Thank you all for your sincerity and insights. I realize this thread quickly evolved into areas far beyond my original question, but I gained tremendous respect for the quality and depth of thought that many of you have given to this subject.
Here are my reflections, now that I've read more than 80 of your responses:
1.) The perception of the importance of wire is driven largely by the audio press and the vast market availability, and by the fact that there are audible differences among some types of wire, some of which are perceived by some people in some systems to cause significant improvement in playback quality sufficient to justify their apparently disproportionate cost in relation to active components.
2.) Perhaps just as easily, this attention could have been given instead (and in many cases was) to other tweaks or to other parts of the signal chain, such as speaker cabinet modification; room acoustic treatments; addition of subwoofers; DSP; ambient restoration devices; home wiring; stick-on discs; green pens; elimination of A/C as a power source; as well as upgraded power supplies, potentiometers, capacitors, wiring and circuit layout within active components.
3.) However, messing with the guts of an assembled component (or speaker system) is still considered somewhat taboo on the playback side of things, usually adversely affecting potential resale value. On the recording side, adventurous musicians and engineers who find the status quo unacceptable are tearing apart microphone capsules and replacing parts that have been considered "unreplaceable" for half a century, looking for (and definitely finding) improvements in sound quality that were unobtainable even five years ago.
4.) Most of those who identify themselves as audiophiles are more likely to spend significant amounts of money on trying new interconnects and cables (or new speakers and components) than on experimenting with improving what they already have. The audio press supports the market-driven illusion that component replacement *is* improving what one already has (which ignores the entire underlying argument). Yet how many of us have purchased an "upgrade" that in all honesty was no better (or even worse) than what it replaced? How many of us even want to A/B our own "upgrades" for fear we won't hear what we want to hear?
5.) Listening preferences in playback are learned. Most audiophiles seem to believe there is a single scale of quality in sound reproduction that is relatively linear and can be described loosely as valuing that which "sounds the same as the original event."
6.) Little thought is currently given to matching playback quality with recording quality. Few people purchase multiple systems (with intentionally selected limitations) specifically to make the vast majority of recorded music sound listenable. Most audiophiles appear to believe that continual improvement of the playback signal chain (less coloration, less noise, greater purity, more power, etc.) will (or should) eventually make all recordings sound better, despite overwhelming experiential evidence to the contrary.
7.) Exceptions are those "system companies" (such as Conrad Johnson or McIntosh) and some British manufacturers (such as Rogers and Creek) that studiously ignore the pursuit of accuracy or fidelity in the audiophile sense, instead concentrating on making ordinary playback sources sound reasonably musical. Some of these companies have followings that simply ignore the audio press. Others have carved out a niche within the popular culture.
8.) There are largely unexplored disconnects between internal and external wiring, and between the process of recording and the process of playback. Should matching be a consideration? Does it make sense for the internal wiring of an active component to come off a $5 spool of 22 gauge copper wire and terminate at a gold-plated plug to which we connect a $1000 one-meter interconnect? Why *not* continue the internal wiring to the next component, eliminating two mechanical connections in the signal chain (and a significant and perhaps unnecessary cost)? Does it make sense to increase playback resolution and apparent "accuracy" to the point that mainly the faults and limitations of the original recording are revealed? Might it even be reasonable to build a system around the studio monitors on which the engineer chose the shape and color of the original recording, or to have multiple sets of speakers to more closely match the limitations of original recordings?
Over on a recording site, I recently read the most remarkable statement. An acquaintance of mine, a very fine high-end purist recording engineer in Boston, is basically "giving away" his mint-condition DPA 3529 stereo microphone pair and matching preamp for $3,000 (its list price in 1998 was over $8,400). He cannot find a buyer, despite the fact that this set will produce the most accurate recordings of live performances imaginable, straight into a DAT deck or hard drive recorder with NO compression, reverb, or effects whatsoever. The accuracy of these B&K mics is legendary -- the best stereo recordings of orchestral and choral music in the world are made with this set. They reveal EXACTLY what was heard!
But when we started discussing them among recording engineers, one finally stepped up and said, "Yeah, they're completely accurate and BORING!" His comment spurred other experienced engineers to agree. In other words, the realism, fidelity and clarity sought (and paid handsomely for) by audiophiles is considered too tame for many sound engineers, who want "better than real" sound in their recordings.
Where does that leave us?
Thank you for your patience and consideration.
With warm regards,
Mark H.
