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?
nrchy
I know, Unsound. I was just joshin' ya. But its still there, you're still here! Run for your lives, its the thread that ate Detroit!! My condolences...

Hey, SO, cable IS a component, even with Muralman's Apogees, even though he's not sure, and yes, scientific measurements are important, but to believe they are primary to the experiement of listening is itself heresy to the Cartesian God, and saying that Dominus is mis-spent money when you yourself spend $7K on a system and there are still (the last time I checked) Bangledeshis is somewhat hipocritical and revealingly self-serving, and, hopefully, enough scientific-attached guys with puny ________ have seen this and will think twice about beating people over the heads with their rulers (is there an archetype for that, detlof?) - until, of course, they get re-juiced by WWF (or is it WWE now?) and their, er, other needs (the puny part) - so, you know, it was a good thing, no?

Oui.
Sub, interesting, do they employ Jungians without a green card?
ASA he lived in it, I think and creatively, which is hardly comfortable and yes, he "co-existed", I think, in the way you so astutely describe. ...in a stable sense transcending..difficult to answer, I doubt it, have to think more about it, perhaps too much a child of the 19th century....archetype for wielding rulers and bashing heads with it ? No... but Anna Freud has it amongst her "defensive mechanisms" against the oh so chaotic and evil unconscous (-;
detlof: yea, I know, part of me wants to say, yea, he did, then another part says, nah. Stable is usually pretty obvious, although I would suppose that Victorian remnants/attachments were a real bug to get past back then - big conformist pull of the exterior assumptions upon the individual mind. As I said though, there are transitionary zones, so to speak, so 'ol carl may have spent more time there than not. His "visions" of archetypes in the collective subconscious and especially synchronicity (archetypes can be constructed cognitively easier with less direct experience, but synchronocity is not deja vu, and requires, in order to percieve it as he did, more direct immersive experience) are both symptoms of the next level of consciousness emerging in him. Where such perceptions become stable, continuous and co-existent and integrated with "normal" cogntive-based perception is not a bounded line at that stage (at certain higher stages, symptoms can enable greater discernment of stage stability).

Order/Chaos: where does one begin and the other end? When water swirls in "chaotic" turbulence, where is it order-ly? Humans impose a cognitive construction that is binary and dualistic upon "Reality" (and, being the accommodating, maternal reality it is, it is suseptible to such imposition...). Dualism breaks reality into points of reference in which to compare over time, or comparison of data-events over the stream of change ("time" also being a construction), but that does not mean that at deeper symmetries of perception, that at once integrate those above, that the cognitive differentiation between order/chaos is not seen for what it is: a wonderful tool of the mind, a great gift, but still a tool. If 'ol Anna F. wants to break up reality into chaos face (evil) and order-face (bliss) thats ok, but it doesn't exclude its integration. And yes, recoil from the instinctual in one's own mind - seeing it as the beast - is merely a manegestation of one's fear from seeing oneself. Which, of course, keeps all of you Jungians in business! [that, and, of course, the yawning nihlism of the simultaneous recoil of the human mind from everything not it-self; recoil from instincts inside - seeing it in Judeo-Christian terms as the beast/sin and earth as sin-place - and recoil from all outside the ego - categorizing non-human minds as things/products (science and capitalism, respectively). Its ONE BIG recoil, inside/outside at once, not separate. You see, capitalism, scientific materialism and Judeo-Christian doctrine aren't all that much in disagreement afterall. Hmmm, I wonder what that means in evolutionary terms...?]

Subaru, oh thank you for keeping me company! Yes, becoming downwardly mobile is always a worry...
It strikes me as somewhat interesting that Jung has so many fans here, inasmuch as he was a Nazi sympathizer and sometimes fan. So much for a solid philosophical base!