Home Cookin': The Audiodharma Cable Cooker

DarqueKnight

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

Ray,

I am blocked from the Link on the MIT cables, I recall MIT particularily stated that cable cookers should not be used with their cables.........????????

RT1

Ted,

Even if you had gone to the link, you would have had to dig up the author's blog from December 2009, and I don't even know if that page is still available. Doing a search on "MIT" and "Cable Cooker" didn't pull up his Cable Cooker/MIT cable review.

Fortunately, I had saved those pages in a PDF which is attached below.:)

Ricardo

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Ricardo,

You are too impatient. This thread has only been around since Dec. 2009.;)

Maybe if we keep bumping it to the top???

reeltrouble1

well thanks Ray. Yes, this device certainly might be worthy of another club consortium like the flattener, which by the way has been a rousing success.

I am going to run it by Joe A to get his input on the MIT recommendation.

Ted

Toolfan66

When I talked with Joe he said "DO NOT USE" any cable cookers. I'm sure it has to do with the network box's..

I missed this thread as well. Nice read as always DK..

Larry.

DarqueKnight

Ricardo wrote: »

Maybe if we keep bumping it to the top???

I don't think so. My experience indicates that these types of quantitative research threads are not of much interest to a certain segment of cable thread enthusiasts. This is somewhat shocking because that certain segement of cable thread enthusiasts is always demading proof, proof, proof.

cstmar01

xcapri79 wrote: »

To me the article proves there is really no difference. When there were some measued differences they were really insignificant. DK did a great service proving this. Has this article been published in a peer reviewed publication or presented at an AES meeting?

there is a difference in the SQ not the measurements. Thats a difference in itself. (if SQ is different and we enjoy that difference).

Please no derailing of this thread into more dribble of because its not measured it doesn't mean anything, we don't need that again.

I am happy though that it was posted that MIT shouldn't be used as I normally use MIT and think this would be fun to try out sometime down the road...

steveinaz

"in your opinion."

It goes without saying that subjective opinions are...well...subjective. Some common sense and personal reflection/processing of the data is required with any article such as this. An observation remains flawed until such a time that it moves from being a theory, to a fact.

How about a positive contribution (be it pro or con to the idea) that actually adds to the interest of the topic, rather than arm chair quarterbacking--which requires little to no skill?

steveinaz

Knowledge does not equal fact. It is NOT engineering FACT--therefore, it's conjecture based on what knowledge we have at present-AKA theory.

heiney9

xcapri79 wrote: »

To me the article proves there is really no difference. When there were some measured differences, they were really insignificant. DK has perhaps proved the opposite of what he intended. Has this article been published in a peer reviewed publication or presented at an AES meeting?

What qualifies you to assume the measurements were insignificant? You and your cable heretics are never happy. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.

Pretty much spot-on as to what I expected from the cable naysayer crowd. You'll never, NEVER prove anything to them. I think Larry should stop the Jinjuku's cable challenge because this is the kind of rhetoric we can expect no matter what the outcome is.

H9

steveinaz

Well, what they don't get is that *the way* they engage these topics does nothing but destroy their credibility and integrity.

Note: *

steveinaz

Nice spin, wrong quote.

See the statement I quoted, that you made. It's conjecture. Of course using the word "performance" opens a box full of variables that will assist you in your back-peddling.

Have a good day, I'm done wasting my time on you.

megasat16

Fact:

1. Cable Believer Always Believe No Matter What.

2. Cable Naysayers Always Do Not Believe No Matter What.

3. Nothing can prove both sides anything.

4. There is no Middle Ground. The Middle Earth is swallowed by a Blackhole. :eek:

heiney9

xcapri79 wrote: »

Cable parameters such as resistance, capacitance and inductance can be measured. The measurements become facts. The modelling of linear electrical devices by their basic electrical properties of resistance, capacitance and inductance is freshman electrical engineering. It is pretty basic.

The article doesn't perform those basic measurements, hence the results are not quantitative and not scientific at all.

Anyways good science tends to get in the way of these cable discussions.:rolleyes:

Resistance, capacitance and inductance only tell a very small part of the entire story. It's how they interact with other audio devices as well as the audio signal that can't always be quantified. It's like an economic model, looks great when everything but what you are measuring is constant.

