Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Thsalmon---Never a more appropriate truth spoken. Cables can only subtract from the sound because they can't deliver sound better than the original source. I have seen so many "Tune" with expensive cables that sometimes I wonder why they don't bring tone controls back. I have always wondered what a neutral cable might sound like, the no wire cable that all could be compared to.
The bottom line here is that if you like one cable better than another, you are simply saying that "IN YOUR OPINION" it does less harm that the other or colors the sound that masks something you didn't originally like in your systems sound. You must match cables with equipment---what sounds good with one may not sound so good with another piece. We have to tune out what we don't want or the "Synergy" issue.
My vote is buy better equipment. Of course, that has its own set of problems---as in what is "Better?" And as mentioned above, money doesn't dictate better sound.

Sean, What is the difference between a "Better preserved" and a "Degradation" of a signal? If it is not perfectly preserved, then it is a degradation. The point remains that a cable cannot improve upon a signal irrespective of impedence, capacitance or whatever. It can pass the signal as is or it degrades it. The "Perfect" cable would be one that passes a signal with no change (something we have not achieved.) I do believe in a synergy with certain cables with certain equipment. I'm sure that the interaction of electrical factors does account for this and forms a closer picture of the source(maybe.) A system is not going to be any better than its pieces parts. A bright CD player with "Good" cables will sound worse than it would with less accurate cables masking some of the brightness. Where the bad link is, it will have to be corrected or the sound will degrade through the rest of the chain. Each component is going to put its on signature on it for better or worse.
Obviously, the accurate thing is out the door. Accurate to what and by who's standard. With all the gear on the market (Including cables), the definition of accurate is really up for grabs.

Sean, I agree with you as far as signal degradation. We are on the same page with a few semantics. However, I don't believe we are to the point where we can measure performance with any amount of true certainty. Just read a couple of issues of Sterophile.
I will use the example of Vandersteen speakers. They measure about as perfect as any loudspeaker that you will find at any price. I personally am bias towards the speakers. My 3A Sigs. and 2WQ's sound so good its scary. Yet, look how many people say they are laid back, rolled off, poor transparency and etc. (I must be deaf because I have used many a speaker and I can't agree with this assessment.) Now look at the number of people who rave over proven inaccurate loud speakers as shown in test results. We accept +- 10 db as accurate? I still believe that accuracy is in the ears of the beholder. If not, explain these inconsistences away. What defining piece of equipment do we have? What cables? Etc. Etc. Look at tubes. They really test pretty poor vs. a transistor amp. Spec. wise, which would you buy? But how many people think they sound better? By the way, I'm not picking on you, I just feel very strongly that this industry has lost its roots and is pushing whatever they can sell by whatever means(mostly by propagada.) They are forcing us poor neurotic souls to purchase that perfection which is not obtainable. I for one cringe at the amount of money I have spent over the last 35 years in search of the Holy Grail. Of course on the opposite end, we have done this to ourselves by buying some of this stuff. Its like buying a Polo shirt vs. one sold at Walmart. They all cover your back. Maybe we should turn the tag out. I paid $10,000 for cable XYZ and had to add $750 for the connectors! Look what I bought for $10,750 Don't it sound great! Now do you really think that someone who just purchased these would say these things suck?

Bomarc, One tiny little problem. In the Floyd Toole article, it seems that he is out to justify the means (so to speak{er}.) It is a know fact that frequency response alone can be adjusted to reflect a "Certain" sound as in laid back or up front. However, how do we account for the difference in transparency, soundstaging, proper timbral allocation and the like? Speakers test perfect on whatever test and still sound like crap. I haven't seen this measured myself. Another good example of measurements gone astray is electrostatic speakers. Because of their inherent design, they are not going to measure very flat. They are subject to unreal reflections from the room and unless you are using multiple panels, one cannot reproduce the entire frequency spectrum without problems simply because the whole panel wants to vibrate at the same frequency. With the constant changes in amplitude, it is not going to be an accurate speaker frequency wise. However, there sure are a lot of people who like them.