idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
bigboss:
Would you agree that improper or lack of earthing worsens RFI? So, in real world, the RFI may not be as bad as Russ Andrews wants us to believe through this testing. It's easy to accentuate the "before" and "after" results by not doing the test properly.
I probably would agree with that. Very naughty methinks
Would you agree that improper or lack of earthing worsens RFI? So, in real world, the RFI may not be as bad as Russ Andrews wants us to believe through this testing. It's easy to accentuate the "before" and "after" results by not doing the test properly.
I probably would agree with that. Very naughty methinks
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,244
- 1,177
- 27,570
That's marketing for you. All manufacturers (not only Russ Andrews & not only mains cables) tend to exaggerate the performance of their product. Russ Andrews made the mistake of doing this in face of ASA ban. If you're doing something in response to ASA, atleast do it properly.
bigboss:That's marketing for you. All manufacturers (not only Russ Andrews & not only power cables) tend to exaggerate the performance of their product. Russ Andrews made the mistake of doing this in face of ASA ban. If you're doing something in response to ASA, atleast do it properly.
..
i'd love it if russ came on here for a debate about the merits of his products, that would be fun methinks
i'd love it if russ came on here for a debate about the merits of his products, that would be fun methinks
As a student of language, I love the way people have taken to using the term 'methinks' all over this forum.
Can we introduce some more anachronisms? 'Gadzooks', perhaps, or 'Pshaw'? Maybe even 'Oddsbodikins'?
Can we introduce some more anachronisms? 'Gadzooks', perhaps, or 'Pshaw'? Maybe even 'Oddsbodikins'?
Ravey Gravey Davy
Well-known member
- Apr 28, 2008
- 225
- 3
- 18,795
Andrew Everard:OK then - off you toddle, up the wooden hill to Bedfordshire...
Time for one last Vera and Harmonic
Time for one last Vera and Harmonic
A quick observation if I may:
Why are individuals, including members of the WHF team, comparing "advertising slogans" to "advertised scientific claims"?
Also, would it not be wise for the WHF team to abstain from involvment in such a thread, instead limiting themselves to moderating to ensure no breach of house rules?
Why are individuals, including members of the WHF team, comparing "advertising slogans" to "advertised scientific claims"?
Also, would it not be wise for the WHF team to abstain from involvment in such a thread, instead limiting themselves to moderating to ensure no breach of house rules?
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
Good point Al13N about mixing slogans with science. (I am happy to have WHF involvement in debates).
RA have run into trouble as they insinuated a cause and effect. That goes on far too often now a days with bad science and it invariably involves selling something from diet pills to cables.
For example a cable maker states 'made with 100% oxygen free copper' and then talks of 'improved bass' and 'detail'. But where is the actual link? It is only suggestion.
To go further with the need to suggest cables make improvements rather than provide any actual evidence here is what a company have to say about their top interconnect cable,
'the most advanced cable technology .... ever developed, and
are the culmination of over five years of intensive research.'
No detail as to what the research was. Then the advert states,
'The audio .... community has been staggered by the massive musical
improvements available .... greater and more fundamental than
anybody ever suspected could come from a "mere" cable, struggling to
come to terms with a new reality.'
So no science, only impressions. If I spent so long doing the science and then relied on impressions to sell my cables, something must be up with the science. Actually what is needed to sell the cable is not science, it is marketing and suggestion.
RA have run into trouble as they insinuated a cause and effect. That goes on far too often now a days with bad science and it invariably involves selling something from diet pills to cables.
For example a cable maker states 'made with 100% oxygen free copper' and then talks of 'improved bass' and 'detail'. But where is the actual link? It is only suggestion.
To go further with the need to suggest cables make improvements rather than provide any actual evidence here is what a company have to say about their top interconnect cable,
'the most advanced cable technology .... ever developed, and
are the culmination of over five years of intensive research.'
No detail as to what the research was. Then the advert states,
'The audio .... community has been staggered by the massive musical
improvements available .... greater and more fundamental than
anybody ever suspected could come from a "mere" cable, struggling to
come to terms with a new reality.'
