cable cooker, do they work?

Natalie is on the right track but some people can't dissipate the sound that a "burning system" creates. As such, you can use an old receiver with some easily procured "dummy loads" to do the same job. Not only can you pump more power through these for a more effective and quicker "burn in", you don't have to deal with any type of noise or signal leakage even within the same room.

As to the basic question, YES, burners do work. Different burners work at different efficiency levels. As Buckingham mentioned, Mobie's work very well for interconnects. While i have not used an Audiodharma first hand, my initial impression going by the information that i was able to learn about it is that it MIGHT be effective on interconnects and less so on speaker cables and power cords. Keep in mind that i'm qualifying this statement based on the info that i've been able to find out about it, so nothing is set in stone. At to the old Duo-Tech's, i don't think much of them.

Also keep in mind that many of the "naysayers" that repeatedly post to this type of thread have probably never used or experienced the results that a "burner" can produce first hand. I am willing to bet that they would have a different point of view if they had experienced the differences first hand. Sean
>

Bomarc, why would someone volunteer information when they know absolutely nothing about the subject other than pre-conceived ( and false ) ideas ? That is like someone offering their opinion of a car that they have never driven, never rode in as a passenger, never sat in or never even seen first hand. As such, most people would consider it useless gibberish and nothing less than irritating comments from the peanut gallery.

There is nothing wrong with presenting a dissenting opinion so long as one has something to base those comments or opinions on. As such, your negativity was completely unfounded and uncalled for. We encourage an exchange of information on these forums. If you would have posed your comments as questions rather than bold faced facts, we ( i and a few others ) might not have had such a problem with them. With all of the above considered, you do not really have a "personal opinion" on the subject. You're simply spouting off a theory that is based on pre-concieved and un-informed ideas.

I would probably not think twice about the response that you gave other than the fact that i used to be in "your" camp. After experiencing the effects and differences that a burner can make, i could not deny what took place and had no other choice but to "switch sides". The same goes for power cords. As such, i and several others on this forum would beg to differ with what you have to say. The difference between "our" side and "your" side is that we have tried things with an open mind and have first hand experience to support our findings and beliefs.

For the record, some of the people on "our" side of the fence are folks that are educated and work with electronics / electricity for a living. Some even hold degrees, patents and various careers in all different fields. With that in mind, converting major skeptics with backgrounds in this specific area should tell you that there is more than "hocus pocus" and "self dillusionment" taking place here. I'm sorry if you felt singled out, but you really shouldn't. After all, you have Doc in your corner offering support. Then again, he might be in the same boat that you're in. That is, the boat with no oars : ) Sean
>

Bomarc, if you think that i'm living in "my own little world", i at least acknowledge the "chaos factor". I always welcome an exchange of information based on inquisitive comments or first hand knowledge that apply directly to the situation being discussed. Your lack of experience and willingness to learn, experiment or listen to different points of view with an open mind negates the ability of all but the most patient of people to try and discuss something with you.

On top of this, you think that you can neatly disect and pigeonhole everything through simple measurements. BUT, what if what you were using as a baseline was not a stable platform ? What if you baseline was only valid for one specific set of testing conditions ? All of your results and beliefs would be quite limited in scope and based on false precepts.

The reason that i say this that many amps WILL alter frequency response into various reactive loads. Since ALL speakers are reactive to some degree, figuring out how an amp of that type would work with each different speaker would be tough in itself. Adding the variables of different cables with their ( sometimes highly reactive ) impedance contribution to the circuit could only further skew the predictions or results.

Your "theories" pre-suppose that the reference source is stable into EVERY load known to man. It also takes for granted that if the reference source did deviate in any manner, those deviations would be linear and predictable based on specific levels of impedance and reactance. Since there is not an amplifier produced that meets those requirements, you are in effect living in your won fantasy world. As such, your theories presented in sections 2 & 3 are NOT realistic. You have based your whole argument on false precepts ( a "lie" in plain English ).

As to Doc's comments, i shouldn't have said that you guys were in a boat with no oars. You guys are in a boat that does have oars but you are afraid to use them since you don't understand all of the physics involved. Everything that you need to move forward and expand your horizons is right in front of you, yet you refuse to take advantage of it. Some things DO work even if you don't understand how it is done.

In terms of hovering or levitating above an object, some people CAN do this. Just because someone else believes / does not believe that they are doing this does not change what is happening or make it possible / impossible. Sean
>

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, 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
>