cable cooker, do they work?

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
>

I may be guilty of keeping a dead horse alive, but I am amazed at how much dancing around my question took place. To be honest, Bomarc, both you and Docwarnock failed to answer it - or perhaps I should say Doc ignored it and you at least gave me some generalities but little detail. Perhaps the discussion *is* lengthy.

Docwarnock: "...how does this differ from the litany of cable claims we see made here so frequently? And this is our body of evidence that indeed significant differences in the sound of cables exist?" Interesting comment to Cfb. So, where is your body of evidence? I know, I know. Go look it up myself. That seems to be a common response to my question for the evidence that people claim to have. And that is a pity since I am genuinely interested in learning about it. In my own defense, you brought up the fact that you had DBT results to back up your claims. Please forgive me, but I cannot accept your assertions without examining your evidence for myself.

Bomarc: Believe it or not, I am fully aware of the complexity of the question I asked. The question itself isn't really all that complicated - but the resulting discussion about the *facts* claimed is. "Not surprisingly, objective listening tests have so far invariably confirmed such predictions." So, where are these objective tests? You cannot imagine how frustrating it is to continue to be tantalized by references to them but no solid information on where to find them. As a side-note, the history of science is rife with examples of initial objective evidence later being refuted. How? By examination and independent verification.

"Objectivists/empiricist" do themselves and others an injustice when they claim to have evidence and do not, or will not, share it. If you don't want to post a lengthy treatise on the topic at least provide references so that everyone else can read them. If you claim to have results from DBT, or any testing for that matter, post them or provide a reference to them. Why do you expect readers to accept your assertions when you refuse to provide the evidence? Docwarnock's jest about levitation cuts both ways. His claims are, at this moment, as unsubstantiated as those he directed the jest at. Without the evidence, whose existence is at this moment only vapor, and most certainly in the absence of any real discussion about the issues (instead of calling each other idiots), I can only treat said claims with skepticism. Sorry, but you can't refute a claim by pointing out that their evidence is invalid or incorrect and yours is valid without providing it for others to examine.

I also ask for the forbearance and forgiveness of the originator of this thread for having continued off-topic.

So Ramond, back to the topic of this thread.

Yes, cable cookers do work.