In real life and in audio the other contraints are never static, they are dynamic and your neat little 3 sentence hypothesis doesn't take any of this into account. If it were as simple as you say, there should be a whole library building with volumes of data dedicated to disproving all you call audio phallacy, magic, smoke and mirror's etc., but there isn't because the data is very hard to come by because of many, many variables that R, C, and I don't explain completely.

H9

cokewithvanilla

heiney9 wrote: »

Yep, grammer police caught me. Typing quickly sometimes yields grammatical mistakes. If that's the most intelligent stuff you can come up with then you should probably sit this one out.

actually, everyone should probably sit this one out. There is no point in another endless debate that turns into 10% on point and 90% insults/off point.

Besides, one side *cough* the esteemed, respectful, and totally grown up Keiko *cough* is STARTING their argument with stupid pictures and insults... just imagine where it will end.

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

To me the article proves there is really no difference. When there were some measured differences, they were really insignificant.

Everything is subject to personal interpretation and I certainly respect your opinion. Please quantify the appropriate threshold of significance for these measurements.

xcapri79 wrote: »

DK has perhaps proved the opposite of what he intended.

Why qualify your comment with perhaps? Either I did it or I didn't.

The part that some people don't get is that I was not trying to "prove" anything. I was curious about the claimed performance gains of a cable break in device and I conducted a subjective evaluation. When I heard sonic improvement, I became curious about the underlying causes of what I was hearing and decided to do some measurements. I did not purchase the Cable Cooker with the intention of doing a formal scientific study.

xcapri79 wrote: »

Has this article been published in a peer reviewed publication or presented at an AES meeting?

No it has not...and I have no intention of doing so. I am curious as to why you ask? Are you implying the the results are of no value unless they have been published in a peer reviewed publication or are you implying that the results are of such value that it would be a shame to limit them to the forum? Please clarify.

There are lots of people claiming scientific training on this forum. Seems to me that with all the physics and EE degree holders we have around here, we should be able to settle these types of discussions amongst ourselves. For example, it does not help us when you say the measured differences are insignificant but then provide no quantitative and theoretical support for your position. Is this not reasonable?

messiah

I remember seeing this when you first posted it DK, but was interesting to re-read. Thanks for taking the time to put this up.

It's great to have an opinion, it means you've made up your mind, and are going to stand by your decision. Opinions are neither right, nor wrong, they are just opinions. If you try to tell someone that their opinion is wrong it usually doesn't go over very well.

It's also great to have respect for others. It means that you are a mature adult, and in the event that you and another don't agree, you can agree to the fact that your opinions are different and move along. If your want to have people show respect for you, you have to show it as well. Think before you speak.

It's sad that several recent threads have been derailed by a lack of respect, one of my own included. This could have been avoided if respect had been in play here. Unfortunately, the OP's are getting **** on by people who want to jam their opinions down everyone's throats.

I do believe that cables make a difference, that cables can break in every bit as much as speakers do, that amps sound better after they've warmed up, and that a new car needs to be broken in properly as well. If you agree, that's great. If you don't, that's great. We agree to disagree, it's called respect.

If you really cant stand someone on these forums, there is the ignore feature.
All you have to do is this:

Step 1: Log in the the forum
Step 2: click on user CP (it's on the upper left hand side of your screen)
Step 3: click on edit ignore list (also on the left hand side)
Step 4: Enter the username of the person you don't like
Step 5: Never see what they say again (unless someone quotes them)

Just my opinion

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

The article was an interesting read as DK is a good writer, however a lack of before and after measurements of the cables physical parameters particularly temperature and electrical paramaters namely resistance, capacitance and inductance leave it flawed at any rate. If those parameters do not change, the performance of the cables would not change.

The differences in SQ noted are purely a subjective opinion and do not provide scientific proof.

As H9 previously pointed out, there is more to audible cable performance than the gross parameters of L, C, and R.

Since you brought up the subject of peer reviewed scientific publications, here are a few for your consideration:

"A Method for Measuring the Characteristics of an EMI Suppression Ferrite Core", J. Uribe et al., IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 48, No. 4, November 2006.

Abstract: "Almost all digital equipment has electromagnetic interference (EMI) suppression ferrite cores to encircle cables, such as mains and peripheral cables. However, their EMI suppression capability is hardly evaluated from the impedance characteristics provided by the manufacturers. Hence, this paper proposes to characterize the ferrite core losses in terms of the insertion loss and the reflection coefficient."

"Analysis of Ferrite Beads For RF Isolation On Straight Wire Conductors", S. Saario et al., IEEE Electronics Letters, Vol. 33, No. 16, July 31, 1997.

