http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44177.htm

can anyone imagine this happening in the States? A truth-in-advertising watchdog, set up by advertising agencies, finds that a high-end gear retailer is making unsupported claims about audibility of "improvements" from high-end cabling.

The laws in the US are substantially more liberal as you know. Penta water also had to rescind their advertising strategy in the UK. Here's hoping they go after the other cable mongers and products of dubious merit like the noise harvester. Good find!

Just remembered that a year or so back, an outfit in France that was pushing audiophile tweak products ran afoul of French laws. Their solution was to remarket them as health type items where the advertising laws were more lax. I'll have to see if I can find the outfit.

The laws in the US are substantially more liberal as you know. Penta water also had to rescind their advertising strategy in the UK. Here's hoping they go after the other cable mongers and products of dubious merit like the noise harvester. Good find!

Thanks go to Hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=62171&hl=), where I first saw the link.

Here's hoping they go after the other cable mongers and products of dubious merit like the noise harvester. Good find!


Already done. Once I read this I forwarded the PSA website and claims onto the email of the site. PSA sells in the UK so it will be interesting to see if something comes of it.

TRANSLATION:

Upset troublemaker "customer" decided to create his own set of implied claims that fit with his pre-conceived notions.

Kimber could not disprove claims it never intended to propogate.

Kimber loses.

Close?

No.

What I don't understand is why do you guys care what a manufacturer sells? If you believe you're smart enough to know better, and not buy these products what is the issue?

Are you looking out for the audio noobs or just trying to put feathers in your hats?

If I don't believe Miller Lite "tastes great" do I get to sue them?

Are those the only two choices? And no, you can't sue them. But you can write or call them and ask for a refund.

Are you looking out for the audio noobs
Yes.

What I don't understand is why do you guys care what a manufacturer sells? If you believe you're smart enough to know better, and not buy these products what is the issue?

Are you looking out for the audio noobs or just trying to put feathers in your hats?

If I don't believe Miller Lite "tastes great" do I get to sue them?

Why? Because people come to place like AVS looking for answers. They should be informed of truth and not lies.

Why? Because people come to place like AVS looking for answers. They should be informed of truth and not lies.

I agree and these high end cable companies or high end companies period should not be allowed to advertise how ever they want.

This all seems like big government to me. I don't want some Minister of Information involved in my audio experience. I'll buy products with return policies and if I don't HEAR an improvement I'll return the products. The free market will do what it should. Good products will sell, bad ones will not.

This all seems like big government to me. I don't want some Minister of Information involved in my audio experience. I'll buy products with return policies and if I don't HEAR an improvement I'll return the products. The free market will do what it should. Good products will sell, bad ones will not.
But this doesn't interfere with your audio experience at all. You can still buy Kimber cables in the UK. You just have to enjoy them without the benefit of bulls**t advertising telling you what you hear.

But this doesn't interfere with your audio experience at all. You can still buy Kimber cables in the UK. You just have to enjoy them without the benefit of bulls**t advertising telling you what you hear.

I think it does interfere because some Minister of Information is not allowing Kimber to tell me about its products. Whether or not it is BS should be up to me and my system.

This all seems like big government to me. I don't want some Minister of Information involved in my audio experience. I'll buy products with return policies and if I don't HEAR an improvement I'll return the products. The free market will do what it should. Good products will sell, bad ones will not.

Ah, another free market warrior on the internet...'good products will sell, bad ones will not', that's hilarious (not to mention tautological, if you define 'good' as meaning, 'it sells'). One problem is that free market economics presupposes rational actors contributing to the uber-rational 'invisible hand' -- but humans are rarely rational in this way.

And anyway, in this case it's absolutely not 'big government' . The ASA isn't governmental. It was created by ADVERTISERS. Lots of industries and professions set their own standards. That's good for business. Does that disturb you?

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

Ah, another free market warrior on the internet...'good products will sell, bad ones will not', that's hilarious. Economics presupposes rational actors, but humans aren't.

And in this case it's absolutely not 'big government' . The UK agency isn't governmental. It was created by ADVERTISERS. Lots of industries and professions set their own standards. That's good for business. Does that disturb you?

Sounds like big government to me is exactly right. I would have said this IS big government if in fact it was a governmental agency. One thing I do find weird though is the enforcement piece of this. Suggesting Kimber can't advertise its claims seems to suggest their are consequences other than a slap on the wrist from some advertisor created agency.

The tone of your first sentence is pretty sophomoric. There are good theories and bad. I think free market is a really good one and so do millions of others. Referring to me as another free market warrior on the internet really detracts from your subsequent points.

I think I am done with this conversation. The tone & interaction between people who enjoy the same hobby never ceases to amaze me.

I think it does interfere because some Minister of Information is not allowing Kimber to tell me about its products. Whether or not it is BS should be up to me and my system.
It's not telling Kimber it can't tell consumers about its products. It's telling Kimber it can't lie about its products. So how does barring outright lies in advertising (and these were outright lies) interfere with your audio experience? Do you need to be lied to to enjoy music?

Well, maybe it potentially affects ComputerAudiophile's business as in here: http://computeraudiophile.com/node/207

$50 USB cables - ROFLMAO.

"My motto when it comes to high end audio equipment is simple, 'Everything matters.' "

Just another reason why I don't want to read any paid reviewers equipment review.

Now, do you think that when they sent him that cable they enclosed a prepaid mailer to send it back? When he puts it up on Ebay for $3.99 + S&H I'll check it out.

We do some of this in the U.S. as well. I remember a "doctor" on TV a couple of years ago who was selling pills for losing weight. The claims were outrageous. The doctor, by the way, was a Phd, not an MD. The government finally shut him down.

It's a little tough, however. A few people who took the pills lost weight. Most likely it wasn't because of the pills but because of a change in eating habits. Nevertheless, the company was able to show some successes. Reason won out in the end, and the company was banned from advertising its claims based on analysis by the medical community.

With cables we have the audiophile's amazing ability to hear sonic differences, many of which do not exist. In the case of Kimber, I can promise you that, at least, the PBJ cables are competent and don't do any sound alteration. But since the company's customers claim sonic differences, how do you stop the company from advertising that? "audiophile Joe heard amazing air between the instruments when he installed Kimber wires," as an example. Joe may be a little confused but the advertising isn't a lie. We can't even convince ourselves as an audio community that cables don't have sound. How is the government going to say otherwise? Monster, as an example, lies by teaching the dealer sales reps the lies. They don't advertise them.

I agree that it should be illegal to lie in public advertising. Some of the lies, however, aren't easy to prove.

Why? Because people come to place like AVS looking for answers. They should be informed of truth and not lies.

Most people that come to AVS know better than to spend hundreds if not more on cables.

Who are you "protecting"?

Most people that come to AVS know better than to spend hundreds if not more on cables.


LOL. Prove it.


Who are you "protecting"?

WHy are you so against the concept?

Hmm. Can I sue organized religion, or is that too broad?

There is a sleazy late night commercial which airs on US TV. I do not know what product it is for, but noticed its bold advertising claim, "... and we couldn't say it on TV if it wasn't true!"

Any company making such a statement should rephrase this to say what they really mean: "... and we wouldn't be saying, 'we couldn't say it on TV if it wasn't true,' unless of course it was not true!"
:D

Doubt it. In Philly, it looked like they were finally going to start cracking down on fortune tellers and psychics because there's an old law on the books that makes it a misdemeanor to practice it for 'gain or lucre'. Some places were shut down but that raised the cry of discrimination against gypsies and finger pointing to matters such as you raised Jack. I don't know how far it's progressed.

Well, maybe it potentially affects ComputerAudiophile's business as in here: http://computeraudiophile.com/node/207

Nice find. Someone might be a little biased. ;)

well shiite. I didn't associate the two. Apparently I can't add one plus one.

My apologies to Comp.Audiophile.

All rants are not necessary. Mine was not directed at you personally.

Sorry.

Ah, another free market warrior on the internet...'good products will sell, bad ones will not', that's hilarious... Even more hilarious, what you describe has nothing to do with a free market. There's no guarantee of outcome, only that buyers and sellers can trade voluntarily without government coercion. Of course, free trade doesn't give anyone the right to commit fraud or violate individual rights, just as free speech doesn't give you the right to commit libel/slander or yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre. Freedom is messy, which is why a free market doesn't mean that "good products will sell, bad ones will not".

Sanjay

this is good stuff...good reading and very informative.

This also sets a potentially huge precedent. It'll be interesting to see how/where other manufacturer's claims and advertising are challenged and whether or not it crosses the ocean.

Until then - the more one spends, the better it sounds - right??

:rolleyes:

Why is it assumed that ASA was correct?

Cheers, John

Because the Prophet Peter Popoff told me so in a vision. You can have one too if you call him.

Good on the ASA.

And good on the UK for having an ASA and not relying on government for this sort of thing. More industries should police themselves like this.

Because the Prophet Peter Popoff told me so in a vision. You can have one too if you call him.


Nah, I'll just set the scanner to 39.17Mhz..funny story that was...

More industries should police themselves like this.

In principle, I agree.

However, this is not a good example. Who is going to police the industry police?

How many "experts" are out there willing to proclaim what their employers wish?

What was their "expert's" credentials?

Why did the ASA not produce any evidence to support their assertion? After all, they requested evidence of the advertiser.

Quite honestly, given the loose and flawed fashion in which this so called "investigation" was conducted, I expect that soon there will be litigation from "wronged" parties.

Cheers, John

Who, in turn, polices those who police those who police those who police those who police the police? At some point, the process has to stand on its own merit. I don't see why you say this is not a good example.

I don't think the ASA was making claims for which it had to produce evidence, but instead was evaluating the evidence presented. The wire advertisement was making what apparently were extraordinary claims. Is there any evidence that the investigation was loose and flawed?

Most people that come to AVS know better than to spend hundreds if not more on cables.

Who are you "protecting"?

I see your new here. Please take some time to read through all the audio forums and the +20k forum. There are alot of uninformed people on this forum.

Well, you can write them John to see what the full story was. Perhaps what the link provided was nothing more than a summary. BTW, I'm now in possession of Peter's Miracle Manna. I'll stop at nothing to get Randi's 1 million.

Who, in turn, polices those who police those who police those who police those who police the police? At some point, the process has to stand on its own merit. I don't see why you say this is not a good example.

I don't think the ASA was making claims for which it had to produce evidence, but instead was evaluating the evidence presented. The wire advertisement was making what apparently were extraordinary claims. Is there any evidence that the investigation was loose and flawed?

I expected that of you..you're nothing if not consistent...


I like that...I like you..asking me to provide evidence of my assertion is the correct thing to do.

I posted this over at diy, so I copy and paste without remorse...:p

I bothered with the first claim...

Stimulus:from a customer: "the accuser"


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;""

Response by the advertiser (the defendent)

They sent a number of magazine reviews and customer comments as anecdotal evidence.

Conclusion: "opinion of the court"

Our expert noted that, although the claim in the catalogue stated that the cable would reduce the RFI already on the mains supply and reject further pick up of RFI, the evidence sent by Russ Andrews concentrated almost exclusively on the ability of the cable to prevent new RFI. He said the research papers did not address the issue of conductive interference and did not include supporting measurements and did not appear to have been peer reviewed or have other forms of independent validation. He said one of the papers discussed the effect of RFI on speaker, rather than the mains cable. 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.

Result:

We concluded that the ad was misleading.

Discussion: (me, "friend of the court")

The AC feedline to the outlet is comprised of simple parallel run cable. As such, the characteristic impedance of the feed cable will be in the 200 to 500 ohm range.

The characteristic impedance of a braid of hot and neutral will be of the approximate form :

Zcable ~= 100/number of conductor pairs.

If 8 pairs are used in the weave, the transmission line impedance of the cable will be about 12 ohms.

Conducted RFI on a 500 ohm line, when hitting an abrupt termination of 12 ohms, will reflect most of the energy back along the line. If for example, the noise signal is a 50 volt spike, that is 100 mA of spike current....when that hits the 12 ohm impedance, it will cause a 1.2 volt spike in the 12 ohm cable... a reduction of 97.6 percent.

One could also use the reflection parameters, but my description provides a better feel for the problem.

It is therefore VERY easy to prove the customer is incorrect in his assertion.

Why was it the responsibility of Russ Andrews to provide a technical proof of this technically correct assertion?? Shouldn't it have been the responsibility of Kimber?

My analysis is a sophmore level e/m theory level one...this should have been well within the domain of any so called "Expert".

Who was this "expert", what are his credentials, and why is it an "expert" is allowed to provide undocumented proof of the fallibility of a claim without peer review???

While I in general agree with the elimination of falsehoods and inaccurate embellishments in ad copy, this example of censureship under the guise of an "engineering approach by an expert" is a very poor one indeed.

In point of fact, all the expert did was look for paperwork, without any analysis whatsoever.

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???

One must make sure the cure is not worse than the disease...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE2-7a_F_B0
Cheers, John

Hmm. Can I sue organized religion, or is that too broad?

Do high-end cable retailers advertise themselves as churches?

Even more hilarious, what you describe has nothing to do with a free market. There's no guarantee of outcome, only that buyers and sellers can trade voluntarily without government coercion. Of course, free trade doesn't give anyone the right to commit fraud or violate individual rights, just as free speech doesn't give you the right to commit libel/slander or yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre. Freedom is messy, which is why a free market doesn't mean that "good products will sell, bad ones will not".

Sanjay

what '"I" described is merely an gloss on what CompAudiophile wrote:

The free market will do what it should. Good products will sell, bad ones will not.

Well, you can write them John to see what the full story was. Perhaps what the link provided was nothing more than a summary. BTW, I'm now in possession of Peter's Miracle Manna. I'll stop at nothing to get Randi's 1 million.


Chu, I'm afraid you're not quite a celebrity enough (yet!) to qualify for Randi's dosh. You need to figure out a way to raise your profile before Randi will put you in his sights. Maybe if you made a deal with Sylvia Brown... ;)

While I in general agree with the elimination of falsehoods and inaccurate embellishments in ad copy, this example of censureship under the guise of an "engineering approach by an expert" is a very poor one indeed.

In point of fact, all the expert did was look for paperwork, without any analysis whatsoever.

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???

One must make sure the cure is not worse than the disease...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE2-7a_F_B0
Cheers, John

Meanwhile, *your* analysis seems to ignore this substantial part of the reviewer's objection relating to the claims of PERCEPTIBLE improvement (emphasis mine):

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.


Why do so many 'debates' with you seem to end up at this point: you going into extreme detail about an electrical phenomenon that you eventually agree, has either no, or very unlikely, chance of having an audible effect using normal signals in a properly operating system?

Meanwhile, *your* analysis seems to ignore this substantial part of the reviewer's objection relating to the claims of PERCEPTIBLE improvement (emphasis mine):

No, not at all. What I state is that an EXPERT retained by asa has refuted a claim based entirely on the lack of documentation, without regard to any actual analysis. It is trivial to show that an analysis does not support the trashing of Kimbers assertion.

Are you making the assertion that regardless of the technical inaccuracy of the "expert's" statements, other aspects (which you pasted) can be used to support the scientifically inaccurate part?? It is not a case of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The statement that a line cord which is multi-conductor braided can help reject RFI on the line is certainly an accurate one.

Whether the result is perceptable has nothing to do with the scientific accuracy of the assertion. I certainly agree with the assessment that anecdotal customer accounts of "wonderful improvements" is a morass...Just look at that stupid quantum chip garbage with all those "anecdotal accounts"..

And of note, is the fact that the complainent actually stated a belief, not an observation...I re-paste...""""because he believed the PowerKord cable would have little affect on conducted electromagnetic interference"""

I have shown that belief is factually "challenged".

Why do so many 'debates' with you seem to end up at this point: you going into extreme detail about an electrical phenomenon that you eventually agree, has either no, or very unlikely, chance of having an audible effect using normal signals in a properly operating system?

Diversion is unbecoming of you. Please refrain.

My discussion centers on the fact that a line cord can (or cannot) reduce RFI on the line. Whether or not I care should not be a consideration with respect to a watchdog organization censuring ad copy based on the opinion of an "expert"..

Independent observers, by definition, are those who do not have a vested interest in the outcome. I fit that definition, as I really do not care if Kimber or asa wins this debate.

I have pointed out one obvious flaw in the process. You seem intent on attacking me to divert from that flaw..

Stick to the discussion please. You brought this to the forum, and it is indeed a worthy one.

Cheers, John

John, you're looking to raise this to the level of scrupulous peer review. I ask you to read some of the other issues that that ASA has dealt with. You'll find similar language and also that not all cases result in a verdict for the complainant. Yes, it's rather informal. It is though more formal than when I told my niece and her mother that the numbers 9 & 11 had nothing to do with the attack on that day other than they were dates. To paraphrase, I said something like "You know, you're both phucking nutz." Not especially rigorous proof I'll admit.

By the way John, I liked the cure in that movie clip.

The website offers the summary judgement, not the full report provided by the expert!

