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 affect 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 affect 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 affect on the noise floor in hi-fi equipment.


....


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.


....


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

I guess now Russ Andrews needs to find some really badly designed piece of audio equipment with a useless power supply that puts common mode noise from the mains cable directly onto the audio output, though it would have to be a truly bizarre design to do so!

I'll assume this is legitimate, coming as it does from a .gov.uk domain, but I'd really expect better grammar from a large organisation writing a formal account.

The Advertising Standards Authority is the independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes. The strength of the self-regulatory system lies in both the independence of the ASA and the support and commitment of the advertising industry, through the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), to the standards of the codes, protecting consumers and creating a level playing field for advertisers

I'll assume this is legitimate, coming as it does from a .gov.uk domain, but I'd really expect better grammar from a large organisation writing a formal account.

Number of complaints: 1

... I'd really expect better grammar from a large organisation writing a formal account.

Russ Andrews assertion

show that PowerKords was proven

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

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

In the interest of scrupulosity [is that even a word?] here's a dissection of the ASA expert counterclaim re: RFI

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....10#post13488510

Had the "expert" provided a complete analysis using transmission line theory, he would have not been so adamant that claim #1 was incorrect. For example, if the powercord impedance was indeed lower by construction, that will indeed cause a reflection of RFI on the line back away from the equipment.. This is trivially known, but ignored here. Instead, what was harped upon was the lack of documentation...

I've not claimed that kimber's assertions are correct or incorrect. Just that the process used to discount the assertion was not adequate to the task.

If I were to claim an IEC adapter with a common mode choke rejected RFI on the line, would my claim also be rejected on lack of documentation???