Abstract: "Ferrite beads used for the suppression of electromagnetic interference (EMO) were analyzed using the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method. The presence of the bead results in reflected current, cable radiation and resonant characteristics which significantly affect the ability to suppress currents uniformly over a wide frequency range."

"Geometric Analysis and Manufacturing Considerations for Optimizing the Characteristics of a Twisted Pair", A. Lago, et al., IEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2009.

Abstract: The geometry of a twisted pair largely determines its electrical characteristics. To improve and refine the value of these characteristics according to preset values, the optimization of the manufacturing process requires comprehensive knowledge of twisted pair geometry and of how electrical magnitudes are affected by the construction features of the twisted pair. This paper studies the relation between the length of a twisted pair cable and the length of each of the wires that compose the cable, by analyzing concepts such as pitch angle and radius of the helix."

"An Optimal New Shielded Twisted Pair Model to Improve the Electromagnetic Immunity in the Automotive Applications", C. M. Penlaver et al., 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, June 2007, Vigo, Spain.

Abstract: "Shielding twisted pair with metallic tape is a widely used resource to reduce the electromagnetic emissions and increase noise immunity of the twisted pair to those emissions. But, in addition to decrease electromagnetic emissions, shield also affects electric and geometry characteristics of the pair. Estimation of twisted pair geometry is vital to compute as much as the shield affects the electric characteristics of the pair. The goal of this paper is to develop a model of shielded twisted pair which allows to compute the shield shape as a function of twisted properties of the pair and physical characteristics of the shield tape. The model calculated in this paper is a part of a large work research; with the results of that research we can calculate the most used electric characteristics of the pair according to the physical and geometrical characteristics of it. This research was applied in an important cable manufacturing company of the automotive sector."

From Section II of the Penalver paper: "Electric characteristics of twisted pair depend on its physical and geometric characteristics, like number of twists per meter and dielectric characteristics of insulation or gap between cables in the pair. If twisted pair is covered by a shield, electric characteristics will be affected."

====================================

The papers above, and many more in the area of cable science, can be downloaded free of charge from any library that subscribes to the IEEE Xplore database. The reader will become immediately and forcefully aware that cable performance is influenced by significantly more than L, C, and R and that such gross parameters are merely the starting points for a true understanding of cable theory.

When PS Audio included a discussion of the ferrite bead distributed in their power cable jackets as a means to filter noise, this was dismissed by some as marketing hype.

When PS Audio, Shunyata and Audioquest included a discussion of wire geometry in their cable product brochures, this was dismissed by some as marketing hype.

When Audioquest included a discussion of a cable insulation's dielectric properties affecting the noise performance of the cable, this was dismissed by some as marketing hype.

However, when we go to the peer reviewed engineering and scientific literature, we find that the application of ferrite compounds and the choice of wire geometry are important determinants in cable performance.

DarqueKnight

messiah wrote: »

It's great to have an opinion, it means you've made up your mind, and are going to stand by your decision. Opinions are neither right, nor wrong, they are just opinions. If you try to tell someone that their opinion is wrong it usually doesn't go over very well.

Opinion does not have to be absolute. Some people form an opinion about something but remain open to changing their minds if new knowledge or understanding is made available to them. Then, there are others who will maintain a position no matter what.

messiah

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Opinion does not have to be absolute. Some people form an opinion about something but remain open to changing their minds if new knowledge or understanding is made available to them. Then, there are others who will maintain a position no matter what.

Oh, I agree DK. Years back I read an article by Roger Russell. It told me that speaker wire is all the same. Being that he's the McIntosh guy, I accepted what he said, and my opinion was that big wire was good, but expensive wire was silly. Then I heard the difference really good cables can make, and my opinion changed again. It's cool to learn new things. It's also sad that some people are so closed minded that they don't want to learn new things.

inspiredsports

xcapri79 wrote: »

The article was an interesting read as DK is a good writer, however a lack of before and after measurements of the cables physical parameters particularly temperature and electrical paramaters namely resistance, capacitance and inductance leave it flawed at any rate. If those parameters do not change, the performance of the cables would not change.

The differences in SQ noted are purely a subjective opinion and do not provide scientific proof.

Did you miss the portion (post #3) where DK marked apparent sound source points in his listening area with red flags on camera tripods?

