal reasons. There is nothing suspicious nor wrong in that.
No, but the statement from Russ Andrews seems to suggest that the nature of the complaint against its claims was changed on more than one occasion.
No, but the statement from Russ Andrews seems to suggest that the nature of the complaint against its claims was changed on more than one occasion.
scene
Well-known member
I think what the ASA were taking Mr. Andrews to task on was not any advertising hyperbole, but rather his statements as to the scientific basis of his products. If the adverts had stated that the power cords made your HiFi sound fuller and more enjoyable, this would have been OK - subject to an appopriate survey showing that of 45 people questioned, 42 said they found the music sounded fuller and more enjoyable...
However, he was making claims about reducing RFI, without, as far as the ASA were concerned, appropriate scientific proof. He appealed, but they still didn't accept his proof - such is the nature of scientific proof...
However, he was making claims about reducing RFI, without, as far as the ASA were concerned, appropriate scientific proof. He appealed, but they still didn't accept his proof - such is the nature of scientific proof...
Big Aura
Well-known member
Clare Newsome:
When we owned a BMW, the gas-guzzling monster wasn't 'the Ultimate Driviing Machine', either. And the Peugeot I learnt to drive in certainly wasn't the drive of my life. Nor, of course, is Carlsberg probably the best lager in the world....
there's a difference between "mere puff" and where they try to make a "tried and tested, science-backed" claim.
When we owned a BMW, the gas-guzzling monster wasn't 'the Ultimate Driviing Machine', either. And the Peugeot I learnt to drive in certainly wasn't the drive of my life. Nor, of course, is Carlsberg probably the best lager in the world....
there's a difference between "mere puff" and where they try to make a "tried and tested, science-backed" claim.
scene
Well-known member
Big Aura:Clare Newsome:
When we owned a BMW, the gas-guzzling monster wasn't 'the Ultimate Driviing Machine', either. And the Peugeot I learnt to drive in certainly wasn't the drive of my life. Nor, of course, is Carlsberg probably the best lager in the world....
there's a difference between "mere puff" and where they try to make a "tried and tested, science-backed" claim.
That's so much more succinct than my wordy reply
When we owned a BMW, the gas-guzzling monster wasn't 'the Ultimate Driviing Machine', either. And the Peugeot I learnt to drive in certainly wasn't the drive of my life. Nor, of course, is Carlsberg probably the best lager in the world....
there's a difference between "mere puff" and where they try to make a "tried and tested, science-backed" claim.
That's so much more succinct than my wordy reply
Andrew Everard:
Grottyash:Also note that draft statements are just that, and often are redrafted for technical or legal reasons. There is nothing suspicious nor wrong in that.
No, but the statement from Russ Andrews seems to suggest that the nature of the complaint against its claims was changed on more than one occasion.
The original complaint did not come from the ASA, but from a customer. The changes the Russ Andrews communique cites merely make the complaint more specific and do not alter the intent - my guess would be the ASA legal team had a hand in that. Also, since presumably the Russ Andrews team saw the drafts, for all we know they themselves could have asked for more precise wording.
Grottyash:Also note that draft statements are just that, and often are redrafted for technical or legal reasons. There is nothing suspicious nor wrong in that.
No, but the statement from Russ Andrews seems to suggest that the nature of the complaint against its claims was changed on more than one occasion.
The original complaint did not come from the ASA, but from a customer. The changes the Russ Andrews communique cites merely make the complaint more specific and do not alter the intent - my guess would be the ASA legal team had a hand in that. Also, since presumably the Russ Andrews team saw the drafts, for all we know they themselves could have asked for more precise wording.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Big Aura:Clare Newsome:
When we owned a BMW, the gas-guzzling monster wasn't 'the Ultimate Driviing Machine', either. And the Peugeot I learnt to drive in certainly wasn't the drive of my life. Nor, of course, is Carlsberg probably the best lager in the world....
there's a difference between "mere puff" and where they try to make a "tried and tested, science-backed" claim.
And he's a lawyer (I think), listen to him, this is what I was talking about.
When we owned a BMW, the gas-guzzling monster wasn't 'the Ultimate Driviing Machine', either. And the Peugeot I learnt to drive in certainly wasn't the drive of my life. Nor, of course, is Carlsberg probably the best lager in the world....
there's a difference between "mere puff" and where they try to make a "tried and tested, science-backed" claim.
