ra asa outcome

Zanash, are you reading a different case to us?
The ASA has clearly stated that they told RA not to use the claims again unless they had proof.

 

I know you have no interest in accuracy and tend to believe anything you're told. But there is no published 'evidence provided by ben duncan (sic)'.

Who is 'Dr Sawyer'?

And where is the evidence regarding typical RF on the mains and the consequent audibility of a RA cable attenuating it? You know the actual useful stuff?

Paul

 

Southampton Uni has no listing for a Dr Sawyer, odd.

 

This is what I'm trying to determine. I graduated from the department of Electronics and Computer Science at Southampton and I don't know this person, but I left a few years ago. Google draws a remarkable blank.

Zanash - please could you clarify whether Sawyer is a professor

or a Doctor (PHD)

Most professors have PHDs, but tend not to use the Dr salutation, since they are Prof.

Since a professor would have published works, they will easily be found through google.

There is no one by the name of Sawyer in this list: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/?mtype=supervised

The closest match would be Dr Craig Saunders.

 

The ASA judgement as of 16.00 today from their website.

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).

2. Upheld
Our expert believed it was possible to measure distortion, and noted Russ Andrews had not supplied any evidence to show that Signature PowerKord cable could reduce distortion levels. We acknowledged that the wording in the ad had been used in error and welcomed Russ Andrews assurance that they had taken steps to prevent a similar mistake in the future. However, we considered that, at the time the catalogue was published, the ad made a misleading claim.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

3. Upheld
Our expert considered that Russ Andrews had not supplied any supporting evidence to prove that the noise floor in the audio signal chain was lowered by the advertised devices. He said it had shown that the noise floor on the mains supply could be reduced, but this appeared to be common modes. He understood differential modes were actually more significant than common modes and believed the devices were not dealing with the biggest cause of mains supply spikes. He said no evidence had been provided to show that spike-protecting devices affected audio signals, as opposed to mains voltages. The expert believed it was possible to test the noise floor of a system objectively without perceptual testing and believed this could be done for both a standard mains cable and the Mega/Super Clamp Ultra and the results compared. We considered that the evidence submitted was not sufficiently robust to show that spike-protecting devices would eliminate system sound fluctuation and help create a super-quiet noise floor. 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).

Action
We told Russ Andrews not use the claims again unless they could substantiate them with robust scientific evidence.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)


They obviously haven't heard!
LOL.

 

So, the ASA has upheld the complaints and informed RA that they should not use unsubstantiated claims for the products.

And yet all charges were dropped, apparently, and due to A prof that doesn't exist.

Excellent, thats cleared that up.

 

As far as I understand the ASA will only withdraw or rescind an adjudication if it is later found out the investigation was beyond the remit of the organisation. The adjudication against Russ Andrews was about claims made in his catalogue and were well within the remit of the ASA.

The situation remains the same. Russ Andrews must hold robust evidence for any claims made in print which are capable of objective substantiation (more than just opinion). To my knowledge, the evidence from Ben Duncan has not been scrutinised by the ASA - unless a fresh complaint has been made and it has been presented in support.

To me, the article zanash refers to, reads like fabricated spin.

 

In a cable thread? Oh well, there's a first time for everything.

 

Anyone else had a PM from RA?

 

No, I feel left out now..

 

Science doesnt operate on the basis of "reasonable doubt" or opinion

RA claims that these effects improve the sound - to me its not even clear that the effects he claims exist from BDs work let alone that they improove the sound quality. Its highly dubious.

Indistry pays for well shielded and constructed cables for effects irrelevent to the audio band. I used to working RF engineering so I know how much some of the cables cost and its frightening! Nothing to do with audio though and RA hasnt shown otherwise.

 

does this help at all..
link to Ben Duncans White paper on the RA web site (extracts)
http://www.russandrews.com/images/articles/WeavePaperAbstractDocv2.pdf
and to the full 32 page document

I dont know if this is correct but my (admitedly simple) understanding is that the original complaint was upheld ie. RA cannot use the wording of their advert without proof of their claims (which they didnt have at the time of the complaint)
They (RA) clearly now believe thay have the necessary evidence to continue using the wording... I assume there wont be another ruling from the ASA unless someone else complains again in which case RA believe they have the necessary info to support there claims..
As to whether it is necessary for RA to submit these new findings to the ASA i dont know

 

No, they don't need to submit them - the previous adjudication is done and dusted. In fact, it was always open to RA (although inadvisable) to ignore the ruling of the ASA and continue with the same advert without any evidence.

The big stick in the ASA's armoury is the bad publicity associated with a negative ruling (this thread being proof positive of that!) and the evidence now adduced by RA is, I suspect, nothing more or less than a PR exercise in response to that publicity

(Note: that is just my guess as to the motives behind getting the research done, not any comment on the validity or otherwise of the research - I'm staying firmly on the fence).

