Erik,
Thank you for this. It's a fine example of...well, of one of the very many manifestations of subjective bias in our common obsession.
Yesterday, I spent a few hours with a friend's superlative system. He has written many reviews and other things for Stereophile, built his beautiful home around the electrical and acoustic needs of his music system, and so on. Of the several very well heeled members of our local audio club, I like his system best.
My intent yesterday was to hear a piece I love and have listened to at least weekly for a couple of years now: Arvo Pärt's "Te Deum" on ECM—a composition I've also heard live. On my system, the church acoustic is tangible (it was recorded in the Lohan Kirkko, Finland), the voices discernible as individuals within the choir. Transcendent!
Well, he wanted me first to hear...wait for it...Black Sabbath! Then we listened to "Descending," my favorite track on Tool's "Fear Inoculum." Peaks (and that album is highly compressed) were over 100 db, I'm sure. I know that stuff on my system as well; with a SPM, I've dared to get the ambient sound up to just under 100 db.
The verdict? His huge Martin Logan Renaissance electrostats in his purpose-built listening room projected a much larger sonic image. And they played at a soul-shaking volume that would have blown out my drivers. But.... The sound was harsh, and somehow "electronic." My system is "warmer," and even with the heavy metal, more compelling (except for the sheer volume). As for the Arvo Pärt, my system better captures the mystical feel of that often delicate devotional piece.
Sorry; I know this has nothing to do with speaker cables. But it has everything to do with comparative reproduction. It is all subjective? Maybe. But if I can derive just one lesson from this critical comparison, it's that cost is not the main parameter of compelling audio reproduction.