Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 35 of 35
  1. #26
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockwell
    So extanding that logic; a pharmacutical company could sell a sugar pill with an advertised purpose, and because people believe that it is helping feel better, then FTC can do nothing?
    Either the wire is doing something real, or it is not.
    Does the FTC have a say on medicines? I thought it was the FDA. Anyway, the regulations may not be as strict as you think. I'm looking at a box of ginseng tea I just bought, and it says among other things "specially designed to boost mental and physical energy" and "effective for stress related problems." But then there is this disclaimer in smaller print near the bottom of the box: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Disclaimer notwithstanding, I hope it works.

  2. #27
    Forum Regular Rockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by okiemax
    Does the FTC have a say on medicines? I thought it was the FDA. Anyway, the regulations may not be as strict as you think. I'm looking at a box of ginseng tea I just bought, and it says among other things "specially designed to boost mental and physical energy" and "effective for stress related problems." But then there is this disclaimer in smaller print near the bottom of the box: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Disclaimer notwithstanding, I hope it works.
    Well, you know what I meant...whoever regulates that. I think that herbal tea falls under the classification of dietary supplement like a vitamin or diet pill, which it seems the FDA doesn't seem to regulate at all until people start dying. I was thinking more along the lines of a cold medicine which, I assume, is different than an over-the counter drug.
    "You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers."

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockwell
    Well, you know what I meant...whoever regulates that. I think that herbal tea falls under the classification of dietary supplement like a vitamin or diet pill, which it seems the FDA doesn't seem to regulate at all until people start dying. I was thinking more along the lines of a cold medicine which, I assume, is different than an over-the counter drug.
    I'm not as sure as you are that we are well protected from misleading advertisments about drugs. From what I have read, the FDA can ask a drug company to stop running a misleading ad, but doesn't have the power to punish the firm for having done so in the first place. I have read that the FDA cited Lipitor ads four times between 1998 and 2002 for giving the wrong impression that this drug can reduce heart disease and falsely claiming it's safer than competing drugs.

  4. #29
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockwell
    So extanding that logic; a pharmacutical company could sell a sugar pill with an advertised purpose, and because people believe that it is helping feel better, then FTC can do nothing?
    Either the wire is doing something real, or it is not.
    I would not extend that logic because I can't elevate a cable to a matter of life or death - or a matter of sickness or health. Extending logic in this manner would be like putting health warnings on paper because of possible paper cuts or on flat shoes that may slip on ice. Cables are a means to enjoyment - a pastime. I see your point but I think you're stretching things well beyond the importance of cables and well beyond why anyone should care if people believe in cable sonics or not.

    How would a judge or the FTC be able to determine if the cable is doing something real or not? Who's going to argue what is "real"? Science? Cable sonics are faith based. You might as well have the FTC litigate against churches for advertising the existence of God since science doesn't support that existence. Think of all the people that are being harmed because of this belief! Why do you not attempt to protect them just as passionately? Sure, freedom of religion is protected - but I've often read on this site that cable beliefs are like a religion

    I'm not trying to be combative but I would like to ask a question: who cares about cable advertising, cable sonics and why? Cable sonics seems like a harmless belief to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

  5. #30
    Forum Regular Rockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    156

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by rb122
    I would not extend that logic because I can't elevate a cable to a matter of life or death - or a matter of sickness or health. Extending logic in this manner would be like putting health warnings on paper because of possible paper cuts or on flat shoes that may slip on ice. Cables are a means to enjoyment - a pastime. I see your point but I think you're stretching things well beyond the importance of cables and well beyond why anyone should care if people believe in cable sonics or not.

    How would a judge or the FTC be able to determine if the cable is doing something real or not? Who's going to argue what is "real"? Science? Cable sonics are faith based. You might as well have the FTC litigate against churches for advertising the existence of God since science doesn't support that existence. Think of all the people that are being harmed because of this belief! Why do you not attempt to protect them just as passionately? Sure, freedom of religion is protected - but I've often read on this site that cable beliefs are like a religion

    I'm not trying to be combative but I would like to ask a question: who cares about cable advertising, cable sonics and why? Cable sonics seems like a harmless belief to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
    The point I was trying to make with my (however flawed ) analogy was that selling something that really does nothing(as claimed) is wrong. It doesn't matter if no one gets hurt or whether or not the the company ever gets punished. I was trying to project a similar situation on to another industry where people don't have such an apathetic attitude towards fraud.

    As for the question how would a judge would decide: Take a look at the "Benefits" on this web page: http://www.psaudio.com/products/xstream_power.asp
    It seems to me that two or three are specific enough that they could be verified. ..and the customer quotes are over the top, but there probably isn't anything that can be done about those.