John, you're looking to raise this to the level of scrupulous peer review. I ask you to read some of the other issues that that ASA has dealt with. You'll find similar language and also that not all cases result in a verdict for the complainant. Yes, it's rather informal.

Nah, I'm really not. My point is, who appoints these "experts"??

Why should an "expert" who is un-named and who provided no "expertise" for a specific claim (that of RFI rejection) be allowed to blindly determine the validity or lack of validity of a argument?

What assurance does a vendor have that the opinion of one person at the asa is what governs the direction the asa will go?

I've always agreed with the assertion that ad copy is entirely out of control, and the vendors get away with a huge amount of crap that is either unfounded or complete fabrications..the same applies to many reviewer statements.

This trend of the ASA is certainly the next logical step (hopefully) in the process of ridding us all of the garbage promotions that prey on the gullible.

It is also entirely predictable that the reaction to the garbage in advertisement is an over-reaction, that is human nature. Look no farther than ROHS for a clear example of that.

I agree with asa in concept..but the application does indeed need work. It was a trivial thing to shoot holes in the technical assessment of that so called "expert".

Cheers, John

Well, the defence was certainly lacking wasn't it?! Although I like the judgement, I have reservations whether it'll make much of a dent as that would require more people to issue complaints to the organization. BTW John, do you recall receiving another one of my Tesla video links? If not, I'll dig it up and pass it along seeing as you're an electrical kind of guy.

By the way John, I liked the cure in that movie clip.

Oh man, was I laughing..it seemed a logical thing to post once I made that statement..

The website offers the summary judgement, not the full report provided by the expert!

Agreed. What stands out in my mind however, is the way many jump on the "bandwagon" in rooting for the asa against the vendor.

While I happen to agree with the asa in the bulk of their judgement, again, my agreement with their judgement is unimportant....

What is important is that the process not be tainted by opinion....maxwell's equations cannot be tainted by opinion, it is what it is....the statement that the specific cord cannot provide a function because "documentation was not provided to prove such", is not an application of science or scientific methodology..

Cheers, John

Well, the defence was certainly lacking wasn't it?! Although I like the judgement, I have reservations whether it'll make much of a dent as that would require more people to issue complaints to the organization. BTW John, do you recall receiving another one of my Tesla video links? If not, I'll dig it up and pass it along seeing as you're an electrical kind of guy.

Defense??? What defense?? My dog could have provided a better defense...

(and I don't have a dog)..

My feeling is it'll take time until any organization is established to help prevent misleading ad copy without tossing the baby as well...on that note, I am glad for the opinions on both sides of this "argument"...




Yes, I did receive it, and yes it was absolutely great!!!!


...waitttaminute...did you say another?? as in a second vid?? I only saw one...

Cheers, John

Yes, a second video. I'll dig it up and pass it along.

Why was it the responsibility of Russ Andrews to provide a technical proof of this technically correct assertion?? Shouldn't it have been the responsibility of Kimber?

Russ Andrews was the advertiser making the claims. I would expect that they probably just used copy provided by Kimber. Maybe Kimber couldn't substantiate the claims.

However, this is not a good example. Who is going to police the industry police?

If you can prove what your product can do then there is no problem.

This would be like a car company saying their product has 1000 horse power and can travel across water, would you be ok with this?

Another tesla video for you John can be found here (http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=10441).

I see your new here. Please take some time to read through all the audio forums and the +20k forum. There are alot of uninformed people on this forum.

You're wrong. All anybody is ever told is to buy Monoprice.

Go through and count the number of times Blue Jeans or Monoprice has been hyperlinked in these threads.

If you can prove what your product can do then there is no problem.

This would be like a car company saying their product has 1000 horse power and can travel across water, would you be ok with this?

Apples to oranges. Its easy to prove whether or not a car has 1000hp and can travel across water.

Can you positively prove that some of Kimber's products don't do what they say they do?

I think it has been discussed at length that a negative cannot be proved. You can only prove that it didn't work in certain situations.

Russ Andrews was the advertiser making the claims. I would expect that they probably just used copy provided by Kimber.

Consider an ad flyer for Walmart, or Sears, Home Depot, Costco, supermarkets, car dealers...Macy's, Lancome....heck, even Victoria's Secret. (cue Chu).

Should they be required to defend every single piece of ad copy for various products? I'd love to see the back and forth on the effectivity of a beauty product or uplift bra as opposed to the ad copy..

The precedent being set by the ASA is an interesting but scary one, and could easily blossom into something far beyond just simple "consumer protection", which I assume is the origional premise..



Maybe Kimber couldn't substantiate the claims.

I would guess that you are also correct here. It may be that they were not asked, or that they did not consider the ASA to be a threat. The analysis I provided showing how the construction can easily reduce RFI conduction took far longer to type than to figure out, I have to assume that the folks at Kimber have at least a rudimentary understanding of what I did, therefore they must have felt no obligation to present anything.

Cheers, John

Although I like the judgement, I have reservations whether it'll make much of a dent as that would require more people to issue complaints to the organization.

I was going to say the same thing. I'm sure *the* guy that filed the complaint is happy, but I'd bet the vast majority of people that own PowerKords aren't really going to feel like the bottom just dropped out of their audio universe. I'd also be willing to bet that anyone considering buying a PowerKord wasn't really focused on the claim of RFI rejection anyway.

They'll just replace the RFI stuff with "the key to audio nirvana" or something to that effect.


Scott

Consider an ad flyer for Walmart, or Sears, Home Depot, Costco, supermarkets, car dealers...Macy's, Lancome....heck, even Victoria's Secret. (cue Chu).

Should they be required to defend every single piece of ad copy for various products? I'd love to see the back and forth on the effectivity of a beauty product or uplift bra as opposed to the ad copy..

If their claims go beyond reasonable into ridiculous. Somewhere, there's a line to cross.

I would guess that you are also correct here. It may be that they were not asked, or that they did not consider the ASA to be a threat. The analysis I provided showing how the construction can easily reduce RFI conduction took far longer to type than to figure out, I have to assume that the folks at Kimber have at least a rudimentary understanding of what I did, therefore they must have felt no obligation to present anything.

Perhaps Kimber is not a UK entity and couldn't be extradited. ;) Perhaps they couldn't come up with an analysis that was pertinent to the use of a power cord plugged into a mains socket and a piece of audio gear.

What I don't understand is why do you guys care what a manufacturer sells? If you believe you're smart enough to know better, and not buy these products what is the issue?

Are you looking out for the audio noobs or just trying to put feathers in your hats?

If I don't believe Miller Lite "tastes great" do I get to sue them?

There's another issue to this kind of thing. People here consider themselves audiophiles or at least as being interested in audio equipment. So I think they are free to criticize other similarly oriented people who might be making claims for things that aren't believed or seem to be just making damn fools of themselves. When audiophiles act idiotically, it reflects on other audiophiles. It's not an obligation, but it is a right.

And "what I don't understand is why do you guys care what" others SAY about what manufacturers sell? We don't have to buy it, as you say. Similarly you don't have to listen to what other people might say about this.

There's another issue to this kind of thing. People here consider themselves audiophiles or at least as being interested in audio equipment. So I think they are free to criticize other similarly oriented people who might be making claims for things that aren't believed or seem to be just making damn fools of themselves. When audiophiles act idiotically, it reflects on other audiophiles. It's not an obligation, but it is a right.

And "what I don't understand is why do you guys care what" others SAY about what manufacturers sell? We don't have to buy it, as you say. Similarly you don't have to listen to what other people might say about this.

"When audiophiles act idiotically it reflects on other audiophiles"? Hmmmm.

As far as the 2nd paragraph, you're right I don't have to listen to this, I'm reading it.

By the way, whats your horse in this race?

IOWs, why do you or anybody else burden yourself with the buying habits of others?

Is Kimber FOS? Of course. But does it really matter?

If their claims go beyond reasonable into ridiculous. Somewhere, there's a line to cross.

Are you talking about makeup, bra's, or cars?

I agree there is a line, but who determines where it is drawn? In this case, they drew the RFI based technically accurate line in the wrong place.



Perhaps Kimber is not a UK entity and couldn't be extradited. ;) Perhaps they couldn't come up with an analysis that was pertinent to the use of a power cord plugged into a mains socket and a piece of audio gear.

But on the former, extradition is of no concern..ASA afaik, is not a legally binding entity. On the latter, their market either wouldn't understand the technical explanation, or just wouldn't care.

If they really needed to, they could just copy my T-line explanation as a technical defense, or just hire some professor somewhere to provide it (hey, pullin stuff off the net has it's caveats).....and item 1 would easily go away.

Cheers, John

Russ Andrews was the advertiser making the claims. I would expect that they probably just used copy provided by Kimber. Maybe Kimber couldn't substantiate the claims.

The complaint was originally filed against Russ Andrews' advertising, not Kimber's, so that's why the agency ruled on Andrews' ad copy.

The solution is really quite simple and dates to the early times in this country's history. The advertiser could simply be thrown into the water. If they float, they're guilty. If they sink, they were innocent. Really now!

And John, what's wrong with women wearing makeup in cars without bras?

And John, what's wrong with women wearing makeup in cars without bras?


Cars without bras?? How ya gonna protect the finish?? Now really...:confused:

Cheers, John

Finish looks OK to me, my friend.

http://www.hotcarssexywomen.com/images/Classic-Hot%20Cars%20Sexy%20Women_0051.jpg

Why did the ASA not produce any evidence to support their assertion? After all, they requested evidence of the advertiser.


EXcuse me??? The burden of proof is not on the ASA here.


Quite honestly, given the loose and flawed fashion in which this so called "investigation" was conducted, I expect that soon there will be litigation from "wronged" parties.

Cheers, John

How so? The parties making the claims are those who must provide evidence.

What I don't understand is why do you guys care what a manufacturer sells? If you believe you're smart enough to know better, and not buy these products what is the issue?

Are you looking out for the audio noobs or just trying to put feathers in your hats?

If I don't believe Miller Lite "tastes great" do I get to sue them?

Its not what they sell but what they claim. after all, it would not sell without the claims. Certainly not competatively speaking.
And, why should we not care? You want anything and everything claimed selling out there? Anarchy in essence? Chaos?

No, Miller's claim is an opinion about the taste. The wire claim can be measure, etc. The company could not substantiate what they claimed.

I think it does interfere because some Minister of Information is not allowing Kimber to tell me about its products. Whether or not it is BS should be up to me and my system.

Is that like the packaging telling you it is 1kg, yet in reality it is only .8kg or .7kg? Why should the government care what is claimed on the package, right?

Well, maybe it potentially affects ComputerAudiophile's business as in here: http://computeraudiophile.com/node/207

Ah, so he has a financial interest in this.:D what a surprise;)

Most people that come to AVS know better than to spend hundreds if not more on cables.

Who are you "protecting"?

All those who don't come to AVS for answers:D
Is that wrong?

Hmm. Can I sue organized religion, or is that too broad?

Are they selling a packaged product?;) What are they claiming for it?

Nice find. Someone might be a little biased. ;)

Yes, or trying to protect their own financial gains? :D

Can you positively prove that some of Kimber's products don't do what they say they do?

We can measure a cable in a number of ways and we still find no differences, when DBT are done we hear no differences. What the cable beleivers and manufacturer when ever something is proven wrong through measuring is that they go onto the next step by applying false science to their cables. When they start talking about skin effect or eddie currents and anyother aspect that does not apply to audio cables.

It's not telling Kimber it can't tell consumers about its products. It's telling Kimber it can't lie about its products. So how does barring outright lies in advertising (and these were outright lies) interfere with your audio experience? Do you need to be lied to to enjoy music?

The person that had issue with the cables only "proved" his point to people predisposed to believe him. That is obvious, since the requirements for proof brought forth were never implied by Kimber to start with.

...when DBT are done we hear no differences.

...Or so you're told on AVS.

EXcuse me??? The burden of proof is not on the ASA here.

In a court of law, it most certainly would.

They made a summary judgment against an advertiser. Within that summary judgment, they agreed with the initial customer who did NOT BELIEVE the claim that a line cord of the braid construction could reduce conducted RFI (this is number one of the three points.).

If they impact the business of the advertiser based on the opinion of an "expert" who is actually NOT an expert in the field of RFI, they are open to all kinds of legal problems, and THEY will then have to prove that their expert is correct... Too bad the expert is not..it was trivial to prove him not.



How so? The parties making the claims are those who must provide evidence.
The asa has claimed that an "expert" says the cord cannot reduce conducted RFI. What happens if that expert is called to the carpet? He'll be trashed.


DO NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE BALL HERE, JJ.. I agree with points 2 and 3...as well as the overall desire to rid us all of this stupid ad copy style garbage.

I just fear where the line in the sand is drawn.

How are you doing, jj..long time no hear. Hope all is well with you.

Cheers, John

Finish looks OK to me, my friend.

http://www.hotcarssexywomen.com/images/Classic-Hot%20Cars%20Sexy%20Women_0051.jpg


Finish? What finish..

You dissapointed me...I expected there to be a car in the picture...

Cheers, John

ps...nice..

Finish? What finish..


'happy ending', I'd suspect :D

...Or so you're told on AVS.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184

Read through this test.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1013576
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=989967

Are you on the same level as this guy?

Or how about this creepy video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97-9vHfvREk&feature=related


I think he whispers and uses headphones so he does not disturb mom and dad.

"When audiophiles act idiotically it reflects on other audiophiles"? Hmmmm.

As far as the 2nd paragraph, you're right I don't have to listen to this, I'm reading it.

By the way, whats your horse in this race?

IOWs, why do you or anybody else burden yourself with the buying habits of others?

Is Kimber FOS? Of course. But does it really matter?

What's my horse in the race? Just that if I see something disturbingly dumb, I shouldn't feel obliged to have to just shut up about it and let it pass (as is being impliedhere, it appears), do I? If Kimber has a right to say something, everyone else has just the same right to challenge it and hold their feet to the fire, no? Sometimes, not disagreeing about statements feels like or gives the impression of agreeing. Should the cables be taken off the market? Only if Kimber's lying or presenting statements as facts that they can't support. Are they in this case?

BTW, you don't have to READ this, either, and your computer probably has an off switch or can be used to browse to nice non-confrontational sites, try www.sesameworkshop.org !

IOWs, why do you or anybody else burden yourself with the responding habits of others?

Are people arguing about things that they don't have to? Of course. I do lots of things I don't have to, all part of being alive. But does it really matter to you? If not, why are you trying to inhibit others from doing pretty much what you're doing? What's your horse in this race?

Does Machina Dynamica sell products in the UK? This company should be put out of business, with the bull$hit they come up with.

I always thought Machina Dynamica was a very clever satire. Do they really sell that stuff???

My conspiracty theory regarding Machina Dynamica is that the guy knows 2 things. The first is that nothing he sells actually works. It's all products that do squat. The second is that he knows is that no matter how ridiculous something is, there are people who believe in it. That's his business model which essentially translates to that you can always fake a dog out by pretending to throw a ball.

My conspiracty theory regarding Machina Dynamica is that the guy knows 2 things. The first is that nothing he sells actually works. It's all products that do squat. The second is that he knows is that no matter how ridiculous something is, there are people who believe in it. That's his business model which essentially translates to that you can always fake a dog out by pretending to throw a ball.
I think a case could be made that the Machina Dynamica guy is engaged in some sort of performance/installation art. As such, his prices are quite reasonable! :D

Regards,
Terry

'happy ending', I'd suspect :D

That is indeed a happy ending..

But for some strange reason, I feel there is something missing from the picture.

AHA.... a crossbow.

Cheers, John

John, from what I can tell, the ASA does not operate as a court with expert witnessess (and then what do you do with expert witnessess that contradict expert witnessess?) or as a refereed paper. While I'm quite sure you'd be able to easily rebuff whomever they produced were your services retained for the defence, the fact remains that the defence provided was of an anecdotal nature with support from trade magazines who promote products based on their own anedotal impressions. It's like a nurse saying she employs Reiki and cites as supporting her practice a Reiki clinic.

Now perhaps, had more robust evidence been provided as to the efficacy of the cord and its claims, that would've prompted a more robust rebuttal. I don't know. To me, I look at this as the English judge who commented on the former Mrs. McCartney's various claims in support of additional monies. Rather than call her a liar, the judge noted that Heather Mills was quite adept at egging the pudding.

Either way, this was a very small victory in a war that will see further egging of the puddings.

John, from what I can tell, the ASA does not operate as a court with expert witnessess (and then what do you do with expert witnessess that contradict expert witnessess?) or as a refereed paper. While I'm quite sure you'd be able to easily rebuff whomever they produced were your services retained for the defence, the fact remains that the defence provided was of an anecdotal nature with support from trade magazines who promote products based on their own anedotal impressions.

Agreed 100%. There is indeed a need to reign in the ridiculous stuff...and the defense was non-existant..that said...

What will happen when the ASA makes a ruling using a pseudo-expert that is challenged by an advertiser?? Or, uses an expert who is outside his field of expertise?

