Do you belong more to souce first or to speakers first school of thought ?

I suggest a wild assumption that everyone here does have brains. Any objection ?

Having owned a Audiostore and experimentation ,I feel the quality of the source  is 

most important , speakers a close 2nd why ?  For the quality of the source is what makes the audio signal ,good or bad , once it goes to the next component it is just that ,it cannot be improved upon. Even if it was the finest speaker ever made.

if the instruments tone ,and Soundstage is not there then the Loudspeaker  cannot 

reproduce what it does not have . The Loudspeaker is though right behind the source to finalize the creation of the original signal, From Start to Finish.

I have an impression that the more experience audiophile acquires the more he appreciates the importance of the source, even given the same recording quality of the material. I used to be more speakers first guy but no longer, now I am more source first guy.

And the higher end your system is the more important source is, as Mike said.

Chicken, or the egg…

Source. Sometimes speakers. Depends on what I want to listen to. 
 

Switch gear around a fair bit. Sometimes I want to listen to a SE tube amp - that will dictate speakers. Sometimes I want to listen to Class A SS. Then I have options w speakers. Sometimes, I want to listen to a high sensitivity speaker. Again, then I have options w amps. Decision gets made for me if I put low sensitivity speakers in or a low powered amp. 
 

But as said above, it all matters. 
 

If I have to choose, then source. Garbage in, garbage out. 

Good source will sound better on mediocre speakers than mediocre source will sound on good speakers. And FWIW, there are some pretty damn good inexpensive speakers out there. Let's just call it at $1000 per pair tops and that you've got an average size room. I'll start with Monitor Audio, Polk, even Revel have very respectable offerings.