    You are asking why anyone would care about this industry. I think that most of the "objectivists" on this board are engineers or scientists of some sort, and everything about cable sonics/technology and assosociated tweak industry insults their profession and intelligence. You have a whole industry based on a whole lot of nothing being sold at astronomical prices disingenuously using psuedo-science. Not everyone is has money to burn, and when Joe Consumer goes into Circuit City, he shouldn't be conned into spending hundreds of dollars on Monster cable for his HT system. Joe is not a scientist or an engineer, and there really is no place to get objective information about whether these cables are providing anything worthwhile.
    "You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers."

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockwell
    The point I was trying to make with my (however flawed ) analogy was that selling something that really does nothing(as claimed) is wrong. It doesn't matter if no one gets hurt or whether or not the the company ever gets punished. I was trying to project a similar situation on to another industry where people don't have such an apathetic attitude towards fraud.

    As for the question how would a judge would decide: Take a look at the "Benefits" on this web page: http://www.psaudio.com/products/xstream_power.asp
    It seems to me that two or three are specific enough that they could be verified. ..and the customer quotes are over the top, but there probably isn't anything that can be done about those.

    You are asking why anyone would care about this industry. I think that most of the "objectivists" on this board are engineers or scientists of some sort, and everything about cable sonics/technology and assosociated tweak industry insults their profession and intelligence. You have a whole industry based on a whole lot of nothing being sold at astronomical prices disingenuously using psuedo-science. Not everyone is has money to burn, and when Joe Consumer goes into Circuit City, he shouldn't be conned into spending hundreds of dollars on Monster cable for his HT system. Joe is not a scientist or an engineer, and there really is no place to get objective information about whether these cables are providing anything worthwhile.
    I see your point but I think the accusation of "fraud" is going to be difficult to prove when you have an entire sub-niche group of users who will swear up and down that their system did indeed improve through the use of these exotic cables.

    Your third paragraph in particular makes a whole lot of sense from more than a few aspects. You're correct; Joe Consumer has no means to fight back. He's not an audiophile with a lot of experience in determining for himself that cables are either a fraud or a godsend. You're also correct that he's probably being fed pseudo-science in order to forcefeed his decision and he's not equipped to refute it. So, as it worked with me, at least the first set of cables is purchased and the cycle begins, at which point it's up the consumer to learn for himself if cables are worth fussing over. As a result, I would think that the cable companies and retailers should indeed refrain from using advertising that claims anything of a scientific nature and instead uses nothing other than personal anecdotes such as "thousands of happy users feel these cables are the best" or something along those lines. They should be able to garner enough of those.

    Thanks for clearing up my confusion, Rockwell!

  7. #32
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332

    Why stop at cables?

    Why not sic the FTC on the ENTIRE audio industry - electronics, turntables, CD players, etc? And why stop at audio? How about lounge chairs (no proof one is more comfortable than another, only anecdotal info), computers, tv's, cement, hammers, carpet, bicycles, or anything else that requires subjectivity to determine preferences?

    Marketing is marketing is marketing. You state that either a cable is doing something or it isn't. Who decides, the FTC or the user? Sure, you and I believe that audio/video cables are the same unless engineered to be colored. Others believe differently. I may believe the marketing ploy of a couch maker that claims theirs is better than a competitor. Someone else may disagree. Should DBT's be employed to "prove" their is no difference? I should think that the average intelligent adult could make their own determination, just as we have for as long as marketing has been around. I think when they market towards someone's preference even if you and I may deem it imagination, the FTC would be well advised to find something else to do. I can appreciate that the very idea of cable sonics is an insult to your profession but realize that the people who are supposedly insulting you obviously know less about your profession than you do!

  8. #33
    Forum Regular Rockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    Why not sic the FTC on the ENTIRE audio industry - electronics, turntables, CD players, etc? And why stop at audio? How about lounge chairs (no proof one is more comfortable than another, only anecdotal info), computers, tv's, cement, hammers, carpet, bicycles, or anything else that requires subjectivity to determine preferences?

    Marketing is marketing is marketing. You state that either a cable is doing something or it isn't. Who decides, the FTC or the user? Sure, you and I believe that audio/video cables are the same unless engineered to be colored. Others believe differently. I may believe the marketing ploy of a couch maker that claims theirs is better than a competitor. Someone else may disagree. Should DBT's be employed to "prove" their is no difference? I should think that the average intelligent adult could make their own determination, just as we have for as long as marketing has been around. I think when they market towards someone's preference even if you and I may deem it imagination, the FTC would be well advised to find something else to do. I can appreciate that the very idea of cable sonics is an insult to your profession but realize that the people who are supposedly insulting you obviously know less about your profession than you do!
    The marketing of cables goes beyond the normal marketing spin that most people can shrug off. First off, the information presented is often so technical that most people have no idea whether or not is true or relevant. Second, the ideolgy implied and promoted has no basis in fact. Third, there is no objective source of information for cables like Consumer Reports. Marketing for preference is one thing, but they are implying that their cables are a performance enhancer. I have no idea if what they are doing is legal or not, but it seems more underhanded than normal marketing.
    "You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers."