 

You certainly haven't missed the chance to destroy any tiny shred of credibility which once you may have had.

 

I emailed the ASA:

The ASA replied:

Add to this the “Dr Craig Sawyer from Southampton university†who it is claimed reviewed Russ Andrews research doesn't appear to exist - the article appearing in Custom Installer can be safely said to be made up.

 

As you made the complaint to the asa Mossie, you would be in a more knowledgeable position on its true out come any more information?

 

Any more information Tony? Yes, the bottle of Champagne offered by Russ hasn't been claimed.

 

Thanks ...Mosfet

I bet you never thought that would be my response..

Having contacted Nicholas Clancy [staff writer] At Custom installer and discussed your information ...they are currently as perplexed as I am ...and are waiting for the return of the articles writer to discover more ...I've been promised an email [but not holding my breath]

So at this moment obviously what ever was printed could be completely false ......and therefore any opinions draw from the articles conclusions must be in question too ..

Doing a little back ground hunting Dr C sawyer appears not to be a staff member of Southampton University ECS......

That said their is a Dr Craig j Saunders

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/cjs

of course I've no idea if he has anything to do with the RA article or not, but it could have been a simple case of the journo not hearing or understanding the info passed ?

This is almost more interesting than the original article as the info was passed on by RA in person !

 

zanash

I don't think Custom Installer have made up this story. I think they have reported something told to them in good faith.

As for Dr Craig, yes this could be a typo. However as the rest of the article about “court battles†isn't true, at least not according to the ASA, I have to doubt the professional testimonial too.

 

With reference to the various posts submitted on this thread, there are a number of facts that should be appreciated by the contributors and perhaps considered before making comments about the ASA ruling, the work done by Russ Andrews to substantiate its claim, the people involved and the article written in Custom Installer magazine.

For your information I am the PR consultant retained by Russ Andrews, and what follows is not PR spin, but just plain and simple facts to clear up the misunderstandings.

Regarding the ASA ruling:
The company does not dispute that the ASA did indeed rule that:

a) "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."

b) "Russ Andrews had not supplied any evidence to show that Signature PowerKord cable could reduce distortion levels."

c) "the evidence submitted was not sufficiently robust to show that spike-protecting devices would eliminate system sound fluctuation and help create a super-quiet noise floor."

It is also not disputed that: "We told Russ Andrews not use the claims again unless they could substantiate them with robust scientific evidence."

Regarding the work undertaken to prove the claims:
The work undertaken by Ben Duncan does prove the effectiveness of the company's products at a) reducing the pick up of RFI b) reducing distortion levels and c) helping create a super-quiet noise floor. This evidence is clear for anyone to see in the published white papers.

The papers were independently reviewed by Dr Craig Sawyers and he affirmed that they do provide a substantial body of evidence to prove the company's claims and that the testing procedures were robust.

Russ Andrews has not gone back to the ASA with these papers as the ruling did not call for the company to do so. It simply stated that the company not use the claims again without being able to substantiate them. It can now substantiate them with the required robust scientific evidence.

The testing work carried out was done to prove the claims of measurable reductions in distortion etc. It was not designed to test the audible effects of these reductions as this was not what the ASA asked for, nor was that the subject of the original complaint to the ASA or the ruling.

Regarding the people involved:
Ben Duncan is well known to audio enthusiasts around the world, both professional and domestic, through over 900 authoritative articles, reviews, DIY projects and research papers on audio engineering, electronics and music technology.

Dr Craig Sawyers holds a BSc (1st class honours) in Electronics and a PhD in Laser Physics from Southamption University. He is not a professor or lecturer at the university and at no point has Russ Andrews made any claims that he is. The press release which accompanied the white papers clearly stated that his degrees were from Southampton and not that he is currently based there. Dr Sawyers has held various positions in industry, including with Smith Associates (defence electronics), Scientific Generics plc (nanotechnologies) and Wharfedale plc (technical director).

Regarding the article in Custom Installer magazine:
At the recent Bristol Hi-Fi Show, Russ Andrews presented the findings of the scientific research to members of the public and journalists from the trade and consumer hi-fi media. The members of the media were all given a press pack which included the two white papers and a press release, in which the facts about the testing regime and people involved were outlined. Russ Andrews explained the reasons behind the testing and gave some background on the ASA ruling.

He did not, at any point, claim the company had "won a five year legal battle" or taken part in "many years of court battles" as reported in the article in Custom Installer. There have been no legal battles, no court appearances and this issue has not been around for five years. He also did not make the statement that "this detailed research led to the allegations being dropped". The ASA ruling has not been rescinded, as the ASA do not change their judgements once made. This fact is not disputed by the company. The article is factually inaccurate reporting, with a certain degree of journalistic license being employed.


I would suggest that those who wish to make posts about these issues, which they are perfectly entitled to do, check their facts first and that the moderators of this forum might wish to reiterate that allegations made should be able to be substantiated