ASA Adjudication on Russ Andrews Accessories Ltd

Ad

A catalogue, Russ Andrews The Big Book 06/07, selling home entertainment electrical accessories, made various claims about their products.

Issue

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 effect on conducted electromagnetic interference;

2.  "... Distortion levels inside equipment is vastly reduced, letting you hear a sound that is vastly clearer and purer, more detailed and far more dynamic ...", because he believed the Signature PowerKord cable would have little effect on measurable distortion in hi-fi equipment, and

3.  "... eliminate system sound fluctuation and help to create a super-quiet noise floor, allowing more believable dynamics, deeper bass and lower high frequency distortion ... Listen out for a quieter noise floor (expect more dynamic music and greater detail) and a much more cohesive musical sound ...", because he believed the advertised spike-protecting devices would have little effect on the noise floor in hi-fi equipment.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Russ Andrews explained that Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) was an unwanted electrostatic and/or electro-magnetic field, which gave rise to varying levels and types of background noise in an audio system. They said normal twisted wires found in most cables made them susceptible to RFI, but they believed that a woven cable containing several wires, where each one repeatedly crossed each other, reduced RFI.  They believed the degree to which RFI could be reduced was dependent on the number of times the wires crossed.  They provided the ASA with a number of research papers as substantiation for the claim.

Russ Andrews said it was a recognised fact within the audio industry that removing RFI would bring about an improvement in Hi-Fi equipment performance and that weaving a cable was a recognised technique to reduce it's susceptibility to RFI.  They believed that variations in sound quality were a matter of subjective assessment by the listener and therefore not capable of objective substantiation, but maintained that the difference made by the cables was significant. They sent a number of magazine reviews and customer comments as anecdotal evidence.

2. Russ Andrews said it had not been their intention to imply that the Signature PowerKord would have an effect on measurable distortion levels in Hi-Fi equipment.  They explained that the claim was the result of a typographical error, which had not been spotted at proof reading stage.  They apologised for the error and said they would take steps to avoid a similar mistake in the future.

They said mains borne noise was a recognised problem in audio reproduction and believed it was an acknowledged cause of sound quality degradation.  They believed it was not possible to measure such degradation objectively using conventional Harmonic Distortion techniques. They maintained that mains borne electrostatic, electromagnetic and harmonic noise and spikes passed through the power supply by a variety of mechanisms to pollute the inherent noise characteristic of the amplification path.  They said noise on the input, the output and the power supplies compromised the ability of the amplifier to follow faithfully the signal resulting in audible degradation.  They believed any listeners would characterise it as distortion although it would not appear in conventional distortion measurements.

3.  Russ Andrews said their SuperClamp Ultra and MegaClamp Ultra were designed using industry standard voltage clamps to reduce spike activity on the mains Live and Neutral lines and to clamp voltage variations between Ground and Neutral.  They believed that spike activity was one of the causes of the sound quality of a system varying from time to time and day to day and was well recognised in the Hi-Fi world as the cause of dissatisfaction with Hi-Fi equipment.  They said it was easy to hear but impossible to measure.  They included a selection of customer testimonials to support the claims.

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)