7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?

In its simplest terms, it is used to "break-in" a cable by running a range of frequencies, which may extend several orders of magintude beyond the audio band, through the cable for 24 to 72 hours. I think one of the assumptions is that the free electrons available for conducting electric signals tend to be polarized in a “broken-in” cable. The idea is if a cable sits idle too long, is new, or just doesn't sound like it use to, this device will rapidly condition the cable for use. Conditioning is supposed to make the cable less harsh in the upper octaves and more defined in the lower octaves. This conditioning process is applies to ICs, speaker, etc, depending on the connections on the unit.

This question should cause uproar like the original post. I do not have an opinion here as I have not participated in the process. I would like to do it double-blind.

First of all, I agree that cables should not have filters, unless we want a cable to alter the sound.

The field of science of electromagnet fields tells us through mathematics that whenever an electrical signal passes though a conductor, it generates a magnetic field around the conductor and a force on the electrons in the wire. This is termed EMI. Braiding provides these benefits. Since half of the braid is positive and the other half is negative, the signal currents are in opposing directions. The EM fields created will cancel each other. This configuration radiates very little EMI and is less susceptible to interference.

Secondly, braided wire is used across a broad range of industries. For example, aviation, instrumentation, pro audio, audio, and networking all rely on braiding for improved performance. To answer one question I posed. The difference between CAT3-phone & CAT5-data is the number of twists per foot. Braining reduces conducted, inducted, and capacitive interference.

I have completely refrained from such voodoo dances in my entire discussion. Look at all of my comments in this thread. Then search for information on the Internet (or library) from scientific organizations. Check it out you will be surprised.

The dielectric industry is a big business because the use of dielectrics is very complex. Changes in temperature, interaction with metals, conductivity, and capacitance are some of the variables. The bottom line is all you can do is minimize the interaction. Someone who I have a great deal of respect for, Harvey Rosenberg also had an article appear in Listener in which his cable design was two pieces of wire separated by a couple of wood spacers using Radio Shack termination (i.e. no dielectric).

I assume the cable burner is a sarcastic snub.

Thanks Mark for the post and everyone else for the civility on this topic.

Lmb: "one of the assumptions is that the free electrons available for conducting electric signals tend to be polarized in a "broken in" cable." I am not certain what you mean and I do not want to put word in your mouth.

I have heard similar explanations at more length. My problem with the argument is as follows. (Please understand that I make no claim to understand the intricacies of how an audio signal works and am, quite frankly, dumbfounded by it the closer I look.)

1)The audio signal is an ac signal, that is, the direction of the current flow changes with each half cycle.

2)This means that there is basically no net direction to the current flow. "Current" flows equally in both directions. If this is true, even if there is such a thing as "polorized electrons" how could that aid the flow of electrons if they are moving in two directions?

3)In any event it is not the "flow" of electrons that carries the audio signal but rather the electric field/voltage that transfers the energy of the signal.The field moves through the electrons a little like a wave through water (very imperfect analogy). Electrons move at the speed of light but the "drift velocity" of the electrons in a cable is very slow (a couple inches per second). It's slow because of the huge excess of electrons available. During the negative half of the signal electrons are actually pulled back into the amp and basically go back and forth in this manner. Many electrons leaving the amp may never make it to the speaker. The electric field/voltage on the other hand moves at the speed of light.

In any event, I do not understand how you polorize a particle that is by definition negatively charged and what good it would do if you could do it.

Sincerely, I remain

Instead of cable burner I have a great recipie on how to burn without burner. If you're interested send me e-mail.

I do appload to Mark for this great discussion and conclusive thought about reality. If anyone wishes to ask me about the calculated numbers on different interconnect wires, equivalent circuits and how they're actually calculated in difference from the manufacturer's "scientific" explaination I will try to bring it to you in the simpliest English and digits. I would also want to try to check the legal side of that issue and take on my arms osciloscope, multimeter, pen, calculator and the paper to prove that there is NO difference between $7500/m interconnect and $35/m interconnect since I'm an engineer and I do understand what's going on. But wait, if there is a group of consumers why not sell and who finally will win?
Unfortunately not engineers in that case.

Responding to one of Mark's posts above, I am not a Luddite either, but I am a Neanderthal (figuratively as well as genetically I think).

As I've said many times before, I love these cables threads on A'gon, because they go on and on. As some have noted above, it is nice to be able to have a civilized conversation abut this subject. On the other big websites, you can't talk about it. No mention of DBT is allowed at the Cable Asylum, and that's fine - I am not critical of that rule. At Audioreview.com's Cable forum, you can't suggest that anything sounds different from or better than 12 gauge stranded from a hardware store or the interconnects that come in the boxes of mid-fi components without being drowned out and subjected to ridicule.

Here we have 3 or 4 camps with subgroups all talking, and the benefit is someone may learn enough to question his own assumptions and either find a killer cable that makes his system sound better or save a lot of money by deciding for himself that the cheap stuff is just as good.

I was going to say something about alternating current and "direction," but I think Clueless has covered the subject better than I could.

I have tried and rejected some mid-priced speaker cables (like Nordost Blue Heaven, Kimber 8TC and one of the MIT cables) because I didnt like the way I thought they sounded (on a sighted basis, and one or another of them may have revealed some deficiency in the system I was using at the time, - so if I were testifying in court that is all I could say). I have played around with sub $400 interconeects, compared them to the Radio Shack cables recommended by John Dunlavy (which aren't as bad as they are annoying to use) and settled on some well shielded cables with locking WBT-like barrel connectors made by a local pro gear company that cost $40. The interconnects I use seem to me to get the job done. For some strange reason, all the other interconnects I have tried seem to alter the signal somehow or, let in too much rfi, emi and just noise from light fixtures and such. I don't know how an interconnect makes the sound brighter or duller, but some seem to do so (again on a sighted basis - the differences I perceive may disappear in a DBT).

I am inclined to believe the ees who say simple competently designed cables are as good as anything else you can buy. Their arguments make sense to me and since I'm cheap I am biased in their favor.

The initial point of this thread way up there was not "don't all cables sound the same," but is it necessary to spend a fortune on good cables. I think most people here probably agree that it isn't necessary. Disagreeing are a lot of people who havent responded including a few who have invested in the Nordost Valhalla or that even more expensive stuff, and who evidently thought it made sense to do so.

What does it mean when you know less than someone who is "clueless?"