Pete, that’s very diplomatic of you. I am in the camp that it might matter for higher level signal cables like power and speaker cables, but am less sold on low level signals, and not at all on properly-spec’ed digital interconnects. For those who are open-minded about the topic, this Enjoy the Music review of the Cable Cooker lays out some of the theory.
I did not know of the Hagerman devices but I tried and ultimately did not keep a Cable Cooker. It seemed to do what it claims to do. But in the end, I just could not see spending time with this particular part of the “ritual.” I’m a big ritual guy in general, enjoying aspects of process in wine, espresso, photography, etc., and audio. But I think this one found my boundary, especially when I encountered advocates for re-cooking cables that purportedly “revert to their raw state” over time. This is part of the value proposition of the Cable Cooker and burn-in devices in general. I do not enjoy disconnecting/swapping cables (and most reviewers complain about it), so while the box can help reviewers—a lot, I suspect—it wasn’t lining up with my enjoyment goals.
So, I found myself happily at the point where I could accomplish burn-in/brain-in* just by playing broad band music. (My inner obsessiveness demon would have to wait for the wallet-draining Vivaldi stack and multiple reference clocks. ) If you do evaluate the Hagerman, I would look forward to your comments about how it facilitates your evaluative process, or whether you think it might actually make cables better.
fn: One prospect I find very intriguing about a structured approach to burn-in and comparison of cables before and after burn-in, is that it might help tease out how important brain-in is, if at all, in this process. Instead of living/listening through the burn-in process, one’s ears and brains could conceivably more starkly compare the difference between raw and burned-in states.