cable cooker, do they work?

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.

Bomarc, i made logical conclusions based on the precepts of your "thesis". One could not arrive at those conclusions unless you had a reliable baseline to perform those tests with or base those statements on.

I also understand EXACTLY what you are trying to say and where you're coming from. The reason that i was a skeptic is because i DID ( or at least thought i did ) know the "science" behind such things. I work on electronics for a living doing repairs, modifications, upgrades, design consultation, etc.. of RF gear. Believe me, i know that cable characteristics are "supposed to be" FAR more important at RF freq's than down at "baseband" audio frequencies. As such, I went into my "experiments" with a bias towards a "negative".

Needless to say, I was completely stunned to actually hear a very noticeable ( and quite positive ) difference. One of my friends went through a similar situation. He had some interconnects that he HATED and was going to literally throw them out. I told him that i could burn them and that he would probably like them a lot better. Needless to say, he was very skeptical. I did burn them for him and he now has them playing within several different systems in his house. The cables DID change for the better and he was shocked to say the least. For the record, he too has a good understanding of electricity as he was a communications / repair tech in the military. He is now currently employed as an industrial repair tech for electro-mechanical equipment.

Like i said before, just because we don't know how something works doesn't mean that it can't work or exist. Many things were accepted as "fact" in the past, but that still didn't make the Earth flat or the center of the universe. Those with open minds and a curious nature found ways to prove their points. Those that WERE the "experts" ended up being ridiculed for their lack of understanding and promoting what later became known as the REAL "myths".

Keep an open mind and open ears. You might be surprised sometime soon. I know i was. Sean
>