Ia a good amp more important than a good DAC?

"rationale"?

"rationale"?

Yes, that's correct. "Rational" is also a word, but it has a different meaning.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationale
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational

Mark -- I don't question that for many people "source first" may be the best approach. My contention is that the explanation/justification/rationale that is commonly offered for that approach is flawed.

Best regards,
-- Al

I know it's a word, but I haven't seen the "rationale" presented.

I agree with the amp argument, since I think the amp/speaker is the most important match when choosing components and like others, I think the differences between $500 and $5,000 CD players is much, much smaller than the differences between $500 and $5,000 amps. The source is of critical importance, there is no disagreement there, it must be good or you will get garbage in, but it is not so difficult to get a good digital source for not too much money (not saying they are as good as EMM, Esoteric, dCS, Wadia, etc). Get the speakers and amp right, and most decent digital players (the Cambruidge is much more than decent) will be pretty good given the medium. There was alot more difference between the Linn Sondek and a $79 turntable - so getting the source right in those day was critical and Ivor Tiefenbrun was right about the importance of the source, there is a lot of logic in thinking you don't want to amplify garbage - and there were big differences in performance between turntables, not nearly so with digital IMHO.

I just very much disagree with the statement that a "system is only as good as its weakest link." As I have upgraded components that are not the weakest link, the sound of the system has improved and hasn't stayed the same, as implied by the statement. I wonder if people writing this are trying to say something different.

My advice would relate to marginal cost/marginal benefit. Where can you get the biggest bang for the buck?