Where do cables upgrades have the most impact?


Assuming all existing cables in a system are atleast mid-grade (not junk), which cables/interconnects should be upgrade first and in what order? Where should one start?
128x1281extreme
teo_audio’s post should be a separate starter of a thread! Particularly the ’Compensating for NOT neutral equipment" (my words his idea).In fact I am starting a thread about it. So please do not add more about it here.It will have my name on it but I give credit to teo.
Here is the link to the new post on teo’s topic: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/problem-of-compensating-with-cable-a-component-tone-problem
@teo_audio I realize this goes against the grain of what you posted : ) however, do you have specific advice on how to move along the ’journey’ more efficiently?
To try to at least build or modify a single piece of gear. Or that built piece of gear, being modified at least once. In some way. To get an understanding of the complexity of the signal in the boxes. This might be a way.

As we each need some sort of position of knowing what is in the box and how it affects things, so that one can calibrate the self against this data. It’s critical to have a basis of knowing of at least some minimal nature of the given box. At least one time. Be it headphones, sources, turntables, cartridges, speakers, even modifying audio cables.

What most of us work with is unknowns against unknowns, with an unknown final point. Even a cable exists as a complex system. It’s interaction with the boxes is a complex scenario, and the boxes themselves are each a ridiculous set of complex integrations.

Eg, what a fuse change does, in either a internal voltage rail (amplifiers) or a power supply (same amplifier)...this effect is noted to be fairly obvious. Imagine the rest of the circuit, and how many other complexities in sonic result, lie in there, as distortions and so on.

to not let the desire for new gear get in the way of that trek. We all hear about the item or devices, that should not have been sold...as the new combinations just don’t do it right, and so on. People trying to get back what they feel they lost.

A key element, is that ’less is more’. Less parts, simpler circuits, simpler systems. Source, amp, speakers, done. Simple. We can get an opportunity to seek out neutrality and then get acclimated to the neutrality and clarity, via having simple systems and making simple changes. Break the problem down into functional bits of low enough complexity so that the nature of the unknowns can emerge to our capacities to discern.

And then learn to seek that out in more complex and involved systems, but inch by inch, holding fast to the need for the neutrality of precision, speed, clean short fast potent transients, ’plosives’, and so on. Warmth with sublime nuance and subtleties of sharp but soft and clean transients. Again, some minimal understanding of what complexities the boxes are involved in, as ’all unknowns’ is no way to get to a destination.

Having a tech upgrade all the electrolytic capacitors in a given piece of gear can help gain some of the required perspective. To take close note of what happened when this was done. To endeavor to be more keen in one’s subtleties of discernment.

Like psychology notes, the vast majority of people, when confronted with a new problem, do the same thing they did before. With ’all unknowns’ in audio, we can see how this behaviour will fail to be effective, except outside of chance. An ignorant level of chance, with an uncalibrated sensory set.. which means more repeats of the same, for the future...

Only three percent of the world thinks outside those sort of response to stimulus scenarios. To try and get one’s self into the three percent component of what we might be dealing with. So the circular argument of the self, in this, begins to move into ending.

It’s difficult to get people move down that path as it involves heavy lifting, in the self.