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.
