cable cooker, do they work?

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........

let me get my dictionary out here.....let's see.....yeah.....it looks like CFB called you an idiot.....no, wait....just not very bright.

anyway, FWIW, i kinda agree.

bomarc, please do your homework with current technology cables and break-in devices before you question whether they work or not. it's real simple.....listen first, then comment or don't expect any serious consideration of your comments.

if you want to tell us about exactly which cables were broken in and what breakin device was used, and your opinion of the result, then your opinion will mean something.

we are talking about the subjective issue of musical pleasure, and what increases it.....not an issue measurable by science (thank god).

Sean, I think you're trying to disprove something I never said. At any rate, I don't want to engage in a long discussion of the physics of cables. Anyone who wants to get deeper into this will have to do a little reading on his own.

But you keep saying, and Mike has now echoed you, that you re not interested in any comments other than those related to personal experiences and observations. Observations can be very insightful, but they can also be very misleading. It all depends on how you interpret your observations. It's my own view that if you know a little of the science behind these toys, your interpretations will be more reliable. Which is why I think a little dose of science now and again is a worthwhile addition to any discussion of audio.