Seems the ASA have upheld a complaint by a memebr the public that some of the claims made by our revered Russ Andrews cannot be substantiated and the complaint has been upheld.
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44177.htm
EDIT OK in the light of Nick's comment I've removed the SMILEY.
Russ Andrews taken to task over his advertising claims
#1 Russ Andrews taken to task over his advertising claims
Last edited by Toppsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#2
Before we get to excited and add extra smileys, the following seems to be the crux of the decision, and it could remove just about any HiFi advert.
"He said, in the field of audio, the ABX test method was well established and probably one of the most commonly used."
"He said, in the field of audio, the ABX test method was well established and probably one of the most commonly used."
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
-
Neal
- Shed dweller
- Posts: 2300
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:57 am
- Location: From the land of the Bodgers
#3
At last. 
Yes Nick, 'commonly used' is also misleading but we know the RA claims border on the fanciful. Never has he actually proved any of it.
EDIT. And yes it could apply to the whole of the Hi-Fi industry 'claims'
Yes Nick, 'commonly used' is also misleading but we know the RA claims border on the fanciful. Never has he actually proved any of it.
EDIT. And yes it could apply to the whole of the Hi-Fi industry 'claims'
#4
Its the invocation of ABX that worries me though Neal.
I would bet £50 that in a "properly conducted ABX test" you couldn't detect a difference between the before and after you have just done to your DAC
I would bet £50 that in a "properly conducted ABX test" you couldn't detect a difference between the before and after you have just done to your DAC
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
-
Neal
- Shed dweller
- Posts: 2300
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:57 am
- Location: From the land of the Bodgers
#5
Indeed Nick, you would probably win that bet. I think they are constructed in such a way as to remove any possibility of detecting a difference which, as you say, is a 'thin ice' point for the ASA to base their ruling on.
The lack of test evidence for the claims made by RA (and the rest of the industry for that matter) is the disturbing point, perhaps this will serve as a wake up call for the rest of the industry.
The lack of test evidence for the claims made by RA (and the rest of the industry for that matter) is the disturbing point, perhaps this will serve as a wake up call for the rest of the industry.
#6
Surely the evidence is in the listening.
I'm not going to pass judgment on RA's claims as I've never heard them.
But if this ruling stands it could open problematic doors for other manufacturers and eventually lead to many products disappearing altogether.
That may or may not be such a good thing for the rest of us if everything has to be measured and quantified.
We all know that we should believe in what we hear regarding HiFi rather than than what is written.
Personally for me nothing comes better than previous customer recommendations when deciding whether to but a particular product or to look elsewhere.
I'm not going to pass judgment on RA's claims as I've never heard them.
But if this ruling stands it could open problematic doors for other manufacturers and eventually lead to many products disappearing altogether.
That may or may not be such a good thing for the rest of us if everything has to be measured and quantified.
We all know that we should believe in what we hear regarding HiFi rather than than what is written.
Personally for me nothing comes better than previous customer recommendations when deciding whether to but a particular product or to look elsewhere.
-
Neal
- Shed dweller
- Posts: 2300
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:57 am
- Location: From the land of the Bodgers
#8
Yes, thanks Darren, looking forward to it!
Re RA, I think when a company states a specific effect IE lowering the noise floor in Hi-Fi equipment then that should be measurable and be able to be backed up. The subjective part is if lowering the noise floor improves the sound but I don't think that was the basis of the complaint...
Re RA, I think when a company states a specific effect IE lowering the noise floor in Hi-Fi equipment then that should be measurable and be able to be backed up. The subjective part is if lowering the noise floor improves the sound but I don't think that was the basis of the complaint...
#9
Yes Neal, you see my point, I agree that snake oil needs to have no place in the market, but it becomes a problem if its the thin end of the wedge.
As you say, ABX seems to ensure negative results, and that way lies "any competent amplifiers will sound the same" and "all CD players sound the same", then you get the "values are just effects boxes" and then "vinyl has no place in modern audio".
As you say, ABX seems to ensure negative results, and that way lies "any competent amplifiers will sound the same" and "all CD players sound the same", then you get the "values are just effects boxes" and then "vinyl has no place in modern audio".
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
#10
You and me may think that Darren, but trust me, if someone advocates the use of ABX then the listening is taken to have absolutly no validity as evidence.Surely the evidence is in the listening.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.