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
By this time everyone probably know that I am a worst of the worst speller, and my English is also stink, sorry. Oh yeah, it's not the gear, it's the HUMAN THING! (logic/no logic (baggages), etc..., what a drag!)
What is passive agression? Hmm, the lion does not have to do anything, all he need to do is to show up? :-)

Let me do the logic thing:
Mind = a component and one with all components, complex cognitive.
All components = good and bad
Good and bad = diamond and cow dump

Mood = good mood and bad mood
Lousy mood = stereo just sounded like crap

Sorry Detloft, but you only got half of the mantra. LOL. This is because you did not approve for my use of "your quote" in the last thread. ;-)

Detlof, who is Ernie?

You guys just love the "neurotic thing"?, don't you? :-)

Here is the first half of the Ten bulls quote. Enjoy!

Too many steps have been taken returning to the root and the source.
Better to have been blind and deaf from the beginning!
Dwelling in one's true abode, unconcerned with that without --
The river flows tranquilly on and the flowers are red.

If you are sick, you go to the doctor. Easy isn't it? One just don't realize if he is sick. That is where all the trouble start. Wow I sound like Clueless ;-) You poor souls...

You guys call these craps "ZEN" LOL

It's Friday, cheers everyone...
6chac, Ernie is....hey Pychic turn the volume down......ahem, Ernie is a Guru, steps into rabbit holes, swears like a trooper doing it and sells Submarine...ahem ..arus, methinks and ASA loves to wrestle with him. Its lots of fun...and yes both can spell too.
Yeah, turn on the volume! Now that's the human thing to do!

She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah...She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah...
Psychanimal: you crack me up! You chide me, asking that the dialogue end and then, jump right in yourself! Now that's funny! "Mental masturbation"? Well, its a relative thing, I would submit for your ever-continuing consideration.

ernie: thank you for rising to my bait, and with a pretty good attitude. Yes, alot of tube systems are veiled with euphonics and are IMHO boring. But I'm not talking about these, just like I'm not talking about SS systems that commit the more extereme ills of raspy highs, etc. I'm talkng about the best, and best executed, in both in comparison on spatial/harmonic nuance perceived at a deep existential, trans-cognitve level (its not just about the size of the soundfield created, another default BTW to the assumptions of Galileo that form one of the planks of Cartesianism...). Like I said, the Pass stuff is nice, and the Parcifals too - very...precise would be my guess. I think, to perfect your arguments (by the way, what exactly are they...?), you went a little bit far with the "rug" thing. Yes, matter that comes into contact with soundwaves in sufficient proximity to our listening is a consideration, but we are talking about energy transference WITHIN the system as an energy transference/converting system, not how that system may thereafter interact with other energies. Like I've said, when the scientific ones are confronted with the logical inconsistencies and faulty assumptions on the very method which they use to beat everyone else over the head with, they tend to regress (or say thaty now you are regressing to something before science, like mediaval astrology, like Muralman saying that anyone who hears beyond his Apogees and assumptions is an "alchemist"). A little too far; I think you gave yourself away on that one. In fact, I was feeling a little bad about the "disingenuous" bait (see, clueless I am listening to you after all..) - you know, because ignorance necessarily excludes conscious intent - but I'm feeling better about that now. Hey, BTW, how are those cryo-treated outlets doin' ya?

Detlof: right again, what more to be said; mind is primary, all "components" thereafter seeking to capture the musical meaning from one mind into our own.

6ch: there you are, knew you were slunking around somewhere...here's one for you:

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
the water has no mind to receive their images.

Don't know, go strait - but that doesn't mean you can't have FUN.

Albert: shameless of me to drag you in. Hey, what can I say, no one here would say bad your way, so too hard for me to resist. You know, easy to bang chatty-catty Asa, hard to bang professorial Albert, even though he's the one with/had the Dominus. Thank you for letting me borrow you.

Have a nice wkend all.