Who pays the price for an overzealous ASA?? In this example, the rulings on point 2 and 3 (which I agree with) have led many to the rah rah, pom pom point (bout time, they deserve it, bunch a hogwash), but what has sadly been missed, is the fact that ruling number one was WRONG...wrong, wrong, wrong.. Science has taken a beating, washed away by the crowd....nobody cares that the "expert" was wrong, or that the expert looked the other way to please the crowd..

might as well burn the ol' Jackson for all it's worth...


Now perhaps, had more robust evidence been provided as to the efficacy of the cord and its claims, that would've prompted a more robust rebuttal.

Had more robust evidence been provided, the ruling would have been different. On the audibility side, had any evidence existed, it would have been presented.

I'm confident that should the ASA become significant enough that what they say bears any weight, those who are slighted by them will fight back vigorously. My guess is, the vendor considered the ruling somewhat akin to being hit in the face with marshmallows...perhaps a tad annoying, but certainly not life threatening..

Cheers, John

What will happen when the ASA makes a ruling using a pseudo-expert that is challenged by an advertiser?? Or, uses an expert who is outside his field of expertise?
I'd imagine it would depend upon whom the advertiser brings to their defense.

Who pays the price for an overzealous ASA?? In this example, the rulings on point 2 and 3 (which I agree with) have led many to the rah rah, pom pom point (bout time, they deserve it, bunch a hogwash), but what has sadly been missed, is the fact that ruling number one was WRONG...wrong, wrong, wrong.. Science has taken a beating, washed away by the crowd....nobody cares that the "expert" was wrong, or that the expert looked the other way to please the crowd..
Two out of three ain't bad... Seriously though, I've skimmed through some of the rulings on that website and it doesn't seem as if they're overzealous. How did you like the ruling on Penta Water (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=39409)?

might as well burn the ol' Jackson for all it's worth...Think of all the Franklin's that were saved! John, it ain't perfect and as far as science taking a beating, I think you might be egging the pudding here :D

Had more robust evidence been provided, the ruling would have been different. On the audibility side, had any evidence existed, it would have been presented.Perhaps. The cable mongers and others have long lived on anecdotal evidence bolstered by their town criers. OTOH, the rest may've been substantially lacking (the other points) that the ruling would've stood.

I'm confident that should the ASA become significant enough that what they say bears any weight, those who are slighted by them will fight back vigorously. My guess is, the vendor considered the ruling somewhat akin to being hit in the face with marshmallows...perhaps a tad annoying, but certainly not life threatening..I'd hate to have the livlihood of the fakes and phonies threatened. Reminds me of when Houdini went to Congress and the psychics claimed it infringed on their rights to free speech if not religion.

Think of all the Franklin's that were saved!

Oops...not Andrew Jackson.. The Jackson who wrote the book on electromagnetic field theory...


John, it ain't perfect and as far as science taking a beating, I think you might be egging the pudding here :D

Um, my point is not that science per se is taking a beating...what I mean is someone used the moniker "expert" in the name of science, but was not an expert in what has been presented. So I guess I really should say the "misuse" of science.

Strangely, the ASA didn't seem to have a problem with that...my conjecture is that the expert came to the conclusion they wanted (on point 1 only). And that scares me.

Cheers, John

I'm more scared of politicians.

Since we don't have the expert's actual words to look at in the context of his/her report, but rather, only 'the judges' rendition of them, it's premature to say the expert was not an expert.

And John, I think you've got to look at this more like a Judge Judy courtroom where the standards are somewhat relaxed. Look, if were me, I'd be up there and I'd hear both sides and make a summary ruling right there on the spot.

Since we don't have the expert's actual words to looks at in the context of his/her report, but rather, only 'the judges' rendition of them, it's premature to say the expert was not an expert.

Absolutely positively correct. But is it any better if a "judge" culled out what he didn't agree with? If the "expert" had the same analysis I did, but that part of it was left on the cutting room floor, that is also not good. If he was an RFI expert, he would certainly know what I posted as an analysis to be correct. A sin of omission is still a sin..

And John, I think you've got to look at this more like a Judge Judy courtroom where the standards are somewhat relaxed. Look, if were me, I'd be up there and I'd hear both sides and make a summary ruling right there on the spot.

I would have ruled point 1 in the vender's favor, point 2 and 3 I would have agreed with the ASA. But that is not all I would have done....

I would've fined the advertiser for wasting my time with the use of anecdotal ad copy, customer praises, shabbily written "white papers", and general floobydust presentation of pseudoscience as a defense. I am not a sucker for silly pseudoscience garbage couched as "science".

Cheers, John

Does Machina Dynamica sell products in the UK? This company should be put out of business, with the bull$hit they come up with.

I agree and this is what happens when products/advertising are not held to any type or laws or rules.

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina60.htm

Incase people do not know they offer a Teleportation Tweak.

It may be that the expert saw the RFI claims as puffery.

For example, if the steel fuel lines on a car had 1 mm thick walls, and someone was selling fuel lines with 2 mm walls, the seller could claim that his fuel lines are twice as impervious to infiltration by outside contaminants. While that could be theoretically true, the bigger question would be whether contamination through the fuel line walls is actually an issue.

It may be that the expert saw the RFI claims as puffery.

For example, if the steel fuel lines on a car had 1 mm thick walls, and someone was selling fuel lines with 2 mm walls, the seller could claim that his fuel lines are twice as impervious to infiltration by outside contaminants. While that could be theoretically true, the bigger question would be whether contamination through the fuel line walls is actually an issue.

Your example... Either the ID or the OD is affected, and the application may be sensitive to either possibility, flow resistance or bulkhead through openings. Your example is closer to the ID being different, in this case it would limit the size of a particle that could pass...(I do hate the fluid-electron analogies, sorry bout that).

Any expert who sees a cable impedance mismatch and the transmission (or reflection) issues of RFI through that mismatch as "puffery" is certainly no expert in the topic at hand. If the expert was indeed not an expert in a specific aspect of the argument, that expert should have recused from the topic. Diverting from the lack of understanding by saying "no documentation to support" is akin to saying "look, it's Halley's comet!!!.

To forgive an expert for assuming "puffery" for a specific claim that is easily verifiable is waaaaay too lenient. I expect an expert to be one. I do not think that is too much to ask..

Cheers, John

Your example... Either the ID or the OD is affected, and the application may be sensitive to either possibility, flow resistance or bulkhead through openings. Your example is closer to the ID being different, in this case it would limit the size of a particle that could pass...(I do hate the fluid-electron analogies, sorry bout that).

That's not relevent to the claim, though, is it?

Any expert who sees a cable impedance mismatch and the transmission (or reflection) issues of RFI through that mismatch as "puffery" is certainly no expert in the topic at hand. If the expert was indeed not an expert in a specific aspect of the argument, that expert should have recused from the topic. Diverting from the lack of understanding by saying "no documentation to support" is akin to saying "look, it's Halley's comet!!!.

To forgive an expert for assuming "puffery" for a specific claim that is easily verifiable is waaaaay too lenient. I expect an expert to be one. I do not think that is too much to ask..

Cheers, John

Any expert who concerns himself much about impedance mismatch in a power cord is no expert. I too expect an expert to be one.

That's not relevent to the claim, though, is it?

It was your analogy...




Any expert who concerns himself much about impedance mismatch in a power cord is no expert.

For 50 or 60 hz, I agree. But remember, the question was about RFI. As in, conducted RFI from the line to the appliance via the cord..My analysis stands.

Cheers, John

Well, maybe it potentially affects ComputerAudiophile's business as in here: http://computeraudiophile.com/node/207

LOL! I'm late to the party but had to say that this is one of the funniest things I've come across here. Good catch Chu. I love where he says, "Without many many vocal audiophiles out there dispelling the myth,..." Excuse me?!?! Audiophiles not vocal?!?! That's just too funny.

Let's give the guy a break.. He's busy trying to figure out what he's going to say in court. :)

Doesn't the amount reflected depend upon the frequency distribution of what's riding on the AC waveform?

Doesn't the amount reflected depend upon the frequency distribution of what's riding on the AC waveform?

No. It depends only on the impedance mismatch. Reflections occur all the way down to DC.

At low frequencies, everybody clings to the mistaken belief that there is no reflection at the mismatch...because that is what was taught. It is incorrect. It is taught that way because it is easier to understand, but that understanding is an approximation for expedience..

But remember, the customer complaint was that he believed conducted RFI was not reduced...the customer was incorrect.

Cheers, John

So, you're saying that the percentage that's reflected and not passed through is independent of the frequency of the signal that's on the AC mains. Then does that mean that the 60 Hz AC is also reflected?

So, you're saying that the percentage that's reflected and not passed through is independent of the frequency of the signal that's on the AC mains. Then does that mean that the 60 Hz AC is also reflected?

Yes.

There is no reflection of the 60 hz for light bulbs somewhere between 60 and 150 watts (as a first guess). I think Romex runs about 200 ohms, but I've never measured the capacitance or inductance, so that'd be a guess.

The problem with low frequency reflection is it gets lost in the actual signals...with hf, you can really see the primary signal as well as the reflected one, because they are seperated in time... You end up with ringing, undershoot, all kinds of visible things.

At LF, the primary thing the reflections do is change the amount of energy that is stored within the cable. For normal stuff, light bulbs, motors, microwave ovens, it doesn't make a darn bit of difference.

When the load is the same impedance as the line, the line stores the minimal amount of energy.

At low frequencies, we tend to use lumped elements to approximate what the cable is, and just forget that the lumped elements are only used for that approximation in order to be expedient. It is far more practical to approximate the system than it is to consider the local AC network as transmission lines..

It's only at the regional and national level that the reflections and transmission line theory have to be considered for the distribution network. At home, I don't worry bout 60 hz reflection..

Cheers, John

It was your analogy...

And still your irrelevence, John. Remember, the question was about contamination. As in, outside schmutz getting into fuel supply via the fuel line.

For 50 or 60 hz, I agree. But remember, the question was about RFI. As in, conducted RFI from the line to the appliance via the cord..My analysis stands.

Cheers, John

Some analyses, while valid, are so insignificant as to be nearly on a par with determining the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

And still your irrelevence, John. Remember, the question was about contamination. As in, outside schmutz getting into fuel supply via the fuel line.

The complaint was not RFI intercepted by the line cord. So your analogy fell apart like a cheap suit.

The complaint was about the cord's ability to pass conducted RFI, in other words, RFI that is already in the wires within the wall.




Some analyses, while valid, are so insignificant as to be nearly on a par with determining the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

You still do not understand what is being discussed, eh? Please refrain from diversion until you understand the argument. If you wish, I can search for some texts for you to look through..

For now, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave_ratio

Note the phrase "or when a transmission line is terminated with other than its characteristic impedance".

You learned back in school that a transmission line is "terminated" even when it is connected to another transmission line. In fact, the quarter wave impedance matching theory uses two line boundaries to build the match at a frequency..you know, two different line impedances with a quarter wave length in the middle to match?

http://www.antennex.com/preview/New/quarter.htm

What, you forget all this stuff?? If you wish to ask anything offline, I'd be happy to help you..

Cheers, John


Oh, by the way...here's a recap of the initial point 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;""

Look at the phrase and to reject further pick up of RFI... That is also a correct statement for a weaved multiconductor cable. Simply twisting a cable does not cause RFI rejection, nor does it reduce the cable's external inductance.. It merely helically twists the cable's dipole field, and this reduces the coupling to external non twisted dipole fields. The external inductance responsible for mutual coupling is dependent on the order of the geometry. For 1 pair of wires, the coupling falls off as 1/R, for n pairs, it falls off as 1/Rn wouldn't have learned in school). (left the html stuff in, even though the superscript doesn't work)

I did not address that portion earlier as it was not considered a bone of contention..

For this reason, twisting two cables independently does not break the coupling if the twists are the same pitch, it merely makes the coupling dependent on the relative phase of the twists. Cat 5e and up cable gets around this by using different twist pitches for each pair.

The complaint was not RFI intercepted by the line cord. So your analogy fell apart like a cheap suit.

The complaint was about the cord's ability to pass conducted RFI, in other words, RFI that is already in the wires within the wall.

Thankfully, the irelevency stood up well.


You still do not understand what is being discussed, eh? Please refrain from diversion until you understand the argument. If you wish, I can search for some texts for you to look through..

For now, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave_ratio

Note the phrase "or when a transmission line is terminated with other than its characteristic impedance".

You learned back in school that a transmission line is "terminated" even when it is connected to another transmission line. In fact, the quarter wave impedance matching theory uses two line boundaries to build the match at a frequency..you know, two different line impedances with a quarter wave length in the middle to match?

http://www.antennex.com/preview/New/quarter.htm

What, you forget all this stuff??

Cheers, John

I haven't forgotten that insignificant stuff is still insignificant.

Thankfully, the irelevency stood up well.

Again, conducted rfi is through the feed wires, your 1 or 2 mm wall thickness is broadside..you are trying to present an analogy to intercepted RFI, not conducted. Re-read point 1 of the article.



I haven't forgotten that insignificant stuff is still insignificant.

Calling an analysis you have not understood nor participated in "insignificant" does not make it so.

I expect someone of your level to either understand, or be able to go to a co-worker to have them explain it to you.

Cheers, John

Well then John, if I'm dealing with a video signal passing through a 75 ohm cable and that cable is terminated in a run of the mill coax connector, which has a lower impedance, won't the piggybacking of additional connectors result in a less than enjoyable video signal? IOW, what I'm getting at is doesn't the length of the impedance mismatch play a factor here. My general understanding is that it's yes and also depends upon the frequency of the signal. The higher frequency meaning that the length of my impedance mismatch needs to be shorter to avoid seeing visual artifacts.

Well then John, if I'm dealing with a video signal passing through a 75 ohm cable and that cable is terminated in a run of the mill coax connector, which has a lower impedance, won't the piggybacking of additional connectors result in a less than enjoyable video signal? IOW, what I'm getting at is doesn't the length of the impedance mismatch play a factor here. My general understanding is that it's yes and also depends upon the frequency of the signal. The higher frequency meaning that the length of my impedance mismatch needs to be shorter to avoid seeing visual artifacts.

My good man, you have hit the nail directly on the head..you sure you're not an e/m physicist??

As a rule of thumb, I try to make sure the wavelength of interest is at least 10 to 100 times the length of the discontinuity (if I'm forced to use a discontinuity). For RCA's, it ends up acting like a lumped capacitance on the t-line which blurs transients like vertical lines and such.. If I can't get rid of the load discontinuity, I make sure the source is perfectly matched..something's gotta prevent reflections..

Adding connectors...do you mean in series or parallel.. in series, they will certainly tend to add up. Parallel, line match goes to heck..

But that's off topic to the thread... that of a line cord which has the ability to reject RFI either through the conducted path, or the radiated/intercepted path.

Cheers, John

Well then, in the case of the line cord (AC cord) it's also the length, which is probably something like 2 meters, in conjunction with the impedance mismatch, right? Were it quite short, there'd be less reflection (attenuation?) of the RFI? Or is it that it doesn't matter how short or long the cord is?

Well then, in the case of the line cord (AC cord) it's also the length, which is probably something like 2 meters, in conjunction with the impedance mismatch, right? Were it quite short, there'd be less reflection (attenuation?) of the RFI? Or is it that it doesn't matter how short or long the cord is?

Lets consider a zip cord. 250 nH per foot, 30 pf per foot.

Z = 91.28 ohms.

The effective dielectric constant is (L * C) / 1034

250 times 30 = 7500

7500/1034 = 7.25

the square root of 7.25 is 2.69.

The velocity of propagation in the zip cord is 1/2.69, or 37 percent of the speed of light.

The wave travels 1 foot in about 2.7 nanoseconds.

If the cord is 6 feet long, it will transit the cord in 12 times 2.7, or 32.4 nanoseconds.

1 microsecond is a meg..100 nanosec is 10 mhz, 30 nsec is 30 mhz.

The cord resonates at 30 mhz, this is certainly within the realm of RFI.

Below about 3 mhz, the effects of the cord will start to fall off.

Above, signals will be impressed on the cord faster than they transit.

The band that is cleanly reflected inverts with length, but there was never a discussion as to the bandwidth being affected..

The question is, how much gets there..above 3 mhz, the analysis of SWR certainly applies...this was what the origional customer did not believe.

As for absorbtion of the RFI, that has not been raised..Kimber may or may not claim some fancy dielectric, I don't care. I only saw mention of the braiding as a factor.

edit: The best way to get around this garbage on the line is simple..use a filtered IEC connector or some other rudimentary filter to get rid of line hash. Spending big bucks on a line cord?? Puhleese..

Cheers, John

Which may already exist within the equipment, yes? I take it one could also use ferrites, yes? BTW, I'm still digesting what you wrote. Tonight...after a couple of drinks and sitting on the crapper it should become clearer to me.

On a side note John, as I recall, the use of PVC as in zip cord, really doesn't allow for a finite characteristic impedance.

Which may already exist within the equipment, yes? I take it one could also use ferrites, yes?

