Call me something between a pragmatist and a wet blanket, but one doesn’t really need to go much further in technical capabilities and price than interconnects based on Belden 1694a cable and Canare RCA-type connectors, unless one feels the need for ‘locking/gripping’ connectors. Even going that far may exceed the needs of some.

The engineer in me says that if installing new cable truly results in changes like “added a tremendous amount of air and space around instruments, and really opened up the soundstage,” then either the previous IC’s, the new IC’s or both were affecting the sound in ways they shouldn’t be, and/or the contact points between the cables and the equipment needed attention such that improved contact restored proper signal separation and/or eliminated improper impedance.

I do recommend that all cable connections that rely on solely on friction (interconnects, speaker cable) for proper electrical contact be checked one to three times yearly. The use of decent cable strain relief may help. I know some people who have converted some of their gear to BNC-type connectors because they thought they couldn’t rely on the RCA-type connectors over the long term without preventative maintenance. There are other ‘locking/gripping type’ connectors for IC’s and speaker cable that also reduce the need for recurring attention.

(Videodrome: no slight or criticism of your assessment is intended in my use of your phrase. My post is meant to be an expression of my opinion regarding cables and connection maintenance, not about my fellow Outlaws. I appreciate your understanding.)

Common sense interjection: the cable used by the engineers in capturing, recording and mastering was likely bare, well insulated copper (not oxygen-free or other specially ‘enhanced/aligned’ type) or silver-tinned copper. Attempts to exceed the original engineers’ cable types is, IMHO, too great a ‘reach’ in the audio playback stage of the total process.