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
Bwhite wrote:
If a cable conceals a weakness that is a good thing. The system will sound better... if a cable highlights a weakness whos to say that the real weakness didn't come from the cable?

Usually, when a cable conceals a weakness in a system it does this by corrupting the sound in some way or adding coloration. I dont see how this is an improvement.
Audioengr wrote:
Usually, when a cable conceals a weakness in a system it does this by corrupting the sound in some way or adding coloration. I dont see how this is an improvement.

Ya... but if a system has a weakness... the sound is already corrupted! So who the hell cares!!??!!

If the cable makes the system more listenable - THAT IS A GOOD THING!
I guess I would have to lower my standards in order to not care. This is analogous to owning a Mercedes for 20 years and then replacing it with a Yugo when it wears out. A hard pill to swallow at best.....

I recently did a project with focus groups that involved digital audio playback. I found that I could not stomach what MP3 did to the music. I had to use .wav files ultimately.
Bwhite said:
On the lower end - lower rez cables will make harsh sounding systems sound better - easier on the ears - and high rez cables make muddy systems sound more transparent.

I would say the high rez cables I have heard in lower end systems created an illusion of transparency. I think that it's because they have wider bandwidth, the highs and lows they create make them sound more see-through.

Bwhite said:
On the highest end - when a synergy has been formed - lean toward the most neutral cable for the system. Its impossible to fine a 100% purely neutral cable and unlikely to hear a 100% purely neutral component. At this level, one really wants to listen to the music and not the cables or components. Given that the quality of sound reproduced by such components is typically superior but not absolutely perfect, it becomes a delicate balancing act to add the RIGHT cable into the mix which has the most neutral presentation possible without leaning the wrong direction.

Speaking of adding the RIGHT cable into the mix in a high-end system, please tell us why you didn't like the VD cables in your system. Did you try their top of the line Nite cable? Finally, what components were you using while trying them?

Bwhite:
Even at this level (20 or 22) its possible to be too sterile or too rich with the components. At this level, high-rez is just as bad as low-rez.

That's what I thought you meant. For whatever reason, I was lucky the VD cables locked into my system without my going bust.
Audioengr, if you listen to .wav files how much further could you still lower your standards? I have sacd and find it to be disappointing compared to analog. The sound doesn't compare. All the rest of those formats are dramatically poorer, so why bother?