Home Cookin': The Audiodharma Cable Cooker
Comments
-
CherylJosie wrote: »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.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to share your wisdom. The Cable Cooker can be returned for a full refund if it does not work out, so the only risks are shipping costs and time.CherylJosie wrote: »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.
All of the time domain plots have an amplitude scale of 5 volts per division and a time scale of 10 microseconds per division. Where are you interpreting "different scope display settings". How could the shape of the waveform be altered if the same voltage and time scales were used for before and after plots?CherylJosie wrote: »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.
"Demands" for proof? LOL.
Spectral plots were shown in figures 20 and 21.CherylJosie wrote: »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?
Cable conditioning involves conditioning the dielectric material (insulation) surrounding the wire, not the wire itself. Saturating the insulation over time prevents it from storing and releasing energy back into the wire and causing distortion to the signal carried by the wire.CherylJosie wrote: »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?
Generally, most cables composed of insulated metal conductors will benefit from having its insulation conditioned so that it will not spuriously absorb and release energy into the signal being carried. However, as I noted in this report, the wiring of my Graham Phantom I tonearm did not benefit from conditioning.
Power cables are particularly good candidates for conditioning because noise introduced into mains power will affect the quality of audio signals.CherylJosie wrote: »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?
Internal wiring, inductors, capacitors, transformers, anything with insulated wire will benefit from "cooking".CherylJosie wrote: »Why does a 90 volt listening session not overcook a speaker cable that only needs a 2 volt square wave to properly condition it?
An audio signal has rapidly and continually varying amplitude. Full power is not being delivered through the speaker cable at all times.CherylJosie wrote: »Why does a 2 volt square wave not overcook a cable that typically carries less than a volt of sine waves?
A 2 volt square wave can and will overcook a cable if it is cooked too long. That is why the manufacturer recommends short cooking periods followed by listening sessions.CherylJosie wrote: »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.
You apparently do not understand the dielectric properties of wire insulation and how those dielectric properties can affect the noise performance of a cable.CherylJosie wrote: »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.
What I don't understand is why you are so concerned with how others spend their money. Do you get this worked up about people who spend thousands of dollars on handbags, shoes, cigarettes, alcohol, and dope?CherylJosie wrote: »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
So, just because NASA does not do something, that is proof that the procedure has no value and validity?CherylJosie wrote: »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.
Since you are so concerned about preventing the innocent from being taken advantage of, and since you have such impeccable technical credentials and experience, why don't you order a Cable Cooker, test it with your double-blind methods and report your results?CherylJosie wrote: »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.
Great. I look forward to reading your evaluation results.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Erik Tracy wrote: »It must have been a REALLY slow day on the 'other' forums for red rover to come over....
Who is "red rover"?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Who is "red rover"?
It's an 'old school' game of "red rover rover send **** over" in an attempt to break the line of kids across from you.
I must be old...
H9: If you don't trust what you are hearing, then maybe you need to be less invested in a hobby which all the pleasure comes from listening to music. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Who is "red rover"?
The red herring that is CherylJosie!"Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
CherylJosie wrote: »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 a good point, and needs constant repeating.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
This is a good point, and needs constant repeating.
Another good point is knowing the proper application and limitations of a particular theory.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