Yup. There are several different ways to reduce RFI gettin into the equipment.


BTW, I'm still digesting what you wrote. Tonight...after a couple of drinks and sitting on the crapper it should become clearer to me.

Oh yah, drinks help a lot with e/m theory..with a coupla olives..shaken not stirred..... But the visual you portray is not going over well with me....:(

I like the "for your eyes only" style visual like the last one you posted...you on the crapper...well, nuff said..
On a side note John, as I recall, the use of PVC as in zip cord, really doesn't allow for a finite characteristic impedance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "finite". I believe you are thinking of the quality of pvc as a dielectric, and how it performs at higher frequencies. That's why I mentioned the lack of a claim to some fancy dielectric on the part of Kimber.

Cheers John

Yes, how it performs at higher frequencies. I would've paid more attention in school if I knew the women teachers were handing sex out to the guys.

Yes, how it performs at higher frequencies. I would've paid more attention in school if I knew the women teachers were handing sex out to the guys.

They were??? Where? I certainly missed that..

John

Again, conducted rfi is through the feed wires, your 1 or 2 mm wall thickness is broadside..you are trying to present an analogy to intercepted RFI, not conducted. Re-read point 1 of the article.

My analogy is sound. It's not about conducted versus intercepted.

It should be obvious to anyone that a 2 mm wall would be twice as hard for contaminants to breach as a 1 mm wall.

However, the obviousness of that does not address whether it is necessary. A theoretically correct "solution" to a non-existent problem is still not a solution. That is the analogy. Perhaps the ASA expert's position was that the "solution" does not address a "problem" and therefore doesn't perform as advertised?

Calling an analysis you have not understood nor participated in "insignificant" does not make it so.

I expect someone of your level to either understand, or be able to go to a co-worker to have them explain it to you.

Cheers, John

Perhaps I understand that it is still insignificant.

My analogy is sound. It's not about conducted versus intercepted.

Re-read the belief of the customer. It's about conducted.

Your analogy is equivalent to that of intercepted.

Do you not understand the difference???

It should be obvious to anyone that a 2 mm wall would be twice as hard for contaminants to breach as a 1 mm wall.

Duh.. Conducted rfi is the equivalent of particles in the gas.

You messed up by not reading the origional complaint accurately. Stop trying to defend a losing point, admit you read it incorrectly, and move on.

A theoretically correct "solution" to a non-existent problem is still not a solution. That is the analogy.

Silly. The problem of RFI exists..you'r floundering here..google "line filters + IEC..
Perhaps the ASA expert's position was that the "solution" does not address a "problem" and therefore doesn't perform as advertised?

So instead of saying ""the "solution" does not address a "problem""", he simply stated that the documentation was inadequate as a defense?..


Perhaps I understand that it is still insignificant.
Apparently what you understand is not reality.

Tell the QSC engineers that they don't have to worry about line quality in their designs....

They'll toss you like a wet rag.

Cheers, John

psst..sometimes it's better to admit you read the initial complaint incorrectly than to continue a line of irrational thought..

Better yet Bob..go back and read every single word I have posted on this topic.

You will find that:

1. RFI can indeed be reflected by a wire pair that has a different characteristic impedance than the line from which the rfi is coming from. This is what the reflection coefficient I linked to is all about. RF...this is what the customer said he didn't believe could occur. I have shown without a doubt, this does indeed happen. You have not attempted to discuss this technical aspect.

2. Braid construction does indeed lower the intercepted RFI from external planar waves...while kimber has this within their ads, the customer did not contest this.

3. Points 2 and 3 of the ASA I have stated many times, I agree with. In fact, I believe the ad guy should be hung from the yardarms for the stupidity of his defense..

I have little tolerance for one who cannot read technical discussions but still feels the need to interject silly comments. If you wish to discuss the technical aspects, do so.

Stop diverting. You are (or should be) better than that.

Claim #1 states...
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;
The Russ Andrew's defense is...
Response
1. Russ Andrews explained that Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) was an unwanted electrostatic and/or electro-magnetic field, which gave rise to varying levels and types of background noise in an audio system. They said normal twisted wires found in most cables made them susceptible to RFI, but they believed that a woven cable containing several wires, where each one repeatedly crossed each other, reduced RFI. They believed the degree to which RFI could be reduced was dependent on the number of times the wires crossed. They provided the ASA with a number of research papers as substantiation for the claim.

Russ Andrews said it was a recognised fact within the audio industry that removing RFI would bring about an improvement in Hi-Fi equipment performance and that weaving a cable was a recognised technique to reduce it's susceptibility to RFI. They believed that variations in sound quality were a matter of subjective assessment by the listener and therefore not capable of objective substantiation, but maintained that the difference made by the cables was significant. They sent a number of magazine reviews and customer comments as anecdotal evidence.
The judgement of the ASA was...
Assessment
The ASA sent Russ Andrews' substantiation to an independent expert for analysis.

1. Upheld
Our expert noted that, although the claim in the catalogue stated that the cable would reduce the RFI already on the mains supply and reject further pick up of RFI, the evidence sent by Russ Andrews concentrated almost exclusively on the ability of the cable to prevent new RFI. He said the research papers did not address the issue of conductive interference and did not include supporting measurements and did not appear to have been peer reviewed or have other forms of independent validation. He said one of the papers discussed the effect of RFI on speaker, rather than the mains cable. 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.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

I have great respect for both Mr. Lee and Mr. Neutron. That in itself is probably damning to both vis a vis guilt by associaton. From a reading of the above, it seems to this poor soul that on the point of the Kimber Power Cord being able to reject transmitted RFI on the AC powerlines because of a signicant impedance mismatch, Mr. Neutron is correct. Further on the twisted pair geometry being effective at reducing RFI pickup from the air, Mr. Neutron is also correct.

Earlier, Mr. Neutron stated that had he been called or appeared as a friend of the court, he would've brought his knowledge of Maxwell's equations to bear on those two specific claims. I don't know whether his appearance and testimony would've been sufficient because he may've been required to provide relevant documentation to support his conclusion.

However, British law and custom differs from that of the US. After all, they drink warm beer, make lousy pizza, and boil everything. As far as I can tell, advertisers are required to ascribe to certain guidelines when presenting their ad and marketing copy to the general public. Reread the last part of the last quote. It says,
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

Now, although Mr. Neutron is a champion of science, I think that he may be mistaken on how the system works over there with respect to advertising. He can only be a friend of the court and bring his powers of scientific knowledge to bear only after the advertiser has addressed the three clauses given above. As much as Mr. Neutron wishes to comment upon the claims he is constrained to do so. He can only comment upon the advertiser's presented evidence with respect to those clauses. Given what the defense was, Mr. Neutron would have to restrain himself from overstepping his authority in his zeal with respect to what he knows. After all, he must use his expertise to comment on whether the defense mustered by Russ Andrews is sufficiently robust with respect to those clauses.

Hence, given the way the system works in Britain, and it is one that advertisers are required to adhere to, I politely disagree with Mr. Neutron's willingness to rule in Andrew's favor here. Not because he's technically incorrect but because that's not the way the system works. It is incumbent upon the advertiser to provide robust substantiation when challenged and not the other way around.

You can read the Russ Andrews catalog, here (http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/Connected%20Issue1.pdf).

Don't be too hard on the British, John. After all, thanks to them, we've got a Spice Girls Reunion Tour.

http://humorlib.com/items/20070822/Spice_Girls_Reunion_2007_wm.jpg

How DARE you.

I almost tore my eyes out..eeeewwwwww...

Some thing should be banned from the net..



Earlier, Mr. Neutron stated that had he been called or appeared as a friend of the court, he would've brought his knowledge of Maxwell's equations to bear on those two specific claims. I don't know whether his appearance and testimony would've been sufficient because he may've been required to provide relevant documentation to support his conclusion.

Correct, my word alone would certainly be insufficient. The tests to demonstrate T-line reflection however, is fundamental and could easily be documented and demonstrated in a court of law anywhere on the planet via the use of a TDR setup..easily purchased and used. Note that the TDR will give incorrect distances to the discontinuity as the prop velocity is not going to be typical of lines TDR is used for normally.
However, British law and custom differs from that of the US...... .As far as I can tell, advertisers are required to ascribe to certain guidelines when presenting their ad and marketing copy to the general public.

Which is why nothing I have stated can be used in a British court, nor will what I said have any impact on the process over there (or over here for that matter. I merely point out flaw of their methodology with respect to the technical aspects of their decision on point 1. The fact that they swept the technically inaccurate aspect of their decision under the carpet by claiming lack of documentation shows that they didn't want to present a mixed decision. I also believe that in this case a mixed decision would in essence, work for the advertiser and Kimber.

As much as Mr. Neutron wishes to comment upon the claims he is constrained to do so. He can only comment upon the advertiser's presented evidence with respect to those clauses. Given what the defense was, Mr. Neutron would have to restrain himself from overstepping his authority in his zeal with respect to what he knows. After all, he must use his expertise to comment on whether the defense mustered by Russ Andrews is sufficiently robust with respect to those clauses.

No. For point 1, a true expert in the field of RFI would have immediately agreed that it is possible to reduce conducted RFI by impedance mismatch... There would therefore be no need to provide documentation in support of that claim, so there would not have been a request for such documentation. A true expert would have culled the first point OUT, and continued on with points 2 and 3.
..........because that's not the way the system works. It is incumbent upon the advertiser to provide robust substantiation when challenged and not the other way around......

Agreed 100%. But an expert would not have challenged claim #1.
Don't be too hard on the British, John. After all, thanks to them, we've got a Spice Girls Reunion Tour.

While I am not necessarily a fan of their music, they are certainly not hard on the eyes...

Cheers, John

No. For point 1, a true expert in the field of RFI would have immediately agreed that it is possible to reduce conducted RFI by impedance mismatch... There would therefore be no need to provide documentation in support of that claim, so there would not have been a request for such documentation. A true expert would have culled the first point OUT, and continued on with points 2 and 3.
I politely disagree, John. The expert did not challenge Claim #1. The advertiser must provide substantiation when called upon to do so. From what I see, the governing body requires that when asked for proof, it must be provided. After all, it is part of the playbook for all advertisers in Britain. If you want to advertise in Britain there's a code you're supposed to follow. They must be ready to provide such when demanded. The nature of that proof, once provided, is then evaluated. Not the other way around. At that point, had the proof been of the nature you provided, the body may've then called upon a different 'expert' to rule upon it.

Spice Girls didn't age too well, did they? I hear Cher is giving concerts again. Man, I'll bet she had some work done on her.

I just looked at the kimber site, they have squat..

They have something called "SWR" enhancements. From the ASA thingy, there is mention of a braid.

1. Do they use a multiconductor braid for their product?

2. Do they claim the impedance of the cord is lower?

3. Do they present any evidence for this enhancement (it is actually easy to do, I was wondering if they in fact did.

4. If they use multiple conductors as a braid, what is the guage of the individual conductors?

I ask the last, as the use of #20 or smaller guage insulated wires in a power cord braid may be in violation of NEC. Without details, I cannot state that as a fact. So I ask.

Cheers, John

I politely disagree, John. The expert did not challenge Claim #1.

The mere statement that the advertiser was asked for evidence in support of #1 means the claim was indeed challenged.

The fact that "magazine articles" were provided as evidence is just stupidity.

The advertiser must provide substantiation when called upon to do so.

Agreed.

They must be ready to provide such when demanded. The nature of that proof, once provided, is then evaluated. Not the other way around. At that point, had the proof been of the nature you provided, the body may've then called upon a different 'expert' to rule upon it.

That is certainly one possible path it could (or possibly will ) have taken. In looking at the Kimber site, it appears some professor guy is helping them put a tech page together...there would be the best place for measurement proof of their claims, I do not know if they will go that far..an educated customer may not actually be their best one..

What suprised me was their invocation of SWR with any silly descriptor. That is indeed exactly the metric I understood based on the use of a multiple conductor braid. I just used a 15 foot long version of that technology for a magnet test here, I needed a 4 ohm(give or take) transmission line, so I paralleled 6 entire cat5e cables. It worked beautifully up to about 1 Mhz, the limit of my power amp.
I hear Cher is giving concerts again.
Oh geeze, "Goodbye tour" number 12?

Cheers, John

Yeah, it looks like Kimber is going to look to obfuscate matters by appearing to be informative. Providing expensive solutions to problems that aren't problems. I wonder if he'll have authoritative listening tests to back up his claims? John, are you aware that a couple of years back, various video cables were measured with respect to their characteristic impedance, and Kimber's came out as measuring 82 ohms?

Hansen's accomplishments can be found here (http://programs.weber.edu/nwreview/Vitae/COAST/CEET/Hansen,_Verne_W..htm).

But isn't jneutron really Ray Kimber, at least that is what I heard.

"Kimber PowerKords" --

I eschew any product whose name has the letter "K" substituted for "C."

E.g.:
Krazy Glue
Killer Klowns from Outer Space

This rule has served me well over the years.
:)

Regards,
Terry

Yeah, it looks like Kimber is going to look to obfuscate matters by appearing to be informative. Providing expensive solutions to problems that aren't problems. I wonder if he'll have authoritative listening tests to back up his claims? John, are you aware that a couple of years back, various video cables were measured with respect to their characteristic impedance, and Kimber's came out as measuring 82 ohms?

82's close to 75...isn't it???:eek:

Who measured them? Do we have access to the data?

But isn't jneutron really Ray Kimber, at least that is what I heard.

Geeze, I've never heard that one....

Sheesh...stick up for a technical aspect without regard to who the source is, and look what it gets ya...:p

Cheers, John

Q...was that a diss or a compliment or just funnin..:p

Hansen's accomplishments can be found here (http://programs.weber.edu/nwreview/Vitae/COAST/CEET/Hansen,_Verne_W..htm).

Figures you'd find that..you never let me down...:)



I find this interesting:

quote::From 1997-2003, what are examples of your most significant professionally related service to the community (member/officer in professional organizations, consultant, presentations/speeches, etc)::


snip...2000-2003. I am currently providing consulting services to Kimber Kable on an hourly basis. ::


I'm trying to figure out how being "paid as a consultant" is a service to the community:confused::confused:

Leading to no end of the cheap shots...:p

Cheers, John

The article was in PCWorld (http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm).

I'm trying to figure out how being "paid as a consultant" is a service to the community
Ask Spitzer.

The article was in PCWorld (http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm)..

Ah, thanks.

I wonder if the insertion loss they mention was just the result of the reflection coefficient..

Surprised the monster came out on top of the Z list.. Perhaps indicative of quality control in the manufacturing process.

Ask Spitzer.

hhooowweeeee..ding..

Cheers, John

Re-read the belief of the customer. It's about conducted.

Your analogy is equivalent to that of intercepted.

My analogy was not about conducted or intercepted.

It was about solutions to non-existent problems. Do you not understand the difference???

You messed up by reading my analogy with the slant you wanted. Stop trying to defend an irrelevent point, admit you read it incorrectly, and move on.

Silly. The problem of RFI exists..you'r floundering here..google "line filters + IEC..

The problem of RFI does exist. The problem of normal power cords being an RFI weak spot doesn't.

I eschew any product whose name has the letter "K" substituted for "C."

Sure, but how do you feel about Kit Kat bars?

:D

The problem of RFI does exist. The problem of normal power cords being an RFI weak spot doesn't.

Hats off to Bob for contributing to this thread. It's great to have a real engineer from a highly regarded company explaining what matters and what doesn't with audio. Not that the true believers will be swayed. But a lot of folks here really do want to know the truth, and hopefully compelling points made by someone who actually designs the gear we enjoy accounts for something and shows real credibility.

--Ethan

Well Bob, it's often been about providing solutions to problems that aren't a problem. Oxygenated water. Speaker spikes made of different materials. What gets me is just how enormously susceptible we all are to advertising. It's the Pepsi Generation baby. BTW, did you hear that Miller & Coors have entered into an agreement (tentative perhaps) to not snip at each other but for both to snip at Budweiser?

I like Kit Kat bars. Also the Kit Kat Lounge. I do though kind of detest products that are named like they came out of an Ikea store and that goes for Linn.

Sure, but how do you feel about Kit Kat bars?

:D
They are grandfathered!
:D

82's close to 75...isn't it???:eek:

Who measured them? Do we have access to the data?



Geeze, I've never heard that one....

Sheesh...stick up for a technical aspect without regard to who the source is, and look what it gets ya...:p

Cheers, John

Q...was that a diss or a compliment or just funnin..:pJust funnin

My analogy was not about conducted or intercepted.

It was about solutions to non-existent problems. Do you not understand the difference???

Always have. Your analogy of pipe wall has many ramifications beyond the simple diffusion barrier thickness. With respect to conducted RFI, it was useless.


You messed up by reading my analogy with the slant you wanted. Stop trying to defend an irrelevent point, admit you read it incorrectly, and move on.

Yah, right...nice try..

Quite honestly, it was very difficult to figure out how your analogy applied to the issue of conducted RFI. Since you posed it within a discussion concerning conducted RFI, and now YOU say ""My analogy was not about conducted or intercepted."", then it was an analogy which was of no use to the topic at hand..

A diversion..

The problem of RFI does exist. The problem of normal power cords being an RFI weak spot doesn't.

Again, absolutely diversionary... You make the assumption the equipment is well designed for RFI rejection.

You can prove that IEC based filters are useless? They are the first line of defense against RFI. If not used, what's left?

Remember, we are not talking about properly designed pro equipment of the type you use or sell. We are talking about "high end audio"...who knows what specifications they design to. You really think all that stuff is designed to meet RFI susceptibility criteria??

I don't..

I certainly wouldn't worry about the line cords on my rmx1450's, as I know they were designed right. (they are virtually foolproof..a fool uses them;)

So I say again...you can somehow prove Kimber's assertion incorrect??...that the line cord impedance match doesn't reflect more RFI...

Cause I can easily show how it does.

And that was the customer's belief could not happen.

Cheers, John

Hats off to Bob for contributing to this thread. It's great to have a real engineer from a highly regarded company explaining what matters and what doesn't with audio. Not that the true believers will be swayed. But a lot of folks here really do want to know the truth, and hopefully compelling points made by someone who actually designs the gear we enjoy accounts for something and shows real credibility.

--Ethan


Yah, boy, I really wish I was a real injuneer too...and woiked for a highly regarded company...:p

As opposed to a shlep makin some trivially easy simplistic type stuff...the 5 tesla stuff is just..just...mundane..

Cheers, John

ps...I'm glad Bobs in also..

The velocity of propagation in the zip cord is 1/2.69, or 37 percent of the speed of light.

Isn't it alot faster then that?

The cord resonates at 30 mhz, this is certainly within the realm of RFI.

Below about 3 mhz, the effects of the cord will start to fall off.

Above, signals will be impressed on the cord faster than they transit.

Where are you getting this from we are dealing with house audio here.

Silly. The problem of RFI exists..you'r floundering here..google "line filters + IEC..

Not in home based audio, you again bring up sceince that is used in the telecommunication world which does not apply to home audio because it is irrelevant.

In telecommunications, standing wave ratio (SWR) is the ratio of the amplitude of a partial standing wave at an antinode (maximum) to the amplitude at an adjacent node (minimum), in an electrical transmission line.

At the top of your link john is says this, so I doubt this still applies to our use of a power cord.

[edit] Practical implications of SWR
SWR has a number of implications that are directly applicable to radio use. There are, however, some serious misconceptions regarding the effects of SWR. The ARRL Technical Information Service has a good collection of articles which reveal many of these misconceptions.

SWR is an indicator of reflected waves bouncing back and forth within the transmission line, and as such, an increase in SWR corresponds to an increase in power in the line beyond the actual transmitted power. This increased power will increase RF losses, as increased voltage increases dielectric losses, and increased current increases resistive losses.
Matched impedances give ideal power transfer; mismatched impedances give high SWR and increased loss in the transmission line.
Reflected power in the transmission line is re-reflected at the transmitter, and is eventually radiated by the antenna (minus cable loss).
The higher voltages associated with a sufficiently high SWR could damage the transmitter. Solid state transmitters which have a lower tolerance for high voltages may automatically reduce output power to prevent damage. Transmitters using tube-type output stages may arc. The high voltages may also cause transmission line dielectric to break down and/or burn.
VSWR measurements may be taken to ensure that a waveguide is contiguous and has no leaks or sharp bends. If such bends or holes are present in the waveguide surface, they may diminish the performance of transmitter and receiver equipment strings. Arcing may occur if there is a hole, if transmitting at high power, usually 200 watts or more (Need reference for the power statement). Waveguide plumbing[1] is crucial for proper waveguide performance. Reflected power may occur and damage equipment as well. Another cause of bad VSWR in a waveguide is moisture build-up, which can typically be prevented with silica gel or pressurization of the waveguide with dry gas.
A very long run of coaxial cable especially at a frequency where the cable itself is lossy can appear to a radio as a matched load. The power coming back is, in these cases, partially or almost completely lost in the cable run.

None of which have anything to do with home based audio and out 1-2 meter long power cords.

http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/magbdcst.htm

Standing Wave Ratio is a sacred antenna parameter!!!
If you study a lot of antenna literature, particularly that written for Ham Radio operators, you will get the impression that proper Standing Wave Ratio is the sacred key to good antenna performance. Actually, Standing Wave meters are mostly the result of modern radio transmitters being designed to drive only 50 ohm output loads. The easiest way to get a finger on matching an antenna system to this 50 ohm transmitter is to use a meter that tells if the load is matched to 50 ohms. Someone decided to get everyone involved in looking at the concept of "Standing Wave Ratio" instead of that of "Impedance Matching". In a way, the SWR meter gives an indication of both. It would have been a lot easier if they had put the emphasis on the concept of "Impedance matching" instead of "Standing Wave Ratio". The impedance matching concept is much more intuitive and is more of the real issue than the concept of standing wave ratios. The standing wave concept, being less intuitive, does not get to the real issue at hand. Many "Experts" talk above everyone and sound smart because no one can understand them. Of course they are hard to understand because they are not always making complete sense.

Impedance matching, by the way, is basically a concept of how some antennas can act like a 12 volt 50 watt light bulb or a 110 volt 50 watt light bulb. A power source for the 12 volt bulb will need to supply more current at less voltage and the power supply for the 110 volt bulb will need to supply more voltage at less current. Since different antennas can have different impedances, the transmitter must be able to supply power at different impedances.

This misconception about standing wave ratio is not just my own opinion. A good book on the subject is written by Walter Maxwell W2DU, an antenna specialist in the space program. His book is called "Reflections" and is published by the American Radio Relay League. It goes into great detail about the misconceptions surrounding "Standing Wave Ratio".

One of the best sources of Ham Radio literature on antennas is the Fifteenth edition of the ARRL Antenna Book copyright 1988. This edition finally makes a lot more sense when it comes to antennas.

I have not been able to find one application of SWR in audio let along AC power cords.

2. Russ Andrews said it had not been their intention to imply that the Signature PowerKord would have an affect on measurable distortion levels in Hi-Fi equipment. They explained that the claim was the result of a typographical error, which had not been spotted at proof reading stage. They apologised for the error and said they would take steps to avoid a similar mistake in the future.

I found this funny, why are we then discussing anything?

You guys crack me up the way you fight over nothing.

It reminds me of being a teenager and standing late at night at the Hicksville railroad station seeing who could piss further out onto the tracks. It ultimately meant nothing to no one....

You guys crack me up the way you fight over nothing.

It reminds me of being a teenager and standing late at night at the Hicksville railroad station seeing who could piss further out onto the tracks. It ultimately meant nothing to no one....

Except in this case it does mean something. People who are newbies come to a site like AVS looking for real answers. Having a real world answer man like Bob Lee, Etan, or Terry here to explain it all is needed. Otherwise send the newbies to the Audio Asylum site and let them get bogus info and waste money.

I found this funny, why are we then discussing anything?

Funny that when Chu and I and others challenged the folks at PSAudio to back up some claims on the website they run, they said the same thing of "oh thats a typo etc...."

Its a copout for these sellers.

Isn't it alot faster then that?



Where are you getting this from we are dealing with house audio here.



Not in home based audio, you again bring up sceince that is used in the telecommunication world which does not apply to home audio because it is irrelevant.

Yeah.

If that kind of stuff matters, please fix the power supply in the equipment. Capacitors and small ferrite inductors are not THAT expensive, to say the least.

Isn't it alot faster then that?

I don't think so. I'll redo the calcs, but I think this is the correct velocity for the parameters assumed.


Where are you getting this from we are dealing with house audio here.

Actually, we were discussing point 1 of the customer's complaint, that of conducted rfi reduction via reflection.





Not in home based audio, you again bring up sceince that is used in the telecommunication world which does not apply to home audio because it is irrelevant.

Again, re-read the complaint. It was stated that the customer did not believe that the cord was capable of reducing RFI. That belief of the complainant was incorrect.

Point 1 DOES NOT address the concern of audibility, nor does it specify the system the cord is to be used with.

I'm sure we can all agree that audibility (points 2 and 3 of the asa writeup) was certainly not proven by Kimber.

Cheers, John

I think we all know that the high-end audio biz is rife with scam artists. And I can only wish we all knew that the extra "performance" of so many high-end accessories, which somehow completely eludes detection by sensitive electronic instruments, yet is perceptible enough by humans to justify a 10x or even 100x price increase over similar products, should be put in the same category as alien visitors who have failed to leave any convincing physical evidence, psychics whose sensitive abilities completely fail them under the "bad vibes" of laboratory testing, and the Loch Ness Monster. :(

Regards,
Terry

Gentlemen....Focus on the discussion please, and leave the knee jerk responses where they belong...on the cutting room floor.

I am confident that there is a consensus between all of us on the need for a powercord which has the ability to reduce RFI conducted hash. Specifically, there really is NO NEED. As jj pointed out, and which I have stated... fix the equipment if it is broken..

All of you "tech-heads" have reacted to my discussion of the actual technical point presented by Kimber as if it were the devil incarnate. There is NO shame in admitting that a company such as Kimber can actually state something technically correct. It could simply be a case of random error, or it could be one of actual thought.

Admission of that does not mean the product serves a useful purpose, nor that it doesn't... It is a neutral statement.

The technical belief (#1) which the complainant raised is completely without merit...he believed the line cord could not reduce RFI conduction from the line, and that is easily proven incorrect, both through theory, and with a TDR. Since there was no attempt to do so by the advertiser nor Kimber, I personally would assume that they did not have the expertise to do so. There is also the possibility that the entire asa thing fell below their radar, or they use the "persecution by the powers that be" to their marketing advantage..

I made it quite clear from the jump, that I concur with the ASA on points 2 and 3, which was simply marketing garbage.

At the top of your link john is says this, so I doubt this still applies to our use of a power cord.......
None of which have anything to do with home based audio and out 1-2 meter long power cords.

The technical analysis does. Whether it is audible or not was not the focus of point #1 of the customer's complaint, nor is it mine..

I have not been able to find one application of SWR in audio let along AC power cords.

Obviously you don't know how to google well...:p Kimber has "SWR" on their website, I'm shocked and puzzled that google didn't see it...

Course, other than some silly "swr enhancement" term, there is nothing of merit to read.

Except in this case it does mean something. People who are newbies come to a site like AVS looking for real answers. Having a real world answer man like Bob Lee, Etan, or Terry here to explain it all is needed. Otherwise send the newbies to the Audio Asylum site and let them get bogus info and waste money.

Who is Etan?

Yeah.

If that kind of stuff matters, please fix the power supply in the equipment. Capacitors and small ferrite inductors are not THAT expensive, to say the least.

I do not believe there are many high end designers out there who know how to use them correctly for that function. And I believe they would be more inclined to purchase some gold-plated-silver-wire-zero-grain-4 nines-cryo'd-and burned in units than to just purchase a mundane IEC block with filtering...heaven forbid they should just use a product that has already been designed and costs five dollars.

I think we all know that the high-end audio biz is rife with scam artists. And I can only wish we all knew that the extra "performance" of so many high-end accessories, which somehow completely eludes detection by sensitive electronic instruments, yet is perceptible enough by humans to justify a 10x or even 100x price increase over similar products, should be put in the same category as alien visitors who have failed to leave any convincing physical evidence, psychics whose sensitive abilities completely fail them under the "bad vibes" of laboratory testing, and the Loch Ness Monster. :(

Regards,
Terry

I read somewhere that the number of alien visits is correlating INVERSLY to the number of cell phone cameras out there.. ya think maybe their camera shy???

As for everybody losing the focus of my point::
My point is STILL....I am concerned that the ASA used an "expert" who was inclined towards a specific outcome REGARDLESS of the technical merit of the claims or complaints. The claim that a braided wireset can reduce RFI conduction is WITH MERIT, from a theoretical as well as measureable point. The defense of point 1 by the ad guy and Kimber was incompetent and inexcuseable. (imho)

E/M theory and the defense of it is not governed by mob rule.. The tech-heads (I am one of them) should always be careful to avoid pre-judging the technical merit of an argument based on who is giving it..

Cheers, John

No, Miller's claim is an opinion about the taste. The wire claim can be measure, etc. The company could not substantiate what they claimed.

So if you can't measure it, you can claim anything you want?

What is the wirecount and wire guage of the palladium powercord?

I believe there may be issues regarding the safety of a power cord which uses multiple insulated strands of low guage wires such as #20 an lower.

Has Kimber submitted the cord design to an NRTL qualified laboratory for testing and qualification? Have they made sure it meets applicable code?

I ask because...if a #20 or #22 guage hot wire shorts to either a ground or a neutral, will a 20 amp breaker be able to clear the line before the cord can cause a fire? NEC 240.4(D) Small conductors (1) allows the use of #18AWG copper with overcurrent protection at the level of 7 amperes.

While the intent of the cord is to have the paralleled conductors share current equally, should the cord be damaged in part to allow only one conductor to connect to another, the fault current will not be shared. If the fault current is insufficient to force the breaker to clear magnetically, will the thermal response be sufficient to protect the house.

Cheers, John

Oops..forgot...that was NEC 2008, page 70-84

I can only wish we all knew that the extra "performance" of so many high-end accessories, which somehow completely eludes detection by sensitive electronic instruments, yet is perceptible enough by humans to justify a 10x or even 100x price increase over similar products, should be put in the same category as alien visitors

LOL, I use the aliens analogy often. A "believer" in the Stereophile forum has been arguing that he is certain he hears what he hears, and how dare I suggest otherwise. I explained that alien abductees are just as earnest and sincere, but that doesn't make them right! :D

--Ethan

We can measure a cable in a number of ways and we still find no differences, when DBT are done we hear no differences. What the cable beleivers and manufacturer when ever something is proven wrong through measuring is that they go onto the next step by applying false science to their cables. When they start talking about skin effect or eddie currents and anyother aspect that does not apply to audio cables.

You're debating cables, the issue, as I see it, is whether or not the government should step in and force a company to support their claims.

What's my horse in the race? Just that if I see something disturbingly dumb, I shouldn't feel obliged to have to just shut up about it and let it pass (as is being impliedhere, it appears), do I? If Kimber has a right to say something, everyone else has just the same right to challenge it and hold their feet to the fire, no? Sometimes, not disagreeing about statements feels like or gives the impression of agreeing. Should the cables be taken off the market? Only if Kimber's lying or presenting statements as facts that they can't support. Are they in this case?

BTW, you don't have to READ this, either, and your computer probably has an off switch or can be used to browse to nice non-confrontational sites, try www.sesameworkshop.org !
IOWs, why do you or anybody else burden yourself with the responding habits of others?

Are people arguing about things that they don't have to? Of course. I do lots of things I don't have to, all part of being alive. But does it really matter to you? If not, why are you trying to inhibit others from doing pretty much what you're doing? What's your horse in this race?
In a forum yes, but in a court of law? Damn petty if you really want to know.

No need to act childish.

Common sense and the right of a free market, and the right of consumers to buy or not to buy, but to choose.

....the issue, as I see it, is whether or not the government should step in and force a company to support their claims.

I thought the ASA was a self-policing entity.

My feeling is it's about time.

My concern is how they judge the technical aspects of a complaint and defense response. This particular case was unfortunate in that the ASA either felt no need to split the decision to one part yay, two part nay, or could not due to lack of expertise in that field by the expert.

At some point, will they be required to validate ohms law? I'm sure we all here consider that nonsensical thinking of course, but we understand ohms law so consider it obvious.

Cheers, John

It'd be nice though to have a properly informed consumer. The ASA, AFAIK, is not a government agency but a self-regulating agency. Were an advertiser found to run afoul of the guidelines, I imagine it might be able to seek legal recourse.

John, I'm familiar in a general sense with those IEC plugs that have the RFI circuitry embedded. What I'd like to know is if that's the best place to have it or is it a matter of 6 of one half a dozen of the other if it's placed elsewhere? Thoughts?

I thought the ASA was a self-policing entity.

This particular case was unfortunate in that the ASA either felt no need to split the decision to one part yay, two part nay, or could not due to lack of expertise in that field by the expert.

I was told by an insider they did it so you could debate it on the forum-at least that is what I think I heard:)

It'd be nice though to have a properly informed consumer.

Agreed. Unfortunately, some of this tech garbage is too education specific for general consumption...I like the concept of a watchdog organization, and believe (hope) the process will self-level. Forums such as this, with players such as bob, ethan, jj, is the next best thing to an informed consumer.

John, I'm familiar in a general sense with those IEC plugs that have the RFI circuitry embedded. What I'd like to know is if that's the best place to have it or is it a matter of 6 of one half a dozen of the other if it's placed elsewhere? Thoughts?

My gut feeling is that is the absolute best place on the equipment to put it. If you put the filter inside the equipment, then you allow the "dirty wires" to be inside. They can easily radiate either electric or magnetic fields once there..and why go through several design iterations to achieve the filtering level that could easily be obtained via purchase?