So no science, only impressions. If I spent so long doing the science and then relied on impressions to sell my cables, something must be up with the science. Actually what is needed to sell the cable is not science, it is marketing and suggestion.
idc:
Good point Al13N about mixing slogans with science. (I am happy to have WHF involvement in debates).
RA have run into trouble as they insinuated a cause and effect. That goes on far too often now a days with bad science and it invariably involves selling something from diet pills to cables.
For example a cable maker states 'made with 100% oxygen free copper' and then talks of 'improved bass' and 'detail'. But where is the actual link? It is only suggestion.
To go further with the need to suggest cables make improvements rather than provide any actual evidence here is what a company have to say about their top interconnect cable,
'the most advanced cable technology .... ever developed, and
are the culmination of over five years of intensive research.'
No detail as to what the research was. Then the advert states,
'The audio .... community has been staggered by the massive musical
improvements available .... greater and more fundamental than
anybody ever suspected could come from a "mere" cable, struggling to
come to terms with a new reality.'
So no science, only impressions. If I spent so long doing the science and then relied on impressions to sell my cables, something must be up with the science. Actually what is needed to sell the cable is not science, it is marketing and suggestion.
great post idc
Good point Al13N about mixing slogans with science. (I am happy to have WHF involvement in debates).
RA have run into trouble as they insinuated a cause and effect. That goes on far too often now a days with bad science and it invariably involves selling something from diet pills to cables.
For example a cable maker states 'made with 100% oxygen free copper' and then talks of 'improved bass' and 'detail'. But where is the actual link? It is only suggestion.
To go further with the need to suggest cables make improvements rather than provide any actual evidence here is what a company have to say about their top interconnect cable,
'the most advanced cable technology .... ever developed, and
are the culmination of over five years of intensive research.'
No detail as to what the research was. Then the advert states,
'The audio .... community has been staggered by the massive musical
improvements available .... greater and more fundamental than
anybody ever suspected could come from a "mere" cable, struggling to
come to terms with a new reality.'
So no science, only impressions. If I spent so long doing the science and then relied on impressions to sell my cables, something must be up with the science. Actually what is needed to sell the cable is not science, it is marketing and suggestion.
great post idc
idc:here is what a company have to say about their top interconnect cable,
'the most advanced cable technology .... ever developed, and
are the culmination of over five years of intensive research.'
No detail as to what the research was.
Even if it was only 5 years of intensive marketing research to find out which buzzwords the paying public respond best to, it's not really a lie is it?
'the most advanced cable technology .... ever developed, and
are the culmination of over five years of intensive research.'
No detail as to what the research was.
Even if it was only 5 years of intensive marketing research to find out which buzzwords the paying public respond best to, it's not really a lie is it?
Adverts for 'unforgettable' holidays in fact sell you only the flight, the bed, the food etc. The unforgettalbe part has to come from you.
Adverts of anti-ageing cream say that 'wrinkles appear reduced' or 'helps fight' something. That involves your perception, too.
Cables ads promise an unquantified imporvement, do not bother with any specifics so leave looking for improvements to you again.
And once you try, if you are honest with yoursesf, you know.
Beware of weasel words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
Good ruling, imo.
Adverts of anti-ageing cream say that 'wrinkles appear reduced' or 'helps fight' something. That involves your perception, too.
Cables ads promise an unquantified imporvement, do not bother with any specifics so leave looking for improvements to you again.
And once you try, if you are honest with yoursesf, you know.
Beware of weasel words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
Good ruling, imo.
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
AL13N:A quick observation if I may:
Why are individuals, including members of the WHF team, comparing "advertising slogans" to "advertised scientific claims"?
Also, would it not be wise for the WHF team to abstain from involvment in such a thread, instead limiting themselves to moderating to ensure no breach of house rules?
I have no idea why you think we should abstain, but thanks for your guidance regarding in which threads on the Forums we run we may or may not participate.
Why are individuals, including members of the WHF team, comparing "advertising slogans" to "advertised scientific claims"?
Also, would it not be wise for the WHF team to abstain from involvment in such a thread, instead limiting themselves to moderating to ensure no breach of house rules?
I have no idea why you think we should abstain, but thanks for your guidance regarding in which threads on the Forums we run we may or may not participate.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
chebby:Indeed. I was led to believe that I could completely 'bypass' Alan Titchmarsh with these but still he appears
I don't follow?
