Subar: what you say, as I noted above, seems to hold more true with less sophisticated systems. As systems become more sophisticated (read: able to replicate not just sound sources with detail, but supplement that detail with deep harmonics in the source and continuous space), wires seem to become as important as other "components".
If I was, say, helping someone put together a $1500-5K system and opted for tubed pre and SS amp - a valid choice balancing several important variables - then wire would be less a priority. I would look at Coincident or Discovery (which sounds good with Pass gear, the Aleph 30 being a nice place to start with such a system). But, say, if I was Albert Porter and was driving Soundlab Ultimates that sang with the Dominus, and I could drop $ on a '86 Ch. Lafite without blinking, and I knew from experience that as a system became more sophisticated the wire became more integral to that sought-for experience, would you decry his use of such wire, or given his experience, tell him that his other components are more important and that he should always look there first to effect such a change? Or, from your vantage of experience, would you tell him that because wire is less "complex" in its matter rearrangement, that he doesn't know what he's doing?
So, we admit that wire IS the same as an amp in terms of its fundamental nature - we can't just dismiss it as if its not a "component". But then, we now have another argument trying to reduce the importance of wire-matter based on an allegedly less "complex" FUNCTION. The problem with that assumption is that it is not true in our experience of listening. Again, the absolutist statement that function importance between wire-matter and amp-matter stays constant throughout all systems is, again, inconsistent with our experience (assuming that you have that experience and have conducted the experiements in listening sufficient for you to make such absolutist statements). Again, I would argue that the default to such absolutist statements that continually seek to reduce wire as a consideration in a system are more symptomatic of a scientific bias/attachment than what we actually see.
What I've seen is those that have less sophisticated systems (I would say SS-based predominantly, where, again, wires are less important because the spatial nuances cited above are not as well replicated)assume that wire is less a priority because in their system it is - of which I agree with. However, they then cascade that assumption, in a void of experience, to conclude that their situation applies to that that they have never heard, and perhaps, are not able to hear.
Certainly, there are lots of scams working out there on wire because its easier to construct IN MATTER, but that does not necessarily mean that some wire in some systems do not perform as a "component", or do not perform an equal FUNCTION as does an amp. To conclude so, in absense of your own experience, in contrast to others' experience with far more advanced systems (like Albert Porter's) who clearly find that wire is indispensible to the proper function of their advanced systems, is not only un-scientific, but disingenuous.
If I was, say, helping someone put together a $1500-5K system and opted for tubed pre and SS amp - a valid choice balancing several important variables - then wire would be less a priority. I would look at Coincident or Discovery (which sounds good with Pass gear, the Aleph 30 being a nice place to start with such a system). But, say, if I was Albert Porter and was driving Soundlab Ultimates that sang with the Dominus, and I could drop $ on a '86 Ch. Lafite without blinking, and I knew from experience that as a system became more sophisticated the wire became more integral to that sought-for experience, would you decry his use of such wire, or given his experience, tell him that his other components are more important and that he should always look there first to effect such a change? Or, from your vantage of experience, would you tell him that because wire is less "complex" in its matter rearrangement, that he doesn't know what he's doing?
So, we admit that wire IS the same as an amp in terms of its fundamental nature - we can't just dismiss it as if its not a "component". But then, we now have another argument trying to reduce the importance of wire-matter based on an allegedly less "complex" FUNCTION. The problem with that assumption is that it is not true in our experience of listening. Again, the absolutist statement that function importance between wire-matter and amp-matter stays constant throughout all systems is, again, inconsistent with our experience (assuming that you have that experience and have conducted the experiements in listening sufficient for you to make such absolutist statements). Again, I would argue that the default to such absolutist statements that continually seek to reduce wire as a consideration in a system are more symptomatic of a scientific bias/attachment than what we actually see.
What I've seen is those that have less sophisticated systems (I would say SS-based predominantly, where, again, wires are less important because the spatial nuances cited above are not as well replicated)assume that wire is less a priority because in their system it is - of which I agree with. However, they then cascade that assumption, in a void of experience, to conclude that their situation applies to that that they have never heard, and perhaps, are not able to hear.
Certainly, there are lots of scams working out there on wire because its easier to construct IN MATTER, but that does not necessarily mean that some wire in some systems do not perform as a "component", or do not perform an equal FUNCTION as does an amp. To conclude so, in absense of your own experience, in contrast to others' experience with far more advanced systems (like Albert Porter's) who clearly find that wire is indispensible to the proper function of their advanced systems, is not only un-scientific, but disingenuous.