You can try filtering anywhere, it is a dice roll where the best place is. The big issues are the location and size of the agressor as well as the design and placement of the victim.

Cheers, John

I was told by an insider they did it so you could debate it on the forum-at least that is what I think I heard:)


I'm onto ya now...ya gonna hafta change ya schtick..:p
Cheers, John

Having it at the IEC plug intuitively makes the best sense to me. Now, I know you've taken a look at the innards of a lot of things. When doing so, have you been able to get a gut feel for how often this is done or for that matter, which sort of equipment benefits the most from having it there?

Having it at the IEC plug intuitively makes the best sense to me. Now, I know you've taken a look at the innards of a lot of things. When doing so, have you been able to get a gut feel for how often this is done or for that matter, which sort of equipment benefits the most from having it there?

I've no data on how often they are used.

Typically the higher the equipment gain is, or the lower the level of signal being crunched, the more likely that kind of filter would provide a benefit.

I find lots of computer supplies do their own thing, but I suspect that it's a price point for them.

For high end audio, price point is generally not an issue. I'd expect filters everywhere, as customers would blast em if a high price product was susceptible to line noise. Course, an amp manu could easily lay the blame on the enviro and recommend a really expensive boutique line cord to solve the problem, eh?;)

Cheers, John

I'm onto ya now...ya gonna hafta change ya schtick..:p
Cheers, JohnA guy has to have a little fun...

I thought the ASA was a self-policing entity.

My feeling is it's about time.

My concern is how they judge the technical aspects of a complaint and defense response. This particular case was unfortunate in that the ASA either felt no need to split the decision to one part yay, two part nay, or could not due to lack of expertise in that field by the expert.

At some point, will they be required to validate ohms law? I'm sure we all here consider that nonsensical thinking of course, but we understand ohms law so consider it obvious.

Cheers, John

It'd be nice though to have a properly informed consumer. The ASA, AFAIK, is not a government agency but a self-regulating agency. Were an advertiser found to run afoul of the guidelines, I imagine it might be able to seek legal recourse.

John, I'm familiar in a general sense with those IEC plugs that have the RFI circuitry embedded. What I'd like to know is if that's the best place to have it or is it a matter of 6 of one half a dozen of the other if it's placed elsewhere? Thoughts?

Sorry, you guys are right, the ASA is not a government agency.

Spice Girls didn't age too well, did they? I hear Cher is giving concerts again. Man, I'll bet she had some work done on her.

By now, Cher probably looks like this:

LOL, I use the aliens analogy often. A "believer" in the Stereophile forum has been arguing that he is certain he hears what he hears, and how dare I suggest otherwise.


Well, that's not unknown here either. See two current threads on 'Heresy: True HD sounds no better than DD? (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1006543)" and Work on Lossy Vs Lossless (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1012849) for examples.

The human tendency to believe their perceptions can't be wrong, is strong....

You're debating cables, the issue, as I see it, is whether or not the government should step in and force a company to support their claims.


no, the issue is folks not reading the first page of the thread ... I noted that the ASA was not a government agency, but rather an advertising INDUSTRY organ for self-policing, way back here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13481715#post13481715

Having it at the IEC plug intuitively makes the best sense to me. Now, I know you've taken a look at the innards of a lot of things. When doing so, have you been able to get a gut feel for how often this is done or for that matter, which sort of equipment benefits the most from having it there?

Someone in here must be on my ignore list. So someone is claiming they have a"gut" feeling abnout something scientific? Nice. Thats funny.

Someone in here must be on my ignore list. So someone is claiming they have a"gut" feeling abnout something scientific? Nice. Thats funny.

No, someone was asked if they have a gut feeling.


Cheers, John

Always have. Your analogy of pipe wall has many ramifications beyond the simple diffusion barrier thickness. With respect to conducted RFI, it was useless.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever need to make an analogy to conducted RFI.

Yah, right...nice try..

Quite honestly, it was very difficult to figure out how your analogy applied to the issue of conducted RFI. Since you posed it within a discussion concerning conducted RFI, and now YOU say ""My analogy was not about conducted or intercepted."", then it was an analogy which was of no use to the topic at hand..

Simply because you assumed I was trying to make an analogy to conducted RFI? Even after I've told you that I wasn't making an analogy to conducted RFI, you keep insisting that I was doing so.

I posed the example hoping that one's absurdity detector might notice that claiming a thicker fuel line wall will do a better job of keeing out contaminants, while technically obvious, could still be a solution that addresses a non-problem.

Perhaps my mistake was assuming that everyone had some acuity for detecting absurdity.

I considered another example, of hats made of thicker aluminum foil to better keep out mind control rays. I decided against that because I thought it might not seem patently absurd enough.

Again, absolutely diversionary... You make the assumption the equipment is well designed for RFI rejection.

If it isn't, then it's crap and a fancy power cord won't be its salvation.

You can prove that IEC based filters are useless? They are the first line of defense against RFI. If not used, what's left?

Now you're making straw-man arguments. Since you're always trying to state what I really mean, why don't you just log in as me? Then you can define all sides of the conversation as you see fit. You can make up my arguments, prove them false, and claim victory.

Perhaps my mistake was assuming that everyone had some acuity for detecting absurdity.

No, your problem is that you deflect the discussion away from any semblance of mathematics or e/m theory. In that way, you never have to actually demonstrate an understanding of the topic. It is certainly not missed by me that you always deflect away from the physics and theory.

I considered another example, of hats made of thicker aluminum foil to better keep out mind control rays. I decided against that because I thought it might not seem patently absurd enough.

That may indeed be the best example you are capable of...a good man knows his own limitations..



If it isn't, then it's crap and a fancy power cord won't be its salvation.

Finally, you have said something worthwhile. We agree..You sure you want to stick to that now??


Now you're making straw-man arguments. Since you're always trying to state what I really mean, why don't you just log in as me? Then you can define all sides of the conversation as you see fit. You can make up my arguments, prove them false, and claim victory.

If I log in as you, then you will finally engage in a technical discussion with mathematics and physics. Heaven forbid, an actual equation...ya think???

It has not evaded me that your engagement in a technical discussion has been lacking.

Why is that?

Cheers, John

ps...Bob

I apologize for being so short with you. I respect you for both your position and your accomplishments. I wish you could look past your prejudice against ridiculous vendors and their silly fabrications of "science" to see that on occasion, they may indeed say something correct. In my eyes, to do so is valuable from the point of view of being reputable.

pps..If it's not obvious enough, I hold the bar quite a bit higher for you than most.

ppps: You are the one with the strawman argument...you obviously enjoy the argument tactic of diversion by accusation. The discussion point was not the audibility of the effect, but the physics. You are diverting YET AGAIN by trying to change the argument from one of technical accuracy, to one of "it doesn't matter".

Actually, we were discussing point 1 of the customer's complaint, that of conducted rfi reduction via reflection.

Ok but why bring in standing wave ratio? Since it is irrelevant and does not apply to the product we are talking about.

All of you "tech-heads" have reacted to my discussion of the actual technical point presented by Kimber as if it were the devil incarnate. There is NO shame in admitting that a company such as Kimber can actually state something technically correct. It could simply be a case of random error, or it could be one of actual thought.

When kimber talks about standing wave ratio they are "technically correct" but it is once again irrelevant. Same as other cable companies talking about quantum tunneling since it is "technically correct" but does not apply.

The technical analysis does. Whether it is audible or not was not the focus of point #1 of the customer's complaint, nor is it mine..

Not even audible but not measurable as well so there is nothing to discuss.

Ok but why bring in standing wave ratio? Since it is irrelevant and does not apply to the product we are talking about.

Actually, I included the link to simply show how a different line impedance causes a signal to be reflected. It was a simple link in reinforcement of the equations and analysis I had provided.

The fact that swr is being bandied about is not something I started, even though swr is explained within the link I provided. It was only after I provided the link did I bother going to the Kimber site, where I found they bandied the term "swr enhancement"..nonsense of course...and not something I started.





When kimber talks about standing wave ratio they are "technically correct" but it is once again irrelevant. Same as other cable companies talking about quantum tunneling since it is "technically correct" but does not apply..

Actually, they don't seem to talk about it. Did you find anything on it from Kimber?



Not even audible but not measurable as well so there is nothing to discuss.

It is trivial to measure the reflection coefficient of a line cord plugged into a typical outlet fed by romex. To state not measureable is silly, and incompatable with about 50 years of measurements.

Point #1 does not discuss audibility.

Cheers, John

This is all very intersting. But, all the advertiser has to do is make one small change.

Instead of:

<various marketing crap>

They just have to say:

According to Kimber <various marketing crap>

Then their add is true and correct! Truth in advertising :)
The <various marketing crap> may or may not be true, but, it is true that Kimber says it ;)

Actually, they don't seem to talk about it. Did you find anything on it from Kimber?

I am still looking but I brought every thing up because from reading your posts it sounded like you were defending kimber.

It is trivial to measure the reflection coefficient of a line cord plugged into a typical outlet fed by romex. To state not measureable is silly, and incompatable with about 50 years of measurements.

But it is not measurable because SWR is irrelevant in the case of using a power cord.

I am still looking but I brought every thing up because from reading your posts it sounded like you were defending kimber.

Defending Kimber??....:confused::confused:

No. My concern has been the use of an "expert" to convey a sense of fairness or intelligence in making the ruling. A true expert would have understood point 1 to be accurate on the part of Kimber and not the customer. There are many "experts" out there who WILL NOT remain within the bounds of their expertise. This was obviously one case.

As for defending Kimber, I have posted within this thread the possibility that Kimber's palladium linecords may not meet safety guidelines as per the National Electric Code. I would be very surprised if a braided line cord constructed of multiple insulated wires smaller than #16AWG met the requirements that would be tested by an certified NRTL. They may indeed be susceptable to fire should the correct circumstances of damage arise, as I am not sure a 20 amp breaker would clear a single strand fault in time.

Edit: Note that it is assumed on my part that the term "braid" as used by Kimber reflects the use of multiple insulated wires as a distributed conductor in order to lower the characteristic impedance of the line cord, and it is that lowered impedance that they intend to use to reflect more hf hash from the wire. I have no proof that they indeed made their cord in this fashion, but raise the concern in case they did. Hence the request for more information if anybody has it.

But it is not measurable because SWR is irrelevant in the case of using a power cord.

Re-think what you said. The fact that something is irrelevant does not mean it is not measureable. My height is irrelevant to my knowledge of e/m theory, but yet I can measure my height.

Reflection coefficient in this case is easily measureable.

Relevancy is a different issue, one that apparently was covered in points 2 and 3 of the ASA ruling (which I still agree with). And the state of relevancy does not impact the ability to measure in this case.

Cheers, John

no, the issue is folks not reading the first page of the thread ... I noted that the ASA was not a government agency, but rather an advertising INDUSTRY organ for self-policing, way back here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13481715#post13481715

See post 165. You are reading the thread right?

As far as the ASA:

The ASA told Russ Andrews not to use these claims any more right? Or what? What are they going to do?

You should take the time to read what they can do rather than ask rhetorical questions. For example consider the section in the ASA titled Sanctions (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/cap_code/ShowCode.htm?clause_section_id=24).

See post 165. You are reading the thread right?


er, yes, I am. In post 165 you realized that the ASA is not a government agency...as I pointed out much earlier (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13481715#post13481715) in the thread.

I think the implication was that the ASA could resort to legal matters. I guess in the most obstinate of cases they could. As an advertiser though, do you really want that much publicity?

er, yes, I am. In post 165 you realized that the ASA is not a government agency...as I pointed out much earlier (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13481715#post13481715) in the thread.

So why do you chastise me after I have admitted that I was mistaken? One more feather right?:rolleyes:

You should take the time to read what they can do rather than ask rhetorical questions. For example consider the section in the ASA titled Sanctions (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/cap_code/ShowCode.htm?clause_section_id=24).

Nice. Kind of like the unarmed bobbies over in England. "Stop! Or I'll yell stop again!"

So why do you chastise me after I have admitted that I was mistaken? One more feather right?:rolleyes:


Except, you weren't the only one being 'chastised'. Which is exactly why I referred to 'folks' (plural). Feeling singled out? :rolleyes:

Except, you weren't the only one being 'chastised'. Feeling singled out? :rolleyes:

Yeah I do. Thats fine, I was wrong. Can we move on now?

No, not like the unarmed bobbies. More like being publically embarassed in much the same way that a john who is arrested would rather pay a fine rather than have his picture plastered for all to see.

I'd say, akin to the Better Business Bureau sort of policing.

No, your problem is that you deflect the discussion away from any semblance of mathematics or e/m theory. In that way, you never have to actually demonstrate an understanding of the topic. It is certainly not missed by me that you always deflect away from the physics and theory.

It was not my intention to deflect discussion away from "any semblance of mathematics or e/m theory."

It was my intention to point out that something could be technically sound but still not matter.

I once read a tongue-in-cheek definition of a "specialist" as one who knows more and more about less and less until he reaches the point of knowing absolutely everything about absolutely nothing. I do not aspire to that.

That may indeed be the best example you are capable of...a good man knows his own limitations..

Well, it may have suited the point that I wanted to make, even if it didn't suit the point you wanted me to make.

If I log in as you, then you will finally engage in a technical discussion with mathematics and physics. Heaven forbid, an actual equation...ya think???

It has not evaded me that your engagement in a technical discussion has been lacking.

I don't care what does not evade you. What you propose is about as relevent as a technical discussion of the aerodynamics of a turtle. Sure, you can prove that a turtle has aerodynamics, but it would be absurd to insist that they are significant in everyday circumstances.

ppps: You are the one with the strawman argument...you obviously enjoy the argument tactic of diversion by accusation. The discussion point was not the audibility of the effect, but the physics. You are diverting YET AGAIN by trying to change the argument from one of technical accuracy, to one of "it doesn't matter".

Go ahead, tell me what points I'm supposed to make, what I really mean, what I obviously enjoy, attack them, and then tell me I'm making the strawman arguments.

It was not my intention to deflect discussion away from "any semblance of mathematics or e/m theory."

It was my intention to point out that something could be technically sound but still not matter.

So then, where did you state that the use of a low impedance line cord could reduce conducted RFI by way of an impedance discontinuity?? So far all I've seen from you was the "does not matter part"..complete with a silly analogy.

So now your hedging your bets? Now it "could be technically sound"? Hey, it's a start. Eventually you may indeed agree that point 1 is Kimber's...

I have no desire to teach you how to be an e/m guru, but I would like you to at least read the posts correctly.


I once read a tongue-in-cheek definition of a "specialist" as one who knows more and more about less and less until he reaches the point of knowing absolutely everything about absolutely nothing. I do not aspire to that.

I don't think anybody has accused you of that. But I also enjoy that definition...btw, there are those where I work who definitely fit that mould..:p They are the ones who wear shorts, sandals and black socks in the winter.


Well, it may have suited the point that I wanted to make, even if it didn't suit the point you wanted me to make.
You keep trying to make a point that is irrelevant to the argument. I am not arguing the merit of the line cord being sold by Kimber.. I am arguing the inaccuracy of the asa in regard to the ruling on point 1.



I don't care what does not evade you. What you propose is about as relevent as a technical discussion of the aerodynamics of a turtle. Sure, you can prove that a turtle has aerodynamics, but it would be absurd to insist that they are significant in everyday circumstances.

STOP INSISTING THAT I HAVE PROPOSED ANYTHING. READ ENGLISH..

I discuss the technical merit of a braided construction line cord reducing conducted RFI by the fact of an impedance discontinuity. That is factual, correct, and easily demonstrated by math, by theory, and by measurements...measurements that have been in existence since the advent of radar research by the british postal service.



Go ahead, tell me what points I'm supposed to make, what I really mean, what I obviously enjoy, attack them, and then tell me I'm making the strawman arguments.

You keep making the same strawman argument...it's too small, it doesn't matter, it can't be heard, DBT blah blah blah... Stick to the discussion...which is point 1 of the ruling..


I am not selling silly low impedance line cords, I have not recommended the kimber product, I am NOT Ray Kimber, I am not defending him, I have no association with him, and I believe the insulated braid construction used may fall outside NEC guidelines...

Comprende?

I have taken to task the invocation of an "expert" who asserts outside of his area of expertise.

You had entered that realm as well... in an oddball way.. But clearly you are rather rusty when it comes to T-line theory. Rather than the knee jerk reaction you presented, you would have been better off reading my posts a little more slowly. You would have come out with a better understanding of what the discussion was about.

Cheers, John

Go ahead, tell me what points I'm supposed to make, what I really mean, what I obviously enjoy, attack them, and then tell me I'm making the strawman arguments.

Ahhh Bob I took my ignore list off and I see whom is trolling you now. Not to worry this person loves to make something out of nothing, wishes to NEVER present his ideas to any peer review group such as the AES because he claims they are too dumb to understand him.

Ignore list on.