Thanks to idc though for the helpful definition though. I may include definitions of all my 'difficult' words in future.
I don't follow?
Thanks to idc though for the helpful definition though. I may include definitions of all my 'difficult' words in future.
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
Some important information on mains cable plugs from Chord
"During the development of the Chord Power Chord we learned how
critical the wiring layout within the mains plug was to obtaining the
best performance. After much experimentation we chose to fit
gold-plated Furutech connectors to the Sarum mains cable.
The decision to fit Furutech plugs also gave us the chance to
experiment with revised internal wiring configurations. The internal
layout of the Furutech connectors allowed us to use a wiring
configuration that would not be possible with a more conventional mains
plug."
That reads as if they wire their plugs the wrong way round.
"During the development of the Chord Power Chord we learned how
critical the wiring layout within the mains plug was to obtaining the
best performance. After much experimentation we chose to fit
gold-plated Furutech connectors to the Sarum mains cable.
The decision to fit Furutech plugs also gave us the chance to
experiment with revised internal wiring configurations. The internal
layout of the Furutech connectors allowed us to use a wiring
configuration that would not be possible with a more conventional mains
plug."
That reads as if they wire their plugs the wrong way round.
Andrew Everard:AL13N:A quick observation if I may:
Why are individuals, including members of the WHF team, comparing "advertising slogans" to "advertised scientific claims"?
Also, would it not be wise for the WHF team to abstain from involvment in such a thread, instead limiting themselves to moderating to ensure no breach of house rules?I have no idea why you think we should abstain, but thanks for your guidance regarding in which threads on the Forums we run we may or may not participate.
This discussion centres around the validity of scientific claims made by a mains cable manufacturer. WHF are a magazine that reviews such products. As stated in your How We Test video "reviews that are expert, independent, impartial".
Based on this I made comment.
Why are individuals, including members of the WHF team, comparing "advertising slogans" to "advertised scientific claims"?
Also, would it not be wise for the WHF team to abstain from involvment in such a thread, instead limiting themselves to moderating to ensure no breach of house rules?I have no idea why you think we should abstain, but thanks for your guidance regarding in which threads on the Forums we run we may or may not participate.
This discussion centres around the validity of scientific claims made by a mains cable manufacturer. WHF are a magazine that reviews such products. As stated in your How We Test video "reviews that are expert, independent, impartial".
Based on this I made comment.
Indeed, but contrary to what you may read elsewhere in posts by those for whom reading is obviously something of a challenge, we are in no way springing to the defence of the manufacturer in question: indeed the only comments we have made regarding the adjudication have been to point out what seem to be inconsistencies in its wording.
Beyond that we have merely quoted the Russ Andrews statement on the subject, while providing a link to the ASA adjudication.
At which point I am locking this thread because, frankly, it's going nowhere.
Beyond that we have merely quoted the Russ Andrews statement on the subject, while providing a link to the ASA adjudication.
At which point I am locking this thread because, frankly, it's going nowhere.
I don't doubt for one second that RA's products reduce or completely defeat mains borne RFI. He has proven this scientifically. Fair enough. My concerns are thus:
1. Does the RFI have a measurable impact upon audio performance?
2. HIfi manufacturers do know a thing or two about power supply design.
3. He had to artifically inject RFI into the mains source to prove his products ability to isolate and attenuate RFI.
4. Appliance manufacturers, as matter of course, fit filters to equipment anyway. Your fridge, freezer, washing machine is already tooled up to prevent feeding noise back into the mains circuit.
1. Does the RFI have a measurable impact upon audio performance?
2. HIfi manufacturers do know a thing or two about power supply design.
3. He had to artifically inject RFI into the mains source to prove his products ability to isolate and attenuate RFI.
4. Appliance manufacturers, as matter of course, fit filters to equipment anyway. Your fridge, freezer, washing machine is already tooled up to prevent feeding noise back into the mains circuit.
Another thread springs from the grave at the hands of the resurrectionists, after a mere five years beneath the sod.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Bi-wiring my Cyrus 8.2 amplifier to my PMC Twenty.21 bookshelf speakers- Started by lucioso
- Replies: 25
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram