Develop a hierarchy for phono playback

Cleeds and Mahler123 with their realistic perspectives correctly predicted that my effort to form a consensus would fail.  Still it has been worthwhile to try, because I got more than I had hoped for.  ghdprentice wrote in part:

 "...Turntable (all) = Phono Stage in importance and is 95%... the cables will net you a small (say %5) improvement vs the major components. 

Then breaking down to the first level:

Turntable = Tone arm = Cartridge. About equal responsible for 95% of the sound quality.

So, I guess that means roughly 45% phonostage, 15% cartridge, 15% tone arm, 15% turntable and 5% wires.

This is about what my systems have typically ended up. For a long time I underestimated the phonostage and it was alway holding back my turntable." 

For anyone aspiring to assemble a highly resolving system, my advice is that they  grasp the significance of his contribution.  I would like to thank everyone for their participation.

"I would like everyone to go back and carefully re-read ghdprentice's post.  I think his logic is excellent and could form the basis for consensus.  Thoughts?"

Many thoughts are already out there, and I have not changed my opinion that assigning percentages of importance to each item in the chain may make you feel good, because you can have a feeling of having achieved something, but it's worthless, because we each seek a slightly different goal and there are hundreds of ways to get there. 

Two honest men can have an honest disagreement.  A formula like this provides a useful guideline as we seek to reach our goals.  In particular it should underscore the relative importance of the often misunderstood phono stage.  I suspect that you, like I, have A - B'd expensive turntables and tonearms and can hear the subtle differences.  By comparison the difference in phono stages can be considerably greater.  And, if a top flight phono stage is in play it is ever so much easier to assess two top flight cartridges.  We each have found methodologies that suit us.  To each his own.  But to call gdhprentice's elegant solution "worthless" says more about you than you may wish you had said.  Would you care to recant?

I’m not @lewm, but "recant"? Seems to suggest that not following fixed percentages is heretical!

The English language is so imprecise.  I meant it more along the lines of soften his words.  And with that said, the spirit and intent of a model of this sort is not to be rigid, it is a guideline to aid self analysis.  Think of it as a kind of a decision tree to help figuring out were you are at and what next area of focus might be most productive.  It might have more value for me than for lewm.  That is ok, but the word "worthless" especially as used to apply to one and all is very strong.