Ahhh Bob I took my ignore list off and I see whom is trolling you now. Not to worry this person loves to make something out of nothing, wishes to NEVER present his ideas to any peer review group such as the AES because he claims they are too dumb to understand him.

Ignore list on.

Ah, the immature ostrich pulls his head out of the sand for an instant..

So childish. So this is how AES members work, eh? And you wonder why I don't present to the AES...

Why in the world would I consider one who is so childish a peer??

Why is it being a member of the AES means one can speak as an expert outside his area of expertise???

So many questions...no answers.

I am not impressed with the behaviour of speco2003...Bob, you seriously consider him a "peer"?


Oh, Bob. If you really want to think, go to the second link I provided, read it through, and figure out why a low impedance power cord could actually DEGRADE the RFI immunity of the system, (here's the hint...) and why it would be the worst for cases where the cord impedance is = to the sqrt(Zpower * Zamp), and why it would apply at cord wavelength multiples of (.25 + n), n being an integer.

For complex amp reactances, that relationship falls apart. You'd need a smith chart for that.

As I have stated, lower line cord impedances can certainly cause rfi rejection by reflection...but it's far more complex than that.

Still, Kimber gets point #1.

Cheers, John

ps..find yourself an RF engineer (or even a graduate e/m professor) if you want to check what I'm saying. Obviously, audio guys do not understand this...but yet surprisingly...still give opinions..incorrect ones, but opinions nonetheless..

pps...speco, you really need to present in a less "immature" fashion. Ignore lists are simple crutches for the ones who cannot discuss.

The Argument Sketch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k)

It pains me greatly to see people who have more than a clue about the BS that permeates the audio field arguing in this manner over what may well have been honest, but different personal, interpretations of the original subject matter. Perhaps we can find a way to elevate the disagreements and find the common ground that exists.

http://www.gamerandy.com/archives/kumbaya_sm2.jpg

Whatever, John.

I discuss the technical merit of a braided construction line cord reducing conducted RFI by the fact of an impedance discontinuity. That is factual, correct, and easily demonstrated by math, by theory, and by measurements...measurements that have been in existence since the advent of radar research by the british postal service.

...Which all goes back to earlier point about the ASA being a willing advocate in the claim. Instead of listening to Kimber's assertions, they instead listen to the claimants, which attack something Kimber never asserted.

The Argument Sketch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k)
Absolutely perfect!:D

It pains me greatly to see people who have more than a clue about the BS that permeates the audio field arguing in this manner over what may well have been honest, but different personal, interpretations of the original subject matter. Perhaps we can find a way to elevate the disagreements and find the common ground that exists.

http://www.gamerandy.com/archives/kumbaya_sm2.jpg

That I think depends on the motivations of the participants-good luck:)

Whatever, John.

Ditto. :D

Let's step back and realize the argument is about a real but (should be) inaudible effect, that may or may not have been acknowledged in the expert's actual writeup, which we haven't seen, but only seen *summarized* by what are presumably non-experts in the advertising industry self-policing body.

The mountain is big enough now. The molehill is just a distant memory. Time to move on.

Whatever, John.

Clearly, the statement of a child. And one who finds they cannot back up their garbage with facts...

When you are able do discuss the topic, let me know.

It is disgusting to find that someone I admired is incapable of learning. And yet, others actually listen to you..

GROW UP. Trust me, in the scheme of things, you are very far down..well below me..(and, I'm not that high up))

Cheers, John

ps..yes, rather tough. But "experts" who hide behind their title are worth nothing to me. Every day, I have to deal with so called "experts" who know little about things outside their domain, yet are more than willing to badger others, to call them "trolls", as a diversion to actual understandings.

So far, the "AES" people I have spoken to are a joke. I discuss actual engineering and physics I learned back in 1974, and they are cluelesss. I wish it were otherwise, it saddens me.

pps..what I have been talking about is over half a century old, bob..I do not care if you were asleep in e/m theory class..what you say, what you deny, what you ignore...is of no consideration.

It is there for all the world to see, no matter what you say..

Perhaps you might want to reconsider your stance and discuss reasonably??Hmmm?

If the argument is about whether one cable of any sort can potentially better shield from RFI compared to another cable, then I must agree with Mr. Neutron. An expert witness, if truly expert, should not have to rely on the presentation of evidence for this. It is simply physics.

I studied Jackson at roughly the same time as Mr. Neutron. I proudly wore a sweatshirt emblazoned with Maxwell's 4 equations, thinking that these were the be-all and end-all of science. Boy, was I an idiot. :)

Regards,
Terry

We don't know if the expert was referring to ANY sort of cable. So: WHATEVER. Seriously. We all agree that the RFI issue is not likely to be germane to the cables that are actually in question, right? So it's absurd that jneutron's now calling Bob Lee a 'child' and saying he's 'disgusted' by him, and is 'way above' him in the scheme of things..and dismissing the AES based on a sample of (?)...

Anyway, Here's Russ Andrews --the dealer whose claims are at the root of this particular donnybrook -- at it again:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=62558

I studied Jackson at roughly the same time as Mr. Neutron. I proudly wore a sweatshirt emblazoned with Maxwell's 4 equations, thinking that these were the be-all and end-all of science. Boy, was I an idiot.
Just think Terry, now it's cool for daughters to wear these shirts...

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k136/wbeem/Misc/GGW3.jpg

Me, I can't wait till the bus makes its stop at Tehran. Now that's a hot place!

... So it's absurd that jneutron's now calling Bob Lee a 'child' and saying he's 'disgusted' by him, and is 'way above' him in the scheme of things..
Absolutely. Content aside, the tenor and general maturity of this discussion is pure Monty Python, as I have referenced.

Regards,
Terry

Just think Terry, now it's cool for daughters to wear these shirts...

Hey, I came of age in the sixties. Between the love-ins, communes, etc, girls didn't wear shirt. :D

Buddy, I'm of the same general age as you and I never witnessed anything remotely like what's going on today!

Buddy, I'm of the same general age as you and I never witnessed anything remotely like what's going on today!
I think this just means we are getting to be old farts. I would link to a clip of Paul Lynde singing the "Kids" number from Bye Bye Birdie, if I could find it. :)

Whatever, John.

If the argument is about whether one cable of any sort can potentially better shield from RFI compared to another cable, then I must agree with Mr. Neutron. An expert witness, if truly expert, should not have to rely on the presentation of evidence for this. It is simply physics.

I studied Jackson at roughly the same time as Mr. Neutron. I proudly wore a sweatshirt emblazoned with Maxwell's 4 equations, thinking that these were the be-all and end-all of science. Boy, was I an idiot. :)

Regards,
Terry

Actually, the argument is not exactly whether or not one cable can potentially be a better shield. The ACTUAL point I have made is that it can reflect Line RFI, so the asa expert overstepped his boundaries. I have also shown that a low impedance power cord is also capable of setting up a quarter wave (and integer wavelength adds) transformer which can also increase the amount of RFI that gets to the equipment.

In other words, if the entire system is not engineered, the cord can make it worse.. I think I can guarantee the cord was not really engineered with the system in mind..

Again, whether the cord is better or worse is not the issue. The issue is the use of experts who are outside their domain. As I stated very early on, this is simply an overcorrection of the moment, I believe it will eventually settle into a more reasonable point.

You studied Max back in the 70's? I didn't think you were an old guy like me...hey, I studied him up da hill overlooking providence..

While I did like that shirt, I never bought one..

Cheers, John

You know krab, your original 3/26 post was a good one.

Thanks for finding that.

The rest of the arguing, bickering, pissing contest is....................interesting and amusing.

We don't know if the expert was referring to ANY sort of cable. So: WHATEVER. Seriously. We all agree that the RFI issue is not likely to be germane to the cables that are actually in question, right?
Read my posts again. I have never stated that the cords will perform as claimed.

I stated that for point #1, Kimber is correct and the expert should not have requested supporting evidence for that claim.

So it's absurd that jneutron's now calling Bob Lee a 'child' and saying he's 'disgusted' by him, and is 'way above' him in the scheme of things..and dismissing the AES based on a sample of (?)...

You are correct, it is indeed absurd. And I apologize to Bob for stating such.

I do find it apalling that someone who is indeed an expert within a field, using that fame (and if he's like me, no associated fortune:(..) as a shield from within which to fire off claims which are outside the boundaries of their expertise...and the audacity to have an expectation that they would not be challenged by facts presented by others.

I am dis-heartened to find that darn near every AES member I have had discussions with believe inclusion within that organization exempts them from logical thought processes we receive from other organizations such as the IEEE, the APS, etc...

Strangely, I find that only when discussions of cables are engaged...this topic is so polarizing..

Cheers, John

I stand by my premise, that the ASA expert even on point #1 may have seen Kimber's claims as an inefficient solution to a non-existent problem, and therefore, not living up to its billing.

You know, you can't have a bona-fide expert on every little thing that's said at one's beck and call. Especially for an organization that deals with advertising where the stretching of the truth is what it's all about. So, the expert that was called in wasn't really an expert. OK, so what? Hell, I'm not an expert but when I'm confronted by something that's confounding me, I take a stab at researching it. I look for something that constitutes reasonable proof and I weigh it. That's what I think their expert did. He probably wasn't sure, so he did what I would do. He asked for proof. And you can read what he got. The usual song and dance. An organization that exists to monitor the stretching of truth knows the song and dance. So, they were wrong. Fine. At least they know when they're being hosed. If the company had come back with something that looked reasonable, maybe they'd have rethought matters. Shite happens.

You know, you can't have a bona-fide expert on every little thing that's said at one's beck and call. Especially for an organization that deals with advertising where the stretching of the truth is what it's all about. So, the expert that was called in wasn't really an expert. OK, so what? Hell, I'm not an expert but when I'm confronted by something that's confounding me, I take a stab at researching it. I look for something that constitutes reasonable proof and I weigh it. That's what I think their expert did. He probably wasn't sure, so he did what I would do. He asked for proof. And you can read what he got. The usual song and dance. An organization that exists to monitor the stretching of truth knows the song and dance. So, they were wrong. Fine. At least they know when they're being hosed. If the company had come back with something that looked reasonable, maybe they'd have rethought matters. Shite happens.

Well said.

I stand by my premise, that the ASA expert even on point #1 may have seen Kimber's claims as an inefficient solution to a non-existent problem, and therefore, not living up to its billing.

The points are independent entities, and were dealt with by the ASA in that regard. It is not proper to allow one's sentiment regarding points 2 and 3 to affect one's judgement with regard to point #1. Kimber made a correct statement and the complainent's belief was incorrect..period, end of message...Kimber 1, ASA zero. Notice that nowhere in the ASA writeup is there any allusion to "efficiency"..nada. zip..negatory..

You miss the big picture Bob. So I will make it very, very clear.

Somebody has to take the lead in clamping down on this cow-chip advertising garbage, and I'm happy to see that the ASA has taken on that role.

When a "verdict is rendered, it absolutely MUST be airtight, they have to keep their nose clean with respect to all of the ruling and action regarding an advertiser.

Blowing the first point because of a general sentiment that the whole ball of wax is ridiculous doesn't cut it ...it provides a path for legal action by the vendor should they feel loss of revenue from the action.. And they cannot be given that option.

Keep it clean, keep it right, make sure it's an ironclad, totally defensible action taken with absolutely NO indication of sentiment or anger or desire on the part of anyone, the expert, the asa, nobody.. ...give them no quarter..when the last nail in in place, there is no exhumation.

As Jack Webb was fond of saying...just the facts, just the facts.

On point 1, this is what the ASA should have said...

Yes, a braid construction does indeed reflect (first incidence) conducted RFI, and certainly can reduce inducted RFI because of it's braid construction.. It also can enhance the coupling of conducted RFI into the endpoint system by virtue of a resonance/quarter wave effect so as to increase the passing of RFI into the system. We therefore request any and all test data from the cable manufacturer which clearly supports their assertion that their product does indeed reduce conducted RFI in a typical residential environment, using typical high end equipment of the type used by the target audience of the advertisement, plugged into the WALL OUTLET with the residential power delivery system not altered by the use of any RF circulator style absorbers.

If they cannot prove using commercial test equipment available off the shelf on undoctored equipment or power delivery systems that the claim has merit, they are required to remove the claim...(asa requires documented proof of claims).

THAT is the proper way to put the ball, and the onus, on russ and Kimber.

NOT the sloppy way it was done in point 1.

Cheers, John

ps..remember, point 1 is independent because the customer did not believe the product could reduce conducted RFI. The asa therefore has to stick to the issue of conducted RFI in response to point 1. And the most ironclad way to do that is to ask for test results using test equipment... not audibility. Audibility leaves too much weasel room..

Yes, John, but can you say it with a believable English accent?

Yes, John, but can you say it with a believable English accent?

Probably not...I come across more like a pirate..

Cheers, John

Of course the points are independent entities. But the braid construction may or may not effectively reduce conducted RFI as claimed, and that uncertainty is compounded by its irrelevancy.

Of course the points are independent entities.


Glad we agree.


But the braid construction may or may not effectively reduce conducted RFI as claimed,

So then, why not ask for test date on THAT POINT???? Do not toss it out as irrelevant because you don't believe the vendor...it is certainly relevent on it's own. And even YOU, given a dose of t-line theory, have now backed down to "it may or may not be effective".

That has been my point. It will reflect rfi back, but unless the entire system is engineered properly, it can also cause reflections internally to resonate.. And that is the ONLY point that should be addressed with #1 of the three items. The other two DO NOT EXIST with respect to point #1.

A braid construction that uses more conductors than is required alters the line impedance, and that is VERY important when it comes to allowing conducted RFI to travel through (unimpeded as it were).


and that uncertainty is compounded by its irrelevancy.

NO....it is not compounded by it's irrelevancy. It is independent.

Only those who come in with a chip on their shoulder, as you first did, consider it guilty because you feel it's "irrelevant".

Your approach is self defeating, and I might add, "irrelevant" You can't ignore general e/m principals because you believe the product is of no use. You really don't want others to view you as ####-bent on trashing others just because you don't believe the product works.


I confirmed the statement has merit, and explain how it could also be a bad thing. Hence, the request for supporting electrical test data.

If he shows that the cord lowers the induced noise on the supply rails, then what?? Will you say that's irrelevant also because it's Kimber?

The people you want to listen to you.... ignore you because you came in blasting. In point of fact, you come across exactly like the "yaysayers" of yesteryear, unable to acknowledge a correct viewpoint from the "other side of the fence".

Impartiality works a whole lot better, and lends more credibility.

Cheers, John

ps..if kimber wants a good wideband rfi source, I can easily draw him up a wild generator using a mercury wetted reed relay and a coaxial storage line..I remember vividly the wiring for the old tek 109 pulse generator...350 picosecond rise time square pulses at 1 Khz..

Glad we agree.

The people you want to listen to you.... ignore you because you came in blasting. In point of fact, you come across exactly like the "yaysayers" of yesteryear, unable to acknowledge a correct viewpoint from the "other side of the fence".


um...are these 'people' in contact with you, and that's why you can say with such confidence how Mr. Lee is coming across to them?

If not, how do you know who is ignoring whom, John?

um...are these 'people' in contact with you, and that's why you can say with such confidence how Mr. Lee is coming across to them?

If not, how do you know who is ignoring whom, John?

Bob is trying his best to educate those who are not fortunate enough to have his level of education regarding this cable "stuff". As such, he tends to rail against the ridiculous marketing crap.

Buuuut, at what point does the "railing" turn off those he wishes to get the "message" to?

What accurate statements by a vendor will be overlooked in the zeal to right the "wrongs"?

Heck, Bob's zeal to overlook the factually correct statements of Kimber is making me want to pass him off as a zealot and simply ignore him..., and I AGREE WITH THE VAST BULK OF WHAT HE SAYS!!


I'm saying customer education is not simply telling the world that the opposition is the devil incarnate.. Discuss the rights, discuss the wrongs, but don't go overboard.

Bob should be helping to educate the vendors and those who teach the engineers, not nuking everybody who he disagrees with in concept..or because they are on the other side of the fence.

Cheers, John

Bob is trying his best to educate those who are not fortunate enough to have his level of education regarding this cable "stuff". As such, he tends to rail against the ridiculous marketing crap.

Buuuut, at what point does the "railing" turn off those he wishes to get the "message" to?

Well, I am one of those "people" that comes here for education as well as entertainment. I enjoy reading posts and opinions by pretty much any and all. I have also followed this thread, why I don't know. So as one of those people let me tell you what my take is, based on what both Bob and John have posted. Its simply that one of these guys comes across as an insufferable, know it all that likes to flaunt their perceived superior knowledge every opportunity they get. While their arguments are reasoned and logical, I am still left with the question of what their agenda is and why they would dedicate so much time trying to prove something so insignificant. Being right is fine, but how some go about proving they are right seems to indicate little to no people facing skills at all. Perhaps getting banned from other sites had to do more with how they put the information out there rather than what they are really saying. I watched an episode of The Big Bang Theory last night. And one of the characters very much reminded me of one of these two guys. One of these guys has a huge amount of knowledge and argument skills, but comes across as one of the most socially inept individuals I have ever read. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one. But this is just my opinion based, not only on the content of what has been posted, but the manner of the posting. I get tired of the snide inuendos and insults that constantly lace their postings and see no reason for them other than to demean and riducule.

