Rate these on order of importance:

Interesting, that those that stuck to the given paramters couldn't agree.

All things being equal speakers are the least important piece in the equation!

Speakers will never reproduce what doesn't get to them!

1) ROOM

The room is the most important part of your system. Yes it is a part of the system!

A good system in a bad room is not going to sound good! So with that in mind is it still a good system?

2) Nothing down the line will add what the source has failed to collect from the LP/CD/SACD/Cassettte/tuner/8-track, or whatever I missed. It is not possible for the amp, pre-amp, phono stage to know what was missed at the transmission point and replace it later.

3) A good amp/pre-amp combination will loose less of the signal than a poor quality combo. These are probably the source of the greatest signal degradation. All the transistors, capacitors, power supplies, and wires are a loss of signal. Be very careful when selecting these two pieces.

4) The transmission of the signal is huge. It has been said that all cable is crap, but some is less crap than others. I read that here. I think Bob Crump was the source of the quote. Good cable will never degrade the signal as much as the amp/pre-amp combo which is why they are listed where they are. Buy the best cable you can regardless of price. I use Purist exclusively. It is obscenely expensive and worth every penny!!!

5) Speakers are important, but less so than everything listed before. They only reproduce what gets to them. The most important task of a stereo system is to maintain the signal from the source to the speakers. If the system does this well they speakers will sound good.

I am not suggesting buying 'cheap' speakers, what I am saying is that they are not more improtant than any other componant! This idea of spending a disproportionally (50%) large amount of money for them is patently absurd. Speakers reproduce only what they get, they do not add to the signal although poor quality speakers will degrade the sound.

Unsound...Since when do audiophiles agree on anything?

Matchstickman - You're hearing me screaming? Man you must be one of
those underpaid audio reviewers who can hear dog whistles, and gets
annoyed if a mouse farts in the basement during their favorite passage
of Resphigi's Church Windows! I had no idea - we are not worthy (can
you see me bowing deeply at the waste just now?)!!! Everyone knows
you gotta spray the cockroach pizza's with a thick coating of RAID
before you serve em up, otherwise you gotta go running after it every
time you turn the lights on!

As to the A/B test you propose, well, lets just say a certain slogan that
Paul W. Klipsch used to use comes to mind. But I guess that the words
"sound better" are entirely subjective. Herman's spot-on
IMO, the whole concept is more than a bit odd. Why ever would you
want to create a system out of balance, investing disproportionately
more in one component and compromising another. You're investment
in the expensive component would likely be wasted, and or reveal all the
flaws of the lesser component. Balance and synergy is paramount in this
hobby, and in any "system". Also, price alone does not
dictate the quality of a component, nor that components synergy with
another in the chain of similar cost. Given that balance exists, and care
is taken to select components that work well with one and other, I'd
agree with Nrchy's comments about the importance of each of the
individual components, but, as he concludes, a disproportianate
investment in one component over the other is ridiculous.

Marco

Jax2, I merely just asked for the order of importance, in GENERAL terms. I never said anything about price or balance or holding back on this and not spending more on that. Relax.

As for Paul Klipsch, I am not familiar with any of his witty repartee.

By the way, I am underpaid, I do review the audio that I buy, I don't like mice(except with broken backs in a moustrap), and I am not familiar with Resphigi's work, either. Apparently, I need to get out more.