ra asa outcome

The industrial sector pays plenty for well performing quality cables, of course the stress's are somewhat different from those found in domestic hifi, yet similar levels of electrical performance/Characteristics are employed by those that make for the hifi market,of course, the cables will be special, but are they needed or any better in regular domestic use than perhaps a so-called simple/standard quality cable, i would say it's negligible, but just in case i had bouts of Bat hearing without realizing, i got some high quality industrial cable from a chum who supplies it...cost was a few drinks, so even if bothered dont need to look for better..

 

In the absence of Zanash's 'source' let's just assume he is wrong.

 

You are right. He who sells fancy hi-fi cables believes that fancy hi-fi cables are good. Most of the remaining people have more than a little scepticism.

 

An unfair comment, Bob.

No.

SOME people I think.

 

Not at all.
He mysteriously claims to be in the know. Blathers on about 12 men and true and charges etc. The only place where such language would be relevant is in a court. If it was in a court it must be a matter of record. If so give us the reference and shut us all up.
I wonder why he doesn't/can't.

 

Bob I ahven't gone into this case at all....and haven't the time to do so.

In general terms i have foiund pete to be a pretty knowledgeable guy.

The proof for that for me is in my audio stuff, which is light years away from what it was, mostly due to petes knowledge .

:lol::lol:


my own observation is that stuff that shoiuldn't go to court does (eg defending your own home etc etc) and stuff that should doesn't (we are not short of examples there i don't think.)

There has been a link given hasn't there?

 

May I suggest before you blindly defend your mate that you find the time to read the thread.
As for your question
There has been a link given hasn't there?
The answer is no there hasn't. Someone did post a link to the wild claims salesman's latest catalogue. Bugger all to do with juries and charges. If Zanash's silly claims had any truth in them the ASA would surely have reversed their adjudication and so far they still post that his claims are unjustified.
Good enough for me.

 

You can most certainly suggest it, Bob.

As I don't entirely regard as "blind " defence ...I might just not take you up on it

....ooooh, the can't hear won't hear brig getting the bit between their teeth.......

I am not in the slightest bit surprised, Bob.

 

from Custom Installer March 2009 page 14 ....

Article Sound and Vision the Bristol show

" One of the most interesting demonstrations at the show was by russ andrews . Shortly before the show ,he and his eponymos company had won a five year legal battle in an investigation by the advertising standards authority.

complaints were made against its claims that its woven powerkord speaker wire did not improve sound quality as the company was claiming it did.

After many years of court battles over the allegations , the company employed the services of audio and electrnics expert Ben Duncan to put together a report on the product line .

This detailed research led to the allergations being dropped , proving that the product is effective at rejecting radio interference [rfi]

A gleeful Russ Andrews said "Whoever complained to the ASA, thank you there's a bottle of champagne waiting for you."

"The work carried out by Ben Ducan fully vindicates the claims we've known for thirty years, namely that woven cable construction is an effective method of rejecting mains borne and airborne RFI" he said.

"I think he nailed down every query and objection any reader is likely to make".

The Bristol showcase was used as a perfect oppertunity for managing director Russ to letthe public hear the difference with and without powerkord.There was indeed some difference especially when playing live music.This includes better seperation of low,mid and high tones and a crisper cleaner audio.

"significant investment from the company will not end with this report" russ went on to say "We'll go on to prove things that people have not complained about. To me its about always improving audio quality for the consumers".

An independant review of the report was also carried out by Dr Craig Sawyer from Southampton university who added " What a paper. No one will ever be able to say that mains quality ,conditioning and cables do not make a difference again. From now on, its simply a done deal."

Well thats the article ..any spelling mistakes are of course my own ...

So bob is it a done deal?
you still claim cables have effect on sound ?


well there's now the scientific evidence but it might just stick in your throat !

 

I see no scientific proof, just opinion.

 

That article from the Custom Installer doesn't make a great deal of sense. Staying firmly away from the rights and wrongs of the intial judgement, the fact is that the ASA is a voluntary regulatory body, it does not have any real "teeth" so to speak, and there is no right of appeal against it's judgement - not to the ASA and especially not to a court of law (other than maybe by judicial review, but that wouldn't be appropriate here I'm sure). It is possible to refer a judgement to the Independent Reviewer for the ASA, but those are not legal proceedings and I can find no reference to RA having successfully requested such a review. All the Independent Reviewer can do in any case is request that the ASA reconsider the original decision - which a search of the ASA site will confirm has not happened in this case. In that context, I struggle to make any sense of at least the first three paragraphs.

 

Here you go Bob, Britains justice system you think is so wonderful....

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/91000


That didn't take long did it?

 

I think it's worth pointing out again that the claim to the ASA did not just say the cable had no effect on RFI etc.. the main objections I thought were that it would not change the sound at the output of the hi-fi - and that has not been proved. (It was also objected that it would not affect RFI already in the supply).

I can relate to this as I have done various experiments on Behringer kit to develop the mods I offer. I have tried things like using fancy regulators that measurably reduce noise in comparison to less complex ones. But in some applications it has not had any measurable effect on the actual audio output. In which case it is a waste of the customers money. (there are also places they work magic )

 

RA has a PR puff at http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf unfortunately it does nothing to justify his claims. And especially it says nothing at all about audibility.

I'll let Zanash or David F find the 'peer reviewed' paper promised for last November.

Paul

 

David
Do you live in an alternative universe to the rest of us?
Have you managed to find the time to read the whole thread yet?
The nonsense about charges and juries was introduced by Zanash when he said,
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.
as if to add some sort of gravitas to his silly assertions, assertions which he has now been asked by several people on here to back up and he remains silent.
You meanwhile post links to burglars to illustrate what?

 

To prove your (seeming) faith in the legal system is somewhat unfounded....a bit off topic agree...but a logic link not terrribly difficult to work out?

Not beyond your abilities I'm sure.

No I haven't read the all the evidence.

In fairness I don't beleive I need to.

You criticised someone (I felt) unfairly....I defended him.

Therefore I think I am very much in the same universe .........are YOU?

 

The 'legal system' and anybody's faith in it is of no relevance to this thread. Except in your and 'Zanash's' febrile imaginations.

Why not find out about what you're commenting on before commenting?

Paul

 

Perhpts not my finest post(s)....

Ok.

 

if the charges were dropped ......which side decided they could not win ?

it does't really matter what the reason was ....the case was dropped because of the evidence provided by the independant specialist /expert witenss

just because you lot don't like the judgment ...thats not my problem ....


why would I need to justify my position ...I've stated the facts .....as presented by custom installer ..now if their wrong then thats a whole new ball game and you should contact the editorial director

Amanda Roberts [email protected]

if whats stated is fact ..then your all barking .......................................up the wrong tree

Whats wrong with you people...you bleat on about no scientific proof ....then when its produced you bleat that its not independently verified, what the F*** do you think the professor At Southampton uni was doing .....


the facts ....
evidence provided by ben duncan showed that the advertising claims were not incorrect
the evidence produced by ben ducan was scrutinized by Dr sawyer and was found to be correct

the outcome...
therefore the prosecution had no case and was therefore dropped

Have I missed anything ?

 

Who has dropped the 'charges'? There is no evidence to that effect on the ASA web site, and that is the only one that matters - the ruling remains as far as I can tell.

Tony.