Well, I am one of those "people" that comes here for education as well as entertainment. I enjoy reading posts and opinions by pretty much any and all. I have also followed this thread, why I don't know. So as one of those people let me tell you what my take is, based on what both Bob and John have posted. Its simply that one of these guys comes across as an insufferable, know it all that likes to flaunt their perceived superior knowledge every opportunity they get. While their arguments are reasoned and logical, I am still left with the question of what their agenda is and why they would dedicate so much time trying to prove something so insignificant. Being right is fine, but how some go about proving they are right seems to indicate little to no people facing skills at all. Perhaps getting banned from other sites had to do more with how they put the information out there rather than what they are really saying. I watched an episode of The Big Bang Theory last night. And one of the characters very much reminded me of one of these two guys. One of these guys has a huge amount of knowledge and argument skills, but comes across as one of the most socially inept individuals I have ever read. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one. But this is just my opinion based, not only on the content of what has been posted, but the manner of the posting. I get tired of the snide inuendos and insults that constantly lace their postings and see no reason for them other than to demean and riducule.

Thanks for your words.

Quite honestly, I can see how I would fit ""....comes across as an insufferable, know it all that likes to flaunt their perceived superior knowledge every opportunity they get. While their arguments are reasoned and logical, I am still left with the question of what their agenda....

But this doesn't seem to fit me...""trying to prove something so insignificant"". I figure bob on that..course, I could be wrong...

This could easily be me: ""Being right is fine, but how some go about proving they are right seems to indicate little to no people facing skills at all. ""

This doesn't fit me, I've never been banned from a site..I guess this is bob.""Perhaps getting banned from other sites ""


This: ""but comes across as one of the most socially inept individuals I have ever read"" Could still be me...

Thanks for the feedback. Don't go any further with assignment however..I'll take what I believe applies to me and try to change my behaviour in the future..(but can't promise success, hey I'm human..:()

Cheers, John

ps. You probably followed the thread in the way we all watch a train wreck..ya just can't look away.

Again, thanks for the words...it's nice to get feedback..

So then, why not ask for test date on THAT POINT???? Do not toss it out as irrelevant because you don't believe the vendor...it is certainly relevent on it's own. And even YOU, given a dose of t-line theory, have now backed down to "it may or may not be effective".

Backed down to "it may or may not be effective"? Backed down from where?

That has been my point. It will reflect rfi back, but unless the entire system is engineered properly, it can also cause reflections internally to resonate.. And that is the ONLY point that should be addressed with #1 of the three items. The other two DO NOT EXIST with respect to point #1.

Perhaps the ASA expert that you dismiss out of hand actually takes into account the haphazard nature of power system wiring, cable dress, AC power inputs, et al. After all, it's a power cord, not a physics conversation piece with no real utility. It's like recognizing that while a screen door will allow air through and keep out many little flying insects, its beneficial effects could be substantial installed on a house but not on a submarine.

A braid construction that uses more conductors than is required alters the line impedance, and that is VERY important when it comes to allowing conducted RFI to travel through (unimpeded as it were).

True, but I've worked in high RF environments and power cords have never posed an RFI problem.

Your approach is self defeating, and I might add, "irrelevant" You can't ignore general e/m principals because you believe the product is of no use.

Who's ignoring E/M principles? I'm just saying that in this application, they amount to no concern. I don't see that as self-defeating.

If he shows that the cord lowers the induced noise on the supply rails, then what??

I would be interested in seeing such proof.

Will you say that's irrelevant also because it's Kimber?

No, why would I? I have not ever taken that position.

The people you want to listen to you.... ignore you because you came in blasting.

May I suggest some self-examination in that regard.

Impartiality works a whole lot better, and lends more credibility.

On that we also agree, which is why I strive for impartiality.

Backed down to "it may or may not be effective"? Backed down from where?

From zero discussion by you on the technical point "because it's irrelevant". You've altered your presentation from it's irrelevant I donna wanna talk bout it, to well, ok...it really might be correct but still irrelevan. The technical point is indeed relevant to point #1, and I still concur that it may have no use in the final system.


Perhaps the ASA expert that you dismiss out of hand actually takes into account the haphazard nature of power system wiring, cable dress, AC power inputs, et al. After all, it's a power cord, not a physics conversation piece with no real utility.

I don't dismiss him "out of hand". All we can point to is this "expert's" dismissal of reduction of conducted RFI in the fact that he actually asked for information to backup their defense from the incorrect "belief" of one individual.

If the expert truly "took into account" exactly what you are saying, then that expert would have asked for exactly the same proof that I asked for.


True, but I've worked in high RF environments and power cords have never posed an RFI problem.

I work in a high RFI environment, where measurement of nanovolts is standard, and they don't worry about the line quality for any small 12 phase power supplies. Small in this case, is anything under half a megawatt.

In addition, there's a 5 megawatt supply a coupla hundred yards away which pulls the line voltage down about 10% every 1.5 seconds, and it also provides us lots of RFI to play with. Sometimes it can drive us nuts, as the building girders even have voltages impressed on them, and I can't even guess as to their equivalent guage..:eek:

Needless to say, there have been times when altering the power cord has been required to solve RFI intrusion into some of our equipment...it's easy when the draw is under 20 amps at 120 or 208, but it's more difficult when you have to switch from a three phase 500 mcm feed to multiple 250 mcm's (or even worse)..I believe NEC may need changes to incorporate multiple parallel runs, as the fault current demands imposed on just one of the cables doesn't line up with the cable being replaced..same thing I think may be with the palladiums..

BTW, the problem is only getting worse..now the pressures exerted from above is to go to switchmode supplies with power factors near unity...turnkey units at 900 amps 400v, 400 amps 1200v, lotsa smaller ones to the tune of a coupla megawatts total...so worrysome that within a rack, they're lookin to go fiber-optic..not to mention the 4000 meters of cable tray.

Sheesh, If I thought Ray Kimber had really engineered the product, I'd probably point the PS engineers his way...



Who's ignoring E/M principles? I'm just saying that in this application, they amount to no concern.

Who said they were of concern in this application???? I said point #1 is Kimbers. I also said Kimber would have to prove via measurements that they should be of concern to the application.

Ya gotta get it straight, Bob.



I would be interested in seeing such proof. (of noise on the rails vs cordage...my note)

Me too. I think it'd be a pretty poor supply design that let the hash onto the rails. But by putting the onus on Kimber to supply such data in a controlled and repeatable environment, we'd get what we want. Either it works, or it doesn't... Any supply without bypass...big electrolytics don't even exist at RFI domain.


No, why would I? I have not ever taken that position.(Will you say that's irrelevant also because it's Kimbermy note
It would be logical for you to even diss measured results of Kimber's in the exact same fashion that you ignored his correct statement (re: point #1), actually said it's irrelevant because a problem is nonexistent.. You'd probably back up and claim the test was rigged...(that I say based on your inability to agree Kimber has point #1.)..(actually, you'd probably not do that.., but it seems to be how you're inclined to view evidence presented by a cable vendor..)

I'm sure we'd both require pretty solid evidence, and just as certainly question that evidence once presented. But that's how science works..presentation of testable claims with the ability to duplicate..

Not condemnation because he's a cable vendor..


May I suggest some self-examination in that regard.(ignore you because you came in blasting.
Certainly will consider that..but I didn't come in hard. we spiralled..



On that we also agree, which is why I strive for impartiality.
You failed to do that here. You have not been able to separate point #1, which is a point of technical accuracy, with that of 2 and 3, which we certainly agree on.

Cheers, John

PS...to all..

If you examime the document IEEE 1050 ""Guide for Instrumentation and Control Equipment Grounding in Generating Stations""....page 34, you find at the top of the page....start of quote.. ""LC types of filters achieve their action on the EMI by the following interrelated actions:

1) Reflection via impedance mismatch reflects the EMI back up the same path from which it tried to enter the filter. (a braided cable comprised of several insulated strands per wire element will indeed have an impedance mis-match)
2) By circulating the EMI within the filter's elements and creating EMI losses via heat dissipation in the filter's components. (if the cable is indeed forming a resonator at some arbitrary frequencies, making the insulation a lossy dielectric at RFI frequencies could indeed absorb)

3) By low-impedance shunting action between conductors, and to equipment or signal ground conductors through filter components that are connected line to line and line to ground.... (multi-conductor braid has higher capacitances, this can be a low impedance shunt.
end of quote (my notes in red..)

It is trivial to measure the inductance and capacitance of a line cord, and it is trivial to show that a multiple braid cord does indeed have lower inductance and higher capacitance, both common mode as well as to ground. So it is trivial to understand how this cord geometry could indeed be considered a filter element on the equipment side of an outlet, and deal with it as such.

Considering the cord as an effective filtering mechanism, is of course, what should have been asked of Kimber..the fact that a possible mechanism exists certainly does not prove that it is viable..do not confuse my explanations of what will happen within the cord with an explanation of the merits of the cord....I make no claim as to the merit of the product.
This document was published in 2005, so any points from NFPA 70 (NEC) may not be up to date..any points in it, check NEC 2008.

Bob, I can send ya the full pdf if you wish...but I bet your employer already has it..

Bob, my advice is to not respond and perhaps the thread will die a merciful death.

Bob, my advice is to not respond.

That is also my advice. Heaven forbid a discussion of an IEEE publication might break out:eek:

Cheers, John

That is also my advice. Heaven forbid a discussion of an IEEE publication might break out:eek:

Cheers, JohnYou kind of love having the last word don't you?:p

I don't see this as a discussion. We must have a different meaning of the word.

Sure it is. Unfortunately, it is an asymmetrical one..the last time I was involved in this type of "discussion", the other player refused to engage the technical aspects of "motor-generator" effects of cables. I used Faraday's law of induction, Lorentz forces, cable mass...and the other player kept on sidestepping. Course, he kept on calling me a "naysayer" for my effort.

Hmmm.

Cheers, John

ps...does anybody know how to find out who the "expert" was that the ASA engaged for this topic? Curious minds wanna know.

pps...""You kind of love having the last word don't you?""

Well, that really makes me wanna just stop dead in my tracks...

If you wish to engage the discussion of RFI, be my guest. Otherwise, please stop tossing marshmallows.

Sure it is. Unfortunately, it is an asymmetrical one..the last time I was involved in this type of "discussion", the other player refused to engage the technical aspects of "motor-generator" effects of cables. I used Faraday's law of induction, Lorentz forces, cable mass...and the other player kept on sidestepping. Course, he kept on calling me a "naysayer" for my effort.

Hmmm.

Cheers, John

ps...does anybody know how to find out who the "expert" was that the ASA engaged for this topic? Curious minds wanna know.You responded to a deleted post. I anticipated your response:p

You responded to a deleted post. I anticipated your response:p

Strange. Usually I get a weird message when that happens, and the deleted post doesn't capture...

Cheers, John

You know, you can't have a bona-fide expert on every little thing that's said at one's beck and call. Especially for an organization that deals with advertising where the stretching of the truth is what it's all about.

Well in legal matters you should have that right, especially when financial impact is in play. Some shmo researching something they know nothing about (or in this case, one that is sympathetic with the claimant) is hardly a fair hearing.

So, the expert that was called in wasn't really an expert. OK, so what? Hell, I'm not an expert but when I'm confronted by something that's confounding me, I take a stab at researching it.

The "so what" is your comments on this forum aren't being used in a legal environment.

It's OK for less than expert comments to be weighed against cable companies, but only the scientific experts and explanations are examined when a cable claim is made. Why am I not surprised. The double standard wins again.

I look for something that constitutes reasonable proof and I weigh it. That's what I think their expert did. He probably wasn't sure, so he did what I would do. He asked for proof. And you can read what he got. The usual song and dance. An organization that exists to monitor the stretching of truth knows the song and dance.

No, skeptics and those looking for a "song and dance" will inevitably find it. I suppose in lieu of actual expertise this suffices in that environment.:rolleyes:

So, they were wrong. Fine. At least they know when they're being hosed. If the company had come back with something that looked reasonable, maybe they'd have rethought matters. Shite happens.

Reasonable to some clerk who was assigned to research something? Mmmkay.

The ASA isn't a legal court. As an arm of the advertising segement, it's well aware that actual expertise, aka testimonials, don't measure up. Financial impact cuts both ways. In this ruling, I doubt the little ****sucker is going to be much affected.

Once again, it's not the ASA making assertions, it's the ASA questioning them.

And I think that Mr. Neutron owes an apology to Bob Lee.

JJ

Once again, it's not the ASA making assertions, it's the ASA questioning them.

The ASA is responding to a complaint by a "customer".

The complaint was in three parts.

And I think that Mr. Neutron owes an apology to Bob Lee.JJ

For what? invoking an IEEE paper on a relevant topic?

For actually questioning Bob's inaccuracies?

For remaining NEUTRAL with respect to the e/m theory claim and subsequently incorrect ASA response?

For defending an ACCURATE statement regarding filter theory, t-line theory, reflection of RFI...REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE OF THE STATEMENT?????

Tell me, jj...apologize for what? Having the audacity to question Bob???

Sorry, I do not apologize for any of those.

Do YOU have any rebuttal to the theory, the equations, the analysis, the papers I have presented in support of EVERY SINGLE ASSERTION I HAVE MADE HERE ON POINT #1??? Bob could not(edit:I correct myself...Bob DID NOT..I do not know if he can)..are you up to the task?

Do you think that you have to run interference for Bob?? As others have done here?

Answer: no. Bob's a big boy now, let him discuss the topic on his own.

Leave the pom poms at home, please..

Cheers, John

ps...apologize?? where have you been?? I did. You obviously missed it..

I wonder How many cable threads there are? :rolleyes:

It has already been proven that the differences are all your heads. :rolleyes:

I wonder How many cable threads there are? :rolleyes:

Far too many..;)

Actually, this "cable thread" is not quite the same as others..nobody is saying "can hear"...."no you can't". We all seem to agree (we being the most vocal posters) on the audibility assertions..The bulk of the discussion here centers on the condemnation of a vendor for stating a correct e/m proposition...condemnation by association.

I don't care for condemnation by association, I assert that each "point" should live or die on it's own merit..

It has already been proven that the differences are all your heads. :rolleyes:

No, actually that is not quite right.

Nobody's been able to prove under controlled conditions that they can detect a difference..

In your heads...is just an interpretation.

Maybe right, maybe wrong..:p

Cheers, John

ps...apologize?? where have you been?? I did. You obviously missed it..

Obviously, I did, if you did.

I'll have to introduce you to Arny Kreuger some day.

Obviously, I did, if you did.

Yes. It was pointed out that my comment to bob was absurd. I agreed with that observation, and stated: ""You are correct, it is indeed absurd. And I apologize to Bob for stating such.""

Perhaps I should have highlited/bolded it so it was more apparent..so here it is again..

I apologize to Bob for stating such.

Just to make it clear...;)


I'll have to introduce you to Arny Kreuger some day.

Why. Does he have a history of missing the point of a discussion?

Lest you missed the point, I'll repeat.

The ASA does not start the process of determining the validity or stupidity of advertising "embellishments" or lies. They respond to complaints from outside their organization. They do not pre-screen the ad content.

In response to a complaint, they determine what (if any) expert is required to examine the complaints, and to begin the process of determining the validity of the complaint.

The complaint under discussion was composed of THREE parts.

1. The questioning of the validity of the statement "a braided line cord structure can reduce the CONDUCTION of RFI from the mains", as the complainent did not BELIEVE this can be true.
2 and 3..moot points, as all of us agree on them.

It is unfortunate that an expert in RFI most likely could not respond to points 2 and 3, and one who is an expert in audibility (you perhaps, maybe Bob) is not an expert in the field of RFI or transmission line theory....as the first point is indeed within the realm of RFI and t-line theory and not yours or Bob's domain.

Granted, both of you may never have experienced RFI intrusion (pro gear is far better w/r to design on this point), but I have. But the fact is, point 1 is more a theoretical point, and as such, must be dealt with along those lines.

For an audio/professional such as either you or Bob to ignore the point as too small to worry about is irrelevent to the point itself, and statements to that effect are more of a diversion from that point.

I still maintain that it is inappropriate for any professional to determine the lack of merit of a point that lies outside their area of expertise, especially after lots of technically accurate information from various sources (including IEEE) which bolster my assertion has been presented.

What is worse is the fact that I agree with Bob's assertion that there's a snowball's chance in heck that the product has merit.... However, I have no factual data to support THAT assumption either.

I have sympathy for the ASA in that they have to decide within what domain of expertise a complaint falls, in this case they missed the boat on point 1. For that point, an RFI expert would have said "duh...complainent's belief is not valid, on to point 2.."

Cheers, John