I was just thinking about this in terms of the sense of sight. You can go to the drug store and find cheap reading glasses for $2. Many times the diopter tag has fallen off of them, but you can certainly try on several until you find a pair that improve your vision without ever knowing the diopter measurement. Why do many accept what their sense of sight tells them without question, but don't trust their ears?

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

Yes DK, I agree that cable geometry plays a huge role in determining the impedance of a cable.

Are you also aware of the huge role that cable geometry plays in the noise characteristics of a cable and are you aware of the huge role that cable noise abatement plays in signal, and particularly stereophonic signal, integrity?

In addition to the previously referenced peer reviewed IEEE papers on cable geometry and ferrite assisted noise rejection, you may find the following patent documents interesting:

United States Patent 7,170,008
Inventor: Jay Victor January 30, 2007

---

Audio signal cable


Abstract: An audio signal cable consisting of various combinations of two or more distinct types of conductors. The cable contains at least two conductors of different types. The individual conductors within the cable may be individually insulated or uninsulated. The individual conductors may also be of varying shapes and sizes. The conductors are surrounded by a common insulation. Combining at least two types of different conductors within the cable provides the cable with a versatility to be adaptable to a wide variety of sound applications.


======================

United States Patent 7,476,808
Jay Victor January 13, 2009

---

Audio cable structure


Abstract
An audio signal cable, the features of which are that the audio signal cable has arrayed solid and tinsel wire conductors. After each of the conductors are insulated and bundled, they are placed into a surrounding insulation. The solid conductors are of a circular and a flat, thin shape. The solid conductors are of differing larger and smaller diameters and, furthermore, disposed in unequal quantities.

=======================================

United States Patent 7,126,055
William Low , et al. October 24, 2006

---

Apparatus and methods for dielectric bias system


Abstract
Methods and apparatus of connecting and communicating signals between electrical devices (such as stereo or video speaker or interconnect cables or similar circuits) include applying a bias voltage across the dielectric without interfering with the signals, by applying an energy source to at least one conductor not in the signal path.

SUMMARY

[1] The present invention describes a system and method for biasing the dielectric of a cable connected between electrical devices. Among other things, the dielectric bias system (DBS.TM.) of the invention provides biasing to maintain a desired "run-in" condition for the cable, without interfering with the signal itself. Establishing and maintaining a "run-in" dielectric bias potential enables the cable to more effectively, consistently, and immediately communicate a higher quality, lower distortion audio and/or video signal between electrical devices (as compared to a cable that is not pre-conditioned by the establishment of a dielectric bias potential).

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

Well I had to keep it basic for you because I care.:)

You don't have to keep it basic for me. Go as esoteric as required to explain your point.

My understanding is that the design criteria of high performance audio cables is focused on the reduction of the noise generated as the signal interacts with the materials in the cable (wire and insulation) and the abatement of noise induced from the environment.

How do the gross parameters of L, C, and R completely quantify the conducted and environmental noise encountered by a power or audio signal as it is transmitted through a cable?

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

Yes most definitely. This is basic knowledge with respect to video, instrumentation, and RF cable in particular as these issues become more acute at higher frequencies.

So, are you saying that cable geometry is not important, or acute, for audio and power frequencies?

A power cable is only concerned with passing a 60 Hz signal. Audio cables are only concerned with passing a bandwidth of 20-20 kHz, yet audio cable companies say that their cables need to be shielded from high frequency EMI and RFI? This is somewhat counterintuitive.

Toolfan66

X you seem like a smart guy sometimes, and sometimes I like reading your posts if it's something with substance that one can learn from even if it's taken from wikipedia. most of DK's posts have something to wrap your brain around, and if one can't understand it he helps one out.

You my friend need to kick the BS and open your mind a little and look outside the box now and then. You could have a lot more to share.

Just my .02

at least the conversation here between you guys has substance even though you have two different views..

DarqueKnight

In case you missed my questions in post # 85, I will repeat:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Please quantify the appropriate threshold of significance for these measurements.


Are you implying the the results are of no value unless they have been published in a peer reviewed publication or are you implying that the results are of such value that it would be a shame to limit them to the forum? Please clarify.

For example, it does not help us when you say the measured differences are insignificant but then provide no quantitative and theoretical support for your position. Is this not reasonable?

xcapri79 wrote: »

Noise can be introduced at the source, or electromagnetically by inductive and capacitive mutual coupling. Twisting wires together and adding a shield around the pair reduces these electromagnetic effects. The cable resistance itself introduces thermal noise

OK.

