cable cooker, do they work?

Gallaine: An appeal to reason? How dare you! Actually, you've asked a more complex question than you imagine. There have been published ABX tests of cables. I recall one in Stereo Review a few decades ago comparing 24 AWG and 16 AWG zipcord and 16 AWG Monster cable. It found that the 24 was distinguishable from the 16, but the 16s were not distinguishable from each other. But there are thousands of cables out there, so even a hundred such comparisons wouldn't prove the point. (The point, by the way, is that cables that measure similarly will sound the same. And cooked and uncooked cables measure VERY similarly, just to tie into the point of this thread.)

The more general scientific case goes something like this:
1. We know what the threshold limits of human hearing are, because we've tested them, and we're pretty sure they're right because the thresholds are pretty close to the physical limits of what the ear could possibly pick up. If the ear were much better than that, you'd hear the air moving around in your outer ear, and that constant low-level swoosh would drive you crazy!
2. We also have a thorough understanding of how electrical signals move through cables. In fact, if we know the basic measurements of a cable and the load it's connected to, we can plot out its precise effect on frequency response.
3. If we know how different the frequency response curves of two cables are, and we know how large a variation in frequency response we need to be audible, we can predict whether two cables will be audibly different.
4. Not surprisingly, objective listening tests have so far invariably confirmed such predictions.

(To those who fume that I am dragging science into a hobbyist discussion area, my only defense is that Gallaine asked. And I suspect that other audiophiles have wondered the same thing, which is why I thought it worth responding publicly.)

bomarc: this is your empirical "proof"? looks to me like you've studied scientology, not science. your "syllogism" suffers from the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc." -cfb

I think that means "put that in pipe and smoke it!" either that or it has something to do with a proctologist;>).

Cfb, your response illustrates my point perfectly. You are now claiming the power to hover, something that I fabricated in jest. But 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?

Cornfed: This is your response? If you think it's a syllogism, you should go back and read it again. Or maybe your understanding of the word "syllogism" is as weak as your grasp of the post-hoc fallacy.

Obviously, this is not a complete empirical defense. There isn't room, and for that matter I'm not really qualified to give it. The case I outlined draws on at least three different disciplines (biology, psychology, and electronics), and the research work spans decades. Anyone who really wants to understand this should start, as I did, with an introductory text on psychoacoustics. If you don't want to make that effort, that's fine. It's certainly possible to enjoy high-end audio without it. All I ask is that you respect the standing of those who have made the effort to participate in your discussions.