Ok this will be a good thread.

Marco, damn, no bites. I bow to you; man out from behind the curtain.

And thank you - very funny, I laughed out loud.

On what you say, its content, it is a staw man not deserving of the cognitive agility applied to it - but I do get your point and will respond there.

[First, please see my 1-13 response as context.]

Yes, it is true many people choose things, and here stereo things, to impress other people (actually to induce covet-ing), but we can't let their decisions decide ours, speaker-first or not. That disposes of scenario #1. Second, we can't let bad judgement, or the inability to learn, be a reference point for our decisions either (Calix horns wouldn't be my choice to illustrate your point #2, but anyone who pairs them with Radioshack has a pers se learning disability...) - which takes care of #2.

The answer: the middle path; neither and both. At each level of learning the most "important" component changes. What your response reflects is that you exist where you believe all components are important. But that is the response of someone who knows what Calix's are (BUT, have you tried the cryo's versions?!!). What produces "important" in your mind is not what produces "important" in someone coming off the Radioshack curve.

Each person is different, of course, but, generally speaking, different components become more important at different places on the learning curve. Personally, I think that every component is important - while also recognizing your point that many poeple use this argument to compare the twice cryo'd Whale versus the thrice - but, finally, as for purposes of discussion, I can't let that person's orientation act as a delimiter my own, as I'm sure you don't either, in practice.

Oh, by the way, you went off topic there. :0) That's called a performative error in an argument; meaning that your response undermined the premise of the point you were originally trying to make. But, you know, it doesn't bother me. As I said, iterations can be fun...

The god in me is one with the god in you. I bow as well and we are as one, in harmony with the great earth and sky. Oh yes, and I am indeed off topic, undermining my self-confessed, steam-venting post as it were. I do love the verbal jousting, and really do enjoy a personal take on any discussion. It's cooled down now in Seattle and my Prozac has kicked in so I'm calmer and gentler now, but none the wiser (insert little smiley-faced icon here composed with a semi-colon followed immediately by a dash and finally an end-parenthesis to indicate my easy-going state of mind and that the previous statement should be taken somewhat humorously).

As far as the scenario I proposed, I had thought it was a rhetorical question myself. I'd go with the "Source" system needless to say. I wasn't suggesting mixing Calix with Radio Shack, those systems are exclusive of each other. The contrast of the two is exactly the point. As far as the specific choice in cost-no-object speakers, go ahead, choose your own, I'd still go with the "Source" system.

Yes, yes, weakest link in the chain, all components and interconnects are important. Balance....synergy..and all that! I agree with that, but that wasn't the question Mark. At least not how I interpreted it, and I am THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ, let's not forget! Which ONE SINGLE component is most critical in reproducting music well in a 2-channel system? Since the overwhelmingly common response falls into one of two camps, that is where I staged the scenario. Indeed, as I think you infer in your post, perhaps the question is just ludicrous, perhaps the hobby is ludicrous?! Heresy, I've gone and committed Heresy right here on Audiogon. Yes, I did enjoy your 1/13 post Mark, thanks for referring back to it to give me that reference.

If you laughed at my previous post, check out the link to the humorous piece I wrote a while back (which goes to the point of my committing heresy). I'll refer you to the recent thread here since it contains the link to the piece and a disclaimer/warning for reading that piece as it may offend the feint-of-heart, and or rigid-of-morals....you've been warned! Keep in mind that I'm poking fun at myself here too...I'm a self-confessed audiophile, but I am in a twelve-step program to quit!

Marco

I think that "OK this will be a good thread" anticipates active (read: divergent) viewpoints; overdelineation to "ONE COMPONENT" may be a bit of a projection on your behalf, Marco. But hey, if you want to be literal here, not there, just to have fun, then, please, have a good time on your off-manic phases, chemically induced or not...(I hereby insert smiley-face so you know, so you know, that I'm, well...)

As for my preference, I think, from a design point of view, that starting with the pre (an active, hard-wired tubed one) gives the best results (musical results) in the long term. I can not say that it is then the most important piece when the system is fully constructed, but using it as a fulcrum for moving up and down the chain makes it, IMHO, most "important," in that context.

There are many good speakers and it is a very personal choice (which is why some people respond that it is the most important, because it is the most personal), but there are not very many good pre's out there, again, IMHO. As for people who say turntable, when you've got everything else and are looking for that last 'lil bit of harmonic/spatial nuance, you can experience the greatest jump in performance in advanced systems at the front end, and particularly on analog-based systems. Which again, may explain that focus (and, hence, answer).

Le'me put it straight!
IMHO the author somehow propheted that in this thread there will be two members as Marco and Mark.:-)

Yea, I know, Marakanetz, soooo predictable. I'm like a long playing record (sorry, I've been looking for a way to work that in...). I say, bread on the water, but I'm the nibbling fish! You know, all in all, I'm glad the Venomous Ones are gone, but, like Marcos, I like the mixing up too!