You offered some commentary here on the validity of my findings:

xcapri79 wrote: »

Cable parameters such as resistance, capacitance and inductance can be measured. The measurements become facts. The modelling of linear electrical devices by their basic electrical properties of resistance, capacitance and inductance is freshman electrical engineering. It is pretty basic.

The article doesn't perform those basic measurements, hence the results are not quantitative and not scientific at all.

Anyways good science tends to get in the way of these cable discussions.:rolleyes:

Correct me if I misunderstand, but according to you, since I concentrated on the noise performance and signal integrity performance of the pre and post burned cables, my investigation was not quantitative and not scientific?

xcapri79 wrote: »

All of this makes a difference and can be achieved at a relatively low cost as Belden cables proves.

I agree that lower cost items can provide some or even a significant portion of the the performance of higher cost items. Is it your position that there is no performance advantage to audio cables that offer better materials, better theoretical design and better construction?

reeltrouble1

none of this has anything to do with the sound someone hears from an audio system.

those unwilling to try simply serve those that do.

it took emperical evidence to realize what was flat was not, well, along with a bit of courage.

RT1

CherylJosie

It is not my intention to resume a preposterous debate in an ancient thread. I merely seek to illuminate this debate for anyone who might be contemplating throwing away a huge chunk of change on demonstrably useless garbage.

A certain threshold of technical knowledge is required to understand the mathematics behind the electrical theory. Without that mathematical and physical background education, it is simply impossible to understand what is actually happening and why, leaving one vulnerable to suggestion.

Those who pooh-pooh hard physics in favor of suggestion do so at the risk of their wallets.

For those of you who are unaware of the definition of the word 'theory' please be advised that a theory is a testable and tested and refined and retested hypothesis. A theory is regarded as the next best thing to a fact by scientists and treated as indistinguishable from fact unless some revolutionary new advance in science has called a previously accepted theory into question.

This is why there was a request for measured cable parameters. Without a change in measured parameters there is no known method of action to explain any subjective improvement. Human ears are not even approaching the accuracy of 'mere' instrumentation, which is why all modern audiophile equipment is designed with computer simulation and all modern designs are verified by testing with that 'mere' instrumentation.

What I saw posted here in this particular forum were several 'before' oscilloscope screen shots that were apparently compared to 'after' screenshots taken with different scope display settings, different to the point that even the number of dots on the screen is noticeably altered and affects the apparent shape of the waveform.

Show me the physical changes to the molecular structure of a burned-in cable, accompanied by measurable changes in cable impedance, and maybe I will start to believe that cable burn-in does something real to the physical cable. Show me the changes in a spectrograph, be it harmonic distortion or frequency response, and I will start to believe that cable burn-in does something to the sound. Show me double-blind studies where subjects can reliably differentiate a cooked vs. a raw cable, and I will start to believe that cable burn-in may be worth investing hard-earned cash. Those are my demands for proof.

By the way, this same double-blind listening test has already been done and disproven the claims of the audible superiority of high sample rate and extended word length digital audio distribution formats such as 96/24 and up. Traditional one-bit CD quality digital audio with proper dither already beats the best human ears in both frequency response and dynamic range.

Cable cookers and their adherents advocate cooking digital and power cables as well as speaker wire. So then what is the claimed mechanism of action that justifies cooking a digital cable or a power cable where there are no known sonic properties at all associated with the cable?

Why would a speaker wire and a coaxial signal cable both respond favorably to the exact same cooking signal, when the physical characteristics of each type of cable, and the energy content of the signals they are carrying, are so radically different from each other?

Why is it that none of the interconnect on the printed circuit board or inside the integrated circuits of a receiver seems susceptible to the magic of cooking, or more importantly, to the lack of cooking?

Why does a 90 volt listening session not overcook a speaker cable that only needs a 2 volt square wave to properly condition it? Why does a 2 volt square wave not overcook a cable that typically carries less than a volt of sine waves?

So what are we claiming is the mechanism of action here? Does cable cooking somehow alter the physical properties of the wire, or do the relevant electrical characteristics of the metal have nothing at all to do with physics? Is it metaphysical?

I design integrated circuits for a living. Every single parameter I deal with is based in electrical theory that is in turn based in the physical properties of the materials.

I understand what happens to wire when it overheats.

I even understand what happens to wire when it does not overheat but merely has too much current traveling through it for its cross-section.

