Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Spend your dollars on better gear before you think about better wires.....10% of the cost of the system will get you down the road just fine for wires.....There sure seem to be a lot of folks out there that have 15K in their systems with 1/3 of that in wires which is just ludicrous....

The whole point of the review and the subsequent comments is that outrageously priced cables add a bigger improvement for less money than buying the electronics. I have listened to $7000 monoblocks and not heard as much improvement as I did with the $7000 cables. So ultimately which is cheaper, or a better value?

Nrchy,
The synergy between a cable and the components it connects is more important than the price of the cable. The one you tried obviously showed synergy in your system but my experiences show there are always cheaper alternatives. You should shop around some more.

On another note, before you decide what to do, I suggest you try a power regenerator first. It might give you the most bang for the buck.

A cable can only color or subtract from the quality of your component's output, it can never improve upon it. The laws of physics, not opinion or marketing hype, govern the transmission of electrons through a wire. I am not, however, claiming that an obviously inferior conductor may outperform one of better design. I do appreciate the effects of capacitiance, skin effect and susceptability to electromagnetic interference, amongst others.

While the sound of your system may be more pleasing with the Purist cables in it (perhaps less or different coloration), you will see greater improvements by upgrading your components. To suggest otherwise is falacy. Use cabling of a "reasonable" (whatever that is, maybe allot ten to fifteen percent of your system cost) and uniform quality throughout. Take the opportunity to audition several different cables in you system. Consider borrowing from friends and your dealer as well as "churning" some used cables on Audiogon. You may find that the price of a cable does not directly correlate to its' performance in your system or you own tastes. Don't fall for the flawed logic, anachronisms and magical thinking that marketing consultants and "expert reviewers" employ. Don't let yourself believe that because it costs more it has to sound better either. Some blinded listening tests might be appropriate to help you make up your mind.

I have to agree with Mr Crump. Knowing that Bob Crump markets his own line of audio cables ( TG Audio ) and therefore has a LOT to loose by saying what he did adds further weight to his statements. The fact that he is a business partner with John Curl and Carl Thompson in making MULTI thousand dollar components ( $6500 power amps, $10,000 preamps, etc... ) via CTC Audio might lend even greater weight to his personal insights. Then again, if one does not like the products that Bob produces or is involved with, you might not agree with his other points of view either. Such is life and that is why we have SOOOO many makes / models of every type of product to choose from.

As to Thsalmon's comments, i basically agree with one MAJOR exception. I do think that cables CAN improve a system and not just change the "colouration" factor. Since cables alter the impedance that the component sees as part of the load, it can alter frequency response, transient response and other loading characteristics of the component feeding it. Since the effects of that loading would be further amplified and brought to the forefront of the presentation as it went down the chain, changing one cable early on in the system can have a multi-fold effect on the overall performance of the system.

Since i can already guess that Thsalmon's response might be that only "junky" or "poorly designed" components can be affected by changing the load that various cables present, so be it. All i can say is that there must be a LOT of "junk" out there. I haven't run across one component that was stable into every load that was presented to it. Sean
>