UK advertising watchdog rules against high-end cable claims

[jneutron]

Why is it assumed that ASA was correct?

Cheers, John

[Chu Gai]

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

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

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.

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

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...

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

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

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

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?

[speco2003]

Originally Posted by Easyaspie

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.

[Chu Gai]

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.

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

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...

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

[krabapple]

Originally Posted by Jack Gilvey

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

Do high-end cable retailers advertise themselves as churches?

[krabapple]

Originally Posted by sdurani

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.

[krabapple]

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

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...

[krabapple]

Originally Posted by jneutron

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?

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by krabapple

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".

Originally Posted by krabapple

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

[Chu Gai]

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.

[Chu Gai]

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

[krabapple]

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

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

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

[Chu Gai]

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.

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

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..

Originally Posted by krabapple

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

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

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

[Chu Gai]

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

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Originally Posted by jneutron

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.

[DougWinsor]

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?

[Chu Gai]

Another tesla video for you John can be found here.

[Easyaspie]

Originally Posted by speco2003

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.

[Easyaspie]

Originally Posted by DougWinsor

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.

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

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..

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

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

[ssteel01]

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

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

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Originally Posted by jneutron

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.

[bwaslo]

Originally Posted by Easyaspie

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.