And he's a lawyer (I think), listen to him, this is what I was talking about.
Tonya
Well-known member
I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
Even though I don't subscribe to all this supermainscablemalarchy, as far as I understand it the chap offers a money back warranty so if one purchases said signiaturekettlecableT and the purchaser doesn't think it worth the grand or so, then surely he/she would return it for a full refund?
Only if there was "no refund given" policy could I see a problem.
Even though I don't subscribe to all this supermainscablemalarchy, as far as I understand it the chap offers a money back warranty so if one purchases said signiaturekettlecableT and the purchaser doesn't think it worth the grand or so, then surely he/she would return it for a full refund?
Only if there was "no refund given" policy could I see a problem.
Grottyash:
Alienerik, the ASA understood fully what they were ruling over, which was firstly that the claims in the advertisement could not be substantiated, and secondly the likelihood of the advertisements to mislead. For the technical aspect they called in an expert.
Your comment about ABX blind tests is irrelevant.
The second part of the ruling clearly states that there are two parts to RFI, differential mode (DM) and common mode (CM), and that the design of the cables meant they could only filter the DM, and not the second. They also pointed out that the technical papers provided by Russ Andrews focussed only on DM. The final part of the verdict is quite clear:
"We considered that, because the products did not have an effect on CM RFI noise, and given the experts concerns about the lack of protective conductor and unrealistic termination impedances in the testing of DM RFI noise, the evidence we had seen was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the PowerKords products were effective in reducing mains-borne RFI."
Seems fair enough to me.
Im allowed to comment on anything I like so long as its withing the rules, so my 'blind test' comment is valid so far as im concerned
As for this -
"the evidence we had seen was not
sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the PowerKords products were
effective in reducing mains-borne RFI"
The test may have only reduced one form of RFI, but it was enough to be measured to have an effect on an amps output. How much more evidence is required??
Alienerik, the ASA understood fully what they were ruling over, which was firstly that the claims in the advertisement could not be substantiated, and secondly the likelihood of the advertisements to mislead. For the technical aspect they called in an expert.
Your comment about ABX blind tests is irrelevant.
The second part of the ruling clearly states that there are two parts to RFI, differential mode (DM) and common mode (CM), and that the design of the cables meant they could only filter the DM, and not the second. They also pointed out that the technical papers provided by Russ Andrews focussed only on DM. The final part of the verdict is quite clear:
"We considered that, because the products did not have an effect on CM RFI noise, and given the experts concerns about the lack of protective conductor and unrealistic termination impedances in the testing of DM RFI noise, the evidence we had seen was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the PowerKords products were effective in reducing mains-borne RFI."
Seems fair enough to me.
Im allowed to comment on anything I like so long as its withing the rules, so my 'blind test' comment is valid so far as im concerned
As for this -
"the evidence we had seen was not
sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the PowerKords products were
effective in reducing mains-borne RFI"
The test may have only reduced one form of RFI, but it was enough to be measured to have an effect on an amps output. How much more evidence is required??
Tonya:
I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
Even though I don't subscribe to all this supermainscablemalarchy, as far as I understand it the chap offers a money back warranty so if one purchases said signiaturekettlecableT and the purchaser doesn't think it worth the grand or so, then surely he/she would return it for a full refund?
Only if there was "no refund given" policy could I see a problem.
Any purchase made over the Internet has a money back return policy by law. Is it your view that any manufacturer should be allowed to make any claims they wish about a product, with the justification that the customer can simply return the product if they find any such claims to be untrue?
I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
Even though I don't subscribe to all this supermainscablemalarchy, as far as I understand it the chap offers a money back warranty so if one purchases said signiaturekettlecableT and the purchaser doesn't think it worth the grand or so, then surely he/she would return it for a full refund?
Only if there was "no refund given" policy could I see a problem.
Any purchase made over the Internet has a money back return policy by law. Is it your view that any manufacturer should be allowed to make any claims they wish about a product, with the justification that the customer can simply return the product if they find any such claims to be untrue?
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm a LiAV(!) and the future is Not Vinyl or CD, it's DAC / Streaming, what do yo think?- Started by Jasonovich
- Replies: 43
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram