cable cooker, do they work?

Bomarc, if you think that i'm living in "my own little world", i at least acknowledge the "chaos factor". I always welcome an exchange of information based on inquisitive comments or first hand knowledge that apply directly to the situation being discussed. Your lack of experience and willingness to learn, experiment or listen to different points of view with an open mind negates the ability of all but the most patient of people to try and discuss something with you.

On top of this, you think that you can neatly disect and pigeonhole everything through simple measurements. BUT, what if what you were using as a baseline was not a stable platform ? What if you baseline was only valid for one specific set of testing conditions ? All of your results and beliefs would be quite limited in scope and based on false precepts.

The reason that i say this that many amps WILL alter frequency response into various reactive loads. Since ALL speakers are reactive to some degree, figuring out how an amp of that type would work with each different speaker would be tough in itself. Adding the variables of different cables with their ( sometimes highly reactive ) impedance contribution to the circuit could only further skew the predictions or results.

Your "theories" pre-suppose that the reference source is stable into EVERY load known to man. It also takes for granted that if the reference source did deviate in any manner, those deviations would be linear and predictable based on specific levels of impedance and reactance. Since there is not an amplifier produced that meets those requirements, you are in effect living in your won fantasy world. As such, your theories presented in sections 2 & 3 are NOT realistic. You have based your whole argument on false precepts ( a "lie" in plain English ).

As to Doc's comments, i shouldn't have said that you guys were in a boat with no oars. You guys are in a boat that does have oars but you are afraid to use them since you don't understand all of the physics involved. Everything that you need to move forward and expand your horizons is right in front of you, yet you refuse to take advantage of it. Some things DO work even if you don't understand how it is done.

In terms of hovering or levitating above an object, some people CAN do this. Just because someone else believes / does not believe that they are doing this does not change what is happening or make it possible / impossible. Sean
>

Well I must thank you all for taking what was going to be an informitive post on cable break in and making it like most cable posts..... Boring.
I wonder what point the Audiogon reviewers actually do something, it might have been good of them to step in here.
At any rate, I would like to hear from anyone who has made a good high current cooker that works.

It's not a matter of high current that matters, it's the voltage.

As such, the use of a square wave generator and small amplification circuit with some type of terminating device ( dummy load ) is all that one needs to "build" a cooker. The higher the voltage that you run through it, the faster the cables will be conditioned. Cables with minimal dielectric can be burned or arc out if you get crazy with this idea.

Voltage should be at least several volts more and typically multiple times higher than what the cable being burned would ever see under normal use. The square wave should be set to a low frequency i.e. 20 Hz and run for a period of time. You can then gradually increase frequency as time progresses until you've reached the top of the audio band. I would then go back and set the generator for a low frequency signal and let it run for a bit longer. This procedure should take at least several days ( preferably a couple of weeks ) but i have noticed benefits from doing such in as short as 36 hours.

To try to explain some of this, square waves generate an infinite amount of harmonics ( higher frequencies than the primary signal ). As such, the cable is exposed to a primary frequency with a multitude of signals above that. By starting low and working your way up the frequency range, you will have exposed the cable to the full audio spectrum and well beyond due to the harmonic content.

The higher voltage applies more "pressure" causing the crystal structure of the cable to more properly "align" themselves. A simple analogy of power is voltage is equal to pressure in a circuit and amperage is volume of flow. If you don't have enough volume ( amperage ) due to a restriction ( resistance ), the pressure ( voltage ) will drop. As such, the crystal structure presents a more consistent and easily navigated path now that it is "aligned" and has been "forcibly pushed" into place by the higher voltage. The dielectric is also somewhat "cured" and reaches a plateau in terms of settling. This allows the signal to pass through easier with less restriction and losses.

The end result is a signal that has suffered less degradation, flows easier and is more open, lucid and detailed in presentation. Highs sound much smoother and less jagged, midrange is far more transparent and bass is more controlled. Definition is improved through-out the entire frequency range. Soundstage and imaging become wider, deeper and more pin-point.

The above is strictly a theory and not presented as anything more than my point of view. The information is based on materials that i've read, experiments that i've tried and first hand listening tests that i and several others have conducted. Much of this is controversial to say the least, but the results have been so unanimously positive and consistent that they are undeniable.

Should you choose to believe, deny or ridicule the above information, that is your option. I am open to comments but i will point out right now that i am not a metalurgist, physicist or brain surgeon. As such, i might not be able to explain part or any of how this works. I recommend that you give this a try FIRST and then post comments ( positive or negative ) afterwards. This way, you'll have something solid ( first hand experience ) to base your comments on other than theories and hear-say. I was an "unbeliever" and "doubting Thomas" prior to experiencing the results myself. Sean
>

bomarc:

>>this is not a complete empirical defense<<

>>and for that matter I'm not really qualified to give it<<

these are the only two statements you've thus far made that i accept without qualification. oh, and if you're bothered with my pointing out the logical fallacy of your "argument," i should also have noted its being tautological, too. -cfb

My cables have been cooked trying to work out what some of the words mean on this thread and where all the hostility came from........