ra asa outcome

just read about all the charges having been dropped ..... I'm surprised the more rabid amongst you have not made more noise about ...It was not so long ago since phrases like "just desserts" and "come upance" were being shouted across the bandwidth..

Would anyone now like to repeat those many, varied and vociferous comments ?

So now that we have some "scientific proof " enough to convince the court that these cables were doing what it said in the ad.

Where do those ..."cables make no difference" people now stand ?........or has there been some randiesque slight of hand to allow the object of ire to escape ?

they'll now have to add " make no difference in there system "

 

Charges? Court?

Link?

Paul

 

I'm not too sure what this relates to , Pete?.

 

russ andrews and the advertising standards authority

 

Snake-oil charlatan in "Snake-oil proven to be good for health" shocker.

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

 

Where? I've just searched the ASA site and all that's there is the link Bub posted, and that's very clear on each of the three points:

We concluded that the ad was misleading.
...
However, we considered that, at the time the catalogue was published, the ad made a misleading claim.
...
We concluded that the ad was misleading.

So what's changed?

Tony.

 

If RA has been able to prove to a court via scientific argument that his cables make a difference then that actually vindicates the views of those with objectivist leanings. All many of us have been saying for years is that we want to see some science to back up the claims.

And this reference to the "cables make no difference people" is nonsense. I know of very few (actually none....) making that argument, though there are plenty believing that the differences, where they exist can be explained perfectly well by the science available.

What exactly has RA shown to the court?

 

Has zanash been reading a different report?

From the ASA:

Zanash, can you show where you obtained your information claimng RA had scientific proof?

 

Well its obvious a cable vendor will pull something positive out of this.

 

not specificaly refered to on the web site but it is in their brochure which i've just received.
It appears they appointed an independent consultant to investigate their claims.
Link

 

I can't wait to see that one peer reviewed!

Tony.

 

So the snake oil merchant's latest catalogue vindicates the snake oil merchant!
C'mon Zanash even you should be able to do better than that!

 

Is there a 'financial outlay versus sound quality' graph to support his findings too?

 

So wh*t hifi/ hifi Ch*ice and the like gives RA cables medals/stars for sound quality...hey-ho, the punters buy it, but if the the presence doesn't sit well they can return the offending item at anytime within a 60 day home trial period (RA terms and conditions) for a full refund... fair enough ?
All that remains is to buy hifi magazine, keep receipt and keep it *Very*clean (no salivating) scan/copy the pages of interest then return it to store as a mistake (offending articles are) for a full refund... .

So they wrinkle cream it, whats new ?

 

ooooooohh!

I can feel another cables war coming on.

What fun!

 

I can't imagine why you feel that. Russ Abbott made some dodgy claims in their adverts, someone complained, the ASA looked into it and then ordered RA to withdraw the dodgy ads. End of, as they say.

 

The material produced by rus only appears to substantiate a claim that some of his items measure slightly differently in some respects that may or not have a bearing on audio performance - not that they achieve the sonic claims he made originally. In my view many of the plots are far from compelling.

 

you should take up the law ...not !

the evidence was enough ...ie to create reasonable doubt in twelve just men and true ...etc therefore all chages were dropped according to my information.

I don't think the question of them sounding better or even different actually came into the case as thats purely subjective.

Its very interesting to see peoples take on this case .....I think it says more about the posters than the case in question ...

Are we going to call into question Den Buncan who did the "extensive research" ? are people saying his findings are in error ?

As for myself.... I still maintain that his products are over priced for what they do .....look at the oak cones you can make these for fractions of pennies ...but then they do have an effect ... still nobody is forcing you to buy the items at the prices asked.

 

Your information would appear to be completely spurious.

Although it would be fun to see Russ try to prove foo beyond a reasonable doubt.

Paul

 

How do you define this expression, Paul?