Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck


I recently chronicled in a review here, my experience with a very expensive interconnect. The cables cost nearly $7000 and are well beyond my reach. The issue is, the Pursit Dominus sound fantastic. Nothing in my stereo has ever sounded so good. I have been wondering during and since the review how much I would have to spend to get the same level of improvement. I'm sure I could double the value of my amp or switch to monoblocks of my own amps and not obtain this level of improvement.
So, in your opinion what is the better value, assuming the relative value of your componants being about equal? Is it cheaper to buy, great cables or great electronics? Then, which would provide the biggest improvement?
128x128nrchy
The system is worth more then the sum of its parts.

I used to cringe at the sign of 'over priced' cables but now I realize they are a vital part of the system, I try not to think of them as mearly pricey wires but as an additional component that adds its own sonic charachter to the sound, i.e. they are the filling of the pie and the components are the crust- and it is so sad.

The question at hand is the components vs. cables, I would rather pay for expensive cables then expensive components! not saying I would use transparent opus with Rotel, but I wouldn't use the Halcro with Monster cable either! There must be a dynamic equilibrium in the cable:component ratio, perhaps we should turn to Pythagoras and use the golden ration when doing cables, I dunno???? I just use what seems right in my sytem regardless of the cost, after all its only dirty paper :)
You have to balance both cables and electronics. A great cable will reveal the shortcomings of lesser electronics; and cheaper cables will choke off a signal from great electronics.