  9. #34
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockwell
    As for the question how would a judge would decide: Take a look at the "Benefits" on this web page: http://www.psaudio.com/products/xstream_power.asp
    It seems to me that two or three are specific enough that they could be verified. ..and the customer quotes are over the top, but there probably isn't anything that can be done about those.

    You are asking why anyone would care about this industry.
    The FTC cares about advertising in EVERY industry. The FTC is there to protect the rights of American consumers to know if a claim of superior performance has any scientific validity so that a decision to purchase can be made on reasonable expectations that an alternative choice, possibly a much cheaper one, wouldn't yield equally satisfactory results. That's what fraud is all about, the making of false or unsubstantiated claims and the FTC has ruled that this mean scientifically substantiated in advance of making the claims, not going back after the ad is challenged to find proof or taking testimonials from users of a product. The claims for this product are interesting. Some of them are patently absurd.

    Here are the claims;

    Lower noise floor
    World's best power delivery system
    Unrestricted power
    Ability to eliminate ground loops
    Actually cleans the AC power

    It could be argued that the marginal increase of inductance due to the ferrite in the outer jacket creates a very minimal but measurable improvement in the "noise floor." This could be provable but for that electronic equipment with excellent regulation, it may be impossible to find even with instruments. Nowhere does it say that the improvement will be significant to the point where it will be audible. That is left for the reader to infer. So if another power cord for an audio amplifier delivers a S/N ratio of -110.1 db and this one gets performance of -110.2 db, the claim is true but the improvement is worthless.

    The term "best" in advertising parlance has been interpreted to mean that it's as good as anybody elses but not necessarily better. Of course, there is no proof of this because it would have to be compared with every other product of its kind available and surely, much heavier gage wire would be an improvement at least in terms of IR losses although that would not be of any practical benefit either.

    That the power cord can deliver unlimited power is absurd. Even if it wasn't for the limitation of the upstream protective device, a 15 or 20 amp circuit breaker or fuse, the current carrying capacity and breakdown voltage limitation of the insulation is a clear limit for ANY electrical conductor. When the current is high enough, the conductor will melt and the cable will fail. When the voltage is high enough, the insulation will break down and the cable will fail. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Power is only unlimited in the sense that it will deliver as much power as the circuit it is intended for will allow. But that it true for any power cord of 12 gage or heavier.

    "Removable ground pin
    One of the coolest new innovations we came up with on the xStream power cables that have begun shipping in 2004 is a removable ground pin.

    The ground pin on a power cable is there to tie the ground of the AC receptacle to your equipment. However, in some cases, this ground pin can cause a ground loop and cause hum and buzz in your system."

    I would never use a power cable that has a removable ground pin. The NEC requires that ground wires be of low impedence. When the equipment manufacturer requires them they MUST be present and be used. You cannot break or compromise the safety ground connection between the outlet and the equipment in any way. Chapter 250 of the National Electrical Code which deals with grounding is always the largest chapter. It's importance in protecting life and property cannot be overstressed but this design flies right in the face of it. Eliminating ground loops must be done in other ways such as by design of the power distribution system and by breaking the loop in signal wires, meaning antenna and audio cables, not power cords. The first time there is an electrical fault and resulting injury or death where the low impedence ground path is through antenna wires and audio cables because the user removed the ground pin will make national headlines. It is impossible for me to see how this cable could get a UL listing with this feature. This one is really scary.

    The thinking of people who would market such a device as this cable must be completely obsessed with profits and they must have no conscience whatsoever.

  10. #35
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockwell
    The marketing of cables goes beyond the normal marketing spin that most people can shrug off. First off, the information presented is often so technical that most people have no idea whether or not is true or relevant. Second, the ideolgy implied and promoted has no basis in fact. Third, there is no objective source of information for cables like Consumer Reports. Marketing for preference is one thing, but they are implying that their cables are a performance enhancer. I have no idea if what they are doing is legal or not, but it seems more underhanded than normal marketing.
    Do people automatically believe technical arguments if they don't understand what's being said? Hmmm... maybe they do. That makes them gullible. No crime in playing to the gullible. I would imagine that 99% of all advertising does the same. Perhaps Consumer Reports should start this cable re-revolution!

    Yes, they adverts are implying that their cables are a performance enhancer. For thousands of people, they are! Thousands of people can't be wrong!

    Rockwell, I don't disagree that what the cable companies are doing is underhanded, perhaps immoral and, as Skeptic said, they are driven by profit as are most companies, with or without stockholders. I think these companies have found their suckers and are all too happy to find more. But with the legions of believers out there, I'm just not convinced that the FTC should have a say in their adverts. Is there anyone on this board that absolutely, unequivocally without a shadow of a doubt say that all cables that are designed to be neutral ARE in fact neutral? Unless and until they've all been tested, that's a leap I don't think most objectivists are ready to make.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •