Okay guys we are getting way off track from the original post. I do believe that cables offer the biggest bang for the buck. The right $300 cable can revolutionize a system where as a $300 component wouldn't in most cases.
now I digress...
Hshapiro, I do not think I am missing Audioengr's point.
He kind of side stepped my arguments by mentioning two modules which do not effect the sound the gain and the buffer. But.. what about the other modules?
First off, I believe the term "tone control" as well as "Band-Aid" have both been negative ways people have chosen to describe the effects of cables on a system. While the terms are for the most part accurate, the terms are still a slam on cables in general and really not fair commentary on a system.
Secondly, I have never taken a LinCD12 apart so I cannot confirm whether or not the wires are short. They may infarct be but its silly to attribute the astonishing sound of a Linn CD12 only to short wire... Audioengr does also state that changing bad wire to good wire might make an improvement but it would be infinitesimal. This seems to differ from the results you had with your Adcom GFA-555 where you replaced cheap input wire with "custom" 22g pure silver wire in a Teflon jacket. Can you describe the changes you heard? Do you think that just maybe, the tone of the Adcom changed a bit? If not, what did change? How did you know it was better?
I guess I have stepped across a new line in the sand when I speak of the tone controls inside of a component as well as the components themselves being tone controls designed to produce a specific sound.
This side of the sand is fun to be on.. so for fun, let me ask, hasn't any one here thought that just maybe, ALL AUDIO COMPONENTS (REGARDLESS OF WHICH ONE) ARE IN FACT TONE CONTROLS... What do you think differentiates McIntosh, LAMM, Krell, Levinson, AudioAero, AudioMeca, Sony, Pioneer, blah.... blah... blah....and yes the Linn CD12?? They all sound different do they not? Why do you suppose that is? Could it be tone?
Tone comes in many forms and yes, dynamic contrasts, shadings and a lack of distortion can in fact be a direct result of "tone" since the definition of TONE as it refers to sound is: the quality or character of sound, a distinct pitch, a sound of distinct pitch and vibration, quality, and duration, a... blah... blah... blah.. the list goes on.
Tone is a pretty big word. And since audiophile tend to use visual cues to describe what they hear, tone can be even more profound than the above definition indicates.
Anyhow, perhaps we are not aware that many aftermarket manufacturers have been quite busy upgrading parts inside of the new SACD players (they don't just shorten the wire), they alter the various "modules" as I called them - with new parts. The upgrades improve the quality of sound these components (SACD players) produce.
Now.. what is the difference between the before SACD player and the after CD player?
Do you think that maybe the tonal quality... --> From Stereophile Glossary: The accuracy (correctness) with which reproduced sound replicates the timbres of the original instruments. --> may have improved?
Audioengr... I would be very interested to know what your system is comprised of. You make a rather bold statement:
Until you have heard a superior system where there are no "weak links", one that is wired with truly low-loss IC's and speaker cables, you will not know what I am talking about. This "tone-control" mentality is what makes it really difficult to get an even playing field to compare cable performance.
Who needs an even playing field to compare cable performance? Which combination of audio components makes for an even playing field? Isn't sound the ultimate playing field, or are electrical properties more important?
And.. while were on the subject of even playing field. How many of you have a room that sounds just like mine? or Audioengr's?
THERE IS NO EVEN PLAYING FIELD!