cable cooker, do they work?

Tell 'em the truth, Doc: Being able to hover above water is a very expensive proposition. Those of you whose souls aren't good enough can't appreciate what we do, but be grateful for that. Enjoy your mid-fi selves, and think of all the money you're saving!

As for Sean: Where do you get off telling me that anything I've said is false? And since when is scientific knowledge not relevant background for a discussion of audio topics?

It's an interesting little universe you want to live in: You're allowed to state your interpretations of your observations as facts. I'm not allowed to state my understanding of scientific principles as facts. What a wonderful conversation we won't have!

Docwarnock, I am interested in reviewing your empirical evidence i.e. the documented results of the DBT testing. This issue has been argued ad nauseum (and yes I got in it too a few months back). Instead of continuing to stand toe-to-toe spouting invectives at each other lets bring this objective evidence out in the open for examination. As I am sure you know scientific discoveries aren't generally accepted until verified and repeated. I say all this as someone who is genuinely interested in learning more about this issue. If you don't feel comfortable posting your evidence here send me an email (just use member look-up).

Even the cow you gored can hear the difference Doc. But then the cow stopped and listened with an open mind before Moooooving on.

As for the hovering, I can do that too, so we now have two groups that can hover and only one can hear the difference in cables.

The difference? I, like others here at Audiogon (and the cow) aren't afraid to change our minds when testing proves our original ideas wrong.

Gallaine: An appeal to reason? How dare you! Actually, you've asked a more complex question than you imagine. There have been published ABX tests of cables. I recall one in Stereo Review a few decades ago comparing 24 AWG and 16 AWG zipcord and 16 AWG Monster cable. It found that the 24 was distinguishable from the 16, but the 16s were not distinguishable from each other. But there are thousands of cables out there, so even a hundred such comparisons wouldn't prove the point. (The point, by the way, is that cables that measure similarly will sound the same. And cooked and uncooked cables measure VERY similarly, just to tie into the point of this thread.)

The more general scientific case goes something like this:
1. We know what the threshold limits of human hearing are, because we've tested them, and we're pretty sure they're right because the thresholds are pretty close to the physical limits of what the ear could possibly pick up. If the ear were much better than that, you'd hear the air moving around in your outer ear, and that constant low-level swoosh would drive you crazy!
2. We also have a thorough understanding of how electrical signals move through cables. In fact, if we know the basic measurements of a cable and the load it's connected to, we can plot out its precise effect on frequency response.
3. If we know how different the frequency response curves of two cables are, and we know how large a variation in frequency response we need to be audible, we can predict whether two cables will be audibly different.
4. Not surprisingly, objective listening tests have so far invariably confirmed such predictions.

(To those who fume that I am dragging science into a hobbyist discussion area, my only defense is that Gallaine asked. And I suspect that other audiophiles have wondered the same thing, which is why I thought it worth responding publicly.)

bomarc: this is your empirical "proof"? looks to me like you've studied scientology, not science. your "syllogism" suffers from the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc." -cfb