Cheap/expensive or expensive/cheap?


While I was listening to my modest little system recently, I began to ponder a question. What would sound better, an expensive system with the cheap/stock cables or a cheap system with high quality cables/power cords? For example, say you have a $3000 system (total) but have high quality cables/cords/conditioner etc. vs a $10000 system with just the stock cables and original power cords (no conditioners). 
I read many topics on AG and I am always amazed how much I don't know and how much I've learned on here. I've been updating my system over the past 2 years or so and appreciate all the experience and knowledge on these forums. Thanks---I look forward to your comments.
 
bluorion

Showing 1 response by kairosman

OP - everyone's response likely has some merit, hence your question isn't going to result in a definitive answer. Like Mr. Schroeder says above, reframe the question more narrowly/precisely and you will get more useful answers.

My experience has been variable, but in my system/room, I come down on the side of spending more on gear rather than cables when your per unit cost is under 5K. My system is 25K total, about 10% of that is in cables and power conditioner. That 10% has become like a guideline for me (and that includes tweaks like isolation pads)... but as mentioned, there are more experienced industry folk in the more rarefied end of the hifi universe who might say 25% or more should be allocated to cables/conditioner/tweaks.