I understand what happens to a dielectric when the electrical potential across it exceeds its breakdown voltage.

I understand things that adherents to 'cable cooking' will never comprehend in their entire lives. Never did I come across anything that indicates to me that cable cooking does anything other than burn up money.

Never once in my career did I ever come across 'cable burn in'. When a cable is burned, it is defective, period. It is either opened, or shorted, or some combination of the two, and it is definitely in a grossly pathological state after burning.

If cable cooking accomplished anything at all there would be published pictures of physical changes and NASA would be using such devices to improve their radiotelescopes

We are not discussing noise immunity in an automotive setting where there are high-current noise signals running around the electrical harness and floating across the battery, or ferrite beads on digital cabling to reduce radio wave emissions, or obscure patents on application-specific cabling, or the phase of the moon, or the phase of your wife, or any other red herring bandied about like a light saber to ward off the Dark Side of the Force.

We are merely interested in home audio signals and the (lack of) efficacy of 'burn-in'. The statement that, for the purposes of proving or disproving 'burn-in', lumped parameters are sufficient for most speaker wires and even most audio interconnect cables is 100% factual. You can bank on it. This engineer offers a professional opinion that concurs 100% with the statement that burn-in is bull.

This is after all a matter of science, not faith. If you want to (dis)prove a preposterous concept, I encourage you to set up a research lab with an electron microscope and x-ray and a double-blind computer-controlled relay to switch your 'cooked' cable in and out of circuit without anyone knowing which one you are listening to until after you have already given your best guess to the computer program as to which one you are currently listening to, and have it score your 'golden ears' in a purely objective and repeatable fashion with no subtle cues such as blasting your favorite audio test suite for your wife while you joyously prance around the kitchen bragging about how good it sounds. Then come here and tell me all about the advantages of cable cooking.

Of course no one is going to do the science necessary to put the final nail in this Frankenstein's coffin. Those with the money to afford it have nothing to gain by proving themselves to be charlatans and hucksters, and those without the money to afford it, well they cannot afford it! No university professor is going to approve it as a master's or doctoral thesis. Even proposing such a thesis could get one tossed out on one's behind, along with the copper bracelets and wrist magnets and magic crystals and Homeopathy.

Yes this is 'merely' the opinion of a somewhat less shy engineer who is not so timid as to avoid hurting the pride of people who have been taken in by a song and a dance. I am thinking of the best interests of those sitting on the fence, who might fall prey to the hucksters in the near future.

For those who want to argue the point intelligently but cannot afford the rigorous scientific proof, they might try going to college and earning an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or physics. Then they can come back here and argue the point with a little bit of authority once they understand something about the physical properties of materials and how they affect the electrical properties of cables. Until then they are merely 'cable burn-in acolytes' practicing faith-based listening and begging for ridicule.

F1nut

Well mister undergraduate electrical engineer, the author of this thread has a Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering, is a professor of electrical engineering and owns a telecommunications consulting business. He is also a friend of mine. I dare say he knows a helluva lot more than you do.

Talk about begging for ridicule......congrats, you just stepped in a big pile of it.

mrbigbluelight

I encourage you to set up a research lab with an electron microscope and x-ray and a double-blind computer-controlled relay to switch your 'cooked' cable in and out of circuit

Well, if you say so.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ZEISS-SEM-Scanning-Electron-Microscope-Model-DSM-960-with-Turbo-Pump-/151026866735?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2329e71a2f
$3600 is a little more than I want to spend (even for a Zeis DM-60), but .... if you say it's necessary, then okay.

have it score your 'golden ears' in a purely objective and repeatable fashion with no subtle cues such as blasting your favorite audio test suite for your wife while you joyously prance around the kitchen bragging about how good it sounds. Then come here and tell me all about the advantages of cable cooking.

Is the prancing thing mandatory to complete your test proposal ? Also, I have to be honest and say that I'll have a little trouble with setting up a research lab so I was thinking about just scooting the washer back closer to the hot water heater to clear up some space in the laundry room. That ought to work.

Thanks for your input !

Erik Tracy

F1nut wrote: »

Well mister undergraduate electrical engineer, the author of this thread has a Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering, is a professor of electrical engineering and owns a telecommunications consulting business. He is also a friend of mine. I dare say he knows a helluva lot more than you do.

Talk about begging for ridicule......congrats, you just stepped in a big pile of it.

It must have been a REALLY slow day on the 'other' forums for red rover to come over....