Russ Andrews

Just incase anybody hasn't read it yet,looks like Russ Andrews have had a run in with the ASA....Have browse on the link....interesting !!

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

 

dealt with here
https://www.audio-forums.com/as-rediect/showthread.php?t=18680&highlight=russ+andrews

 

I don't see the point of Forum posters gleefully slating someone like Russ Andrews. He is not the only one making fairly substantial claims about their products. He offers a refund of payment after a fair trial period guarantee. His products either work or they don't, you decide.

Disclaimer: I am not an agent or have any affiliation to Russ Andrews or any of his companies.

 

He makes false claims and has been found out.

 

He's a good guy - a fund of knowledge, polite and interesting to talk to. He is a salesman and as such ....etc....etc...

Neil

 

A lot [most?] hi-fi manufacturers make claims that are similar to those of Russ Andrews. Magazines print reviews which state that some products are 'better' than others, soundstaging is 'wider' etc. etc. Reading the judgement on Russ Andrews, all these articles and claims are equally dicredited. I don't think the complainant did anyone any favours by complaining to the ASA if every comment or assertion must be accompanied by a graph or printout that backs up the statement. I mean how do you measure soundstage 'depth' or 'height'????, things that you can clearly hear if your system is setup with some care.

The complaint and the judgement discredits the entire industry. And us too who enjoy music and our hi-fi.

 

I disagree with you there mate, if he was purely talking about 'sound stage' or 'dynamics' then I don't think that he would have been censured in such a way.

The specific claims were that:

"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 ..."

Also:

"... Distortion levels inside equipment is vastly reduced"

and finally:

"eliminate system sound fluctuation and help to create a super-quiet noise floor"

All of these claims are very specific and should indeed be measurable. The truth is that the ASA found that (at present) they (Russ Andrews) were actually unable to discern any measurable difference in the parameters defined in their adverts.

If he had simply said that he believed that his cables improved dynamics, noise floor, etc then he surely would not have been censured. The fact is that (at present), he can't actually demonstrate any measurable basis for the hypothetical causes of these subjective effects.

I have no major issue with Russ Andrews. I also think that magazines are equally at fault when they hypothesize (sic) on the scientific reason for their perceived subjective observations, however they aren't advertising a product. You can have an opinion, you can't however pretend that it has some scientific basis when it hasn't.