How to divide a budget between components

In researching the importance of the wire component I came across this article. It seems very scientific and objective but it goes agains what I have traditionally been told about how important the relay component of a system is. I am still learning but the author (former McIntosh engineer) makes a good case that when it comes to cabling the value has more to do with making sure the gauge is appropriate for the distance and everything else is hype or marketing to sell expensive cables. From everyone's experience is this correct? Here is the article:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Xerotrace, most here would disagree with Mr. Russell's assertion, including me (and I am an experienced analog and digital design engineer). However, contrary to what some seem to believe, that does not mean that "more expensive" = "better," especially when it comes to cables. You may find this thread to be of interest.

Regards,
-- Al

03-30-15: Jmcgrogan2
Sorry, there is no secret formula.

Some folks say that you should spend 50% or more on the source, that the source is the most important link. Some say amp, some say speakers, even others will say cables, room, etc.

It looks like the replies have followed my original concept: there is no one path to audio nirvana. Many folks choose many different ways to get to the same place.
You must choose your own path.

I also agree with Al, and disagree with Mr. Russell's theories.

Cheers,
John

Noromance, I see your point and it does make sense. I agree, I dont think people should buy $500 cables for $500 speakers. You'd probably be better off buying $950 speakers and $50 cables to start, then later on upgrade your cables.

By the way, great sound is what I'm after and thats not always related to cost. I wouldn't put $250 cables in my system if they didn't sound better than $50 cables. The cool thing about getting good cables is that you can hang onto them and they should make all of the speakers you cycle through on the upgrade path sound as good as possible.

I guess it comes down to spreading the $ money around somewhat evenly. Its not a great idea to have $3000 in your front end and $600 speakers, but then again I would rather have $3000 in front end and $1500 speakers than vice versa.

Maybe this thread and question should be paired with where diminshing returns come into play, or even better, at what price does gear actually start to take bigger steps forward in sound quality.

B_limo, I think the rules are more flexible with digital sources. I will never forget a demo of an Oxford Acoustics with an Air Tangent arm and Koetsu Red Signature with some unknown to me tube amps and a pair of £100 Wharfedale Diamond speakers. The source was probably £20,000 and it was a total revelation. The speed and attack and dynamics blew away a Krell CD, Krell amps and top of the range speakers.