Cable Costs Relative to System

Elizabeth, in 2005 I posted;

To answer the original question, in general I believe you can get the job done pretty good at about 10 percent of system cost, and no higher than 25 percent. Beyond that, I would probably start replacing components or speakers.

I just calculated the retail value of my system at around $50,000, of which the cables are about $4,000, or just about 8 percent. I have gone to DIY mostly made with high quality bulk cable and some of the best connectors available. I also have some DIY made with raw materials but, I generally like the bulk cable variety better. My only remaining manufactured cables are two Isoclean PC's I picked up with an amp purchase. In comparison, I do not believe the DIY cables are at all inferior to some of the better manufactured cables I have tried, by Cardas, Purist, Acoustic Zen, Harmonic Technology, Audioquest and others (no, I haven't tried them all). I still believe the bigger bang for your buck is in the components and speakers, and would allocate maybe 10 to 15 percent for cables, and another 5 to 10 percent for isolation and room treatment. Of course, buying used and DIY can reduce those numbers.

Cables are different from the rest of the system - they are non-perishable. It doesn't hurt to buy better cables now (if you see great bargain) for the future instead of buying twice - as long as you keep them neutral sounding.

Elizabeth and Mitch2

I don't believe it makes sense or you can put a price relative to the system. There's too big a gap between performance and price, meaning the "best" cables cost a fraction of what the most expensive cables cost.

To Mitch2, as a dealer I did the comparison work between entry level equipment and the upgrade path that gives the best bang for the buck. Working from a starting point equipment upgrades will never make the bang for the buck improvements wire will. You simply do not hear the full potential of what better equipment does until the wire is at a refined state. It's as simple as the fact that you are wasting a lot of money when equipment is focused on before wire. Not only that but with inferior wire your comparison choices on equipment will be altered because of the coloration the wire imparts to the system. Neutrality is the key and there are $150 interconnects that are as neutral as the very best neutral ones are, they just reveal a little less detail.

My common sense proof of when you are done with wire comes when the given cost of a wire upgrade that makes a discernable difference is still under what a better component can do that costs more. Wire comes first then equipment upgrades.

Now that said you have to weed through the plethora of cable to get the best, because the best interconnect I know of that outperforms those costing thousands is a modest $800. There are dozens of $800 cables that mid performers so that is where the rift is between price versus performance. As a dealer I consulted on many mega buck systems that weren't doing what they should even though they had tens of thousands in wire. My wire recommendations that "fixed" the problems were way cheaper than what the person already had.

I'm writing a book on system synergy that explains in a common sense manner what the weak links of a system are and why. The common sense approach allows audiophiles to have a way better understanding of the role wire takes in a system, and which wire is the most important to have the best in.

Those in the know know that there are only a few interconnects that could be called the best. None of them is $800 unless you meant per inch or centimeter.
Also, I have three source components but only one interconnect for them. It was $800 new, by the way, but it is far from best, just very good. In addition, sometimes one has to run long wires, and it may easily cost $10k new just for that.
I treat cables and power cords as components. In my modest system they cost about 25%, all were bought used.