The outside, nothing has been changed.

Many thanks to GCK and a few others whom pointed out some missing elements in my home brew Kable Kooker. Chief amongst those is the variable frequency sine sweep function, which unfortunately, came to a point where a DIYer like me has to call it a day. After all, certain things are just beyond my grasp and abilities.

The inside, note the white 5W rated loading resistors.

I went to the Audio Dharma website, where there's plenty of information on how the real thing worked. It than dawned on me that I had made two mistakes in my earlier attempt. The mistake was that I had used the standard XLR/RCA cable spec impedance to load the cables as it cooks. As per explained clearly by Alan Krafton on the Audio Dharma website, I should 've used a power amp's load to cook the XLR/RCA interconnects instead. A quick consult on my Pass Aleph 0 manual indicates the amp's load to be 25k ohms for XLR and 10k ohms for RCA. Further consultation with my senior DIYer sifu tells me that some tube power amps can present loads as much as 47k ohms for XLR and 20k ohms for RCA interconnects. Just to be sure, I used the bigger values for a more effective cook.

Another view of all the loading resistors for XLR, RCA and speaker cable cooking. The top 2 resistors for XLR loading value 47k ohms @ 5W.

As my previous load resistors for the XLR and RCA are rated 2W, I've found them to run moderately warm when cable cooking. To increase reliability and lifespan, I used 5W rated resistors this time. Similarly, my home brew kable kooker also measured up to 1.86 amperes when cooking speaker cables, against the original measuring 1.88 amperes. That means I was right on the $$$ where speaker cable cooking is concern.

The RCA(at bottom) load resistor value 20k ohms @5W.

Just to try, for my self, I re-cooked my AQ Sky and Colorado XLR interconnects again, and found the results of the cooked cable much more sonically satisfying at shorten cooking time. To get the same level of results, I used to have to cook about 96 hours, or 4 days. Now I can do so with the same great results in 24 hours!

Now that's what I mean efficient cooking!

Once again, thanks for sharing your "desirable thoughts" with me. I've learnt so much from your kind responses.

[In-Line Advertisements]


kin0kin said...


I'm puzzled about why you increased the load resistance on the later revision. The whole point of cable cooking is to force more current going through the cable at a short amount of time without melting the cable. As you increased the load resistance, you are reducing the current flowing through the cable. With you matching the load resistance on the amp, your cooker is pretty much just imitating the amp's load resistance and this means connecting the cable to your cooker vs connecting the cable to your amp is identical - provided that your amp/source has a line output voltage of 6V.


Panzer said...


Cables need a certain load to cook. I know you are tlking about letting more current thru and hence cook better.

However, after consultation with the Audio Dharma's www and with some EE based career friends. Thay confirmed that you need a certain resistance to cook the cable.

The whole idea is to simulate an amplifier load, but without switching on your system and playing music for 24/48 or 96 hours continously!

It's o.k. if you have solid state gear, what happens if you have tube gear?

martin88 said...

Hi Panzer,i want to DIY your cable cooker, can you tech me know more, do you have plan or layout, can you send for me please, thanks alot.