Cable Costs Relative to System

Aintitgr8, you say,

My common sense proof of when you are done with wire comes when the given cost of a wire upgrade that makes a discernable difference is still under what a better component can do that costs more.

IMO, for me at least, that point still falls at "about 10 percent of system cost, and no higher than 25 percent," as I posted in 2005.

Wire comes first then equipment upgrades.

I see your point with this and suggest the important thing is to have an idea of the system price range where you expect to end up (at least with each step forward), and then settle in on cables that makes sense for that price range while you try different equipment. My experience with a variety of cables is that I can meet that goal relatively inexpensively, for my $50K list system, with simple DIY projects using very good quality bulk cables and top level connectors. I also have a Cable Cooker to condition them initially and periodically. I have found the resulting cables to be suitably balanced between neutrality, smoothness, detail, tonality, extension and dynamics when compared with other brand name cables I have tried, which sometimes do well in some areas but not so well in others. I can easily discern the effect of changes in my equipment. Using these cables has allowed me to get away from the expense and time required to constantly buy and try a variety of different cables.

BTW, do you care to share what cable you are speaking of when you say,

the best interconnect I know of that outperforms those costing thousands is a modest $800

I am continually amazed at the performance of the Speltz interconnects. Whereas I have upgraded everything save the speakers, the Speltz wires stay. There is nothing they inhibit. That should be the greatest aspiration for any cable.

You have the answer, spend on your components not cable this will give you more bang for your buck than any cable will and spend it on what ever source you listen to the most and work your way out from there changing your speakers last.Try Atlas cables if you want most bang for your buck.

here is a way of looking at bang for the buck.

compare the affect of replacing an amplifier with the affect of replacing a cable (speaker, ic or power cord).

if the affect upon the sound of a stereo system is more "pleasing" when replacing the cable, it would seem that the "new" cable has a more profound affect and could be considered as the wiser purchase , assume one can afford it.

my point is the component which has the greatest positive affect upon the sound of a stereo system should be given top priority. if it happens to be a cable, so be it.

i would therefore conclude that there is no formula to specify how much to spend for cables, relative to some other component.

I still have to say the gap between the folks who are crazy for cables and those who are not so crazy is very, very wide.
I continue to tread what i think is a middle ground of 'some' money for somewhat better cables.
But I still find spend the money on the equipment is the best choice.

I am currently deciding whether it is worth the money to buy some better power cables. At $320 for a four meter powercord for the amp is making me think about it. I probably will try it. But it is getting too expensive there for my cord philosophy to accept as reasonable. (Actually it is on the cusp.. so I am just not certain if it is worth the trouble...) Though for the 10% rule it is well within the range, as my amp cost $4,300.
I have reterminated some 25 year old interconnects and find I really like them on my digital stuff.

And as a final thought, I cannot see saying 'cables first' as making any sense at all. Except to cable sellers and manufactureres. The idea of expensive cables first is just totally crazy in my book. That is just me. (and plenty of others.) but if it floats anyone's boat, then so be it, Feel free to buy $10,000. cables for your Radio Shack receiver...