Speaker priority: high or low???

Foreverhifi, that doesn't make any sense! You mean to tell me I can use a cheap CDP or TT, get only a portion of the signal off of the CD or LP. Then use inferior quality electronics to transfer the signal the source did not retrieve from the CD or LP but have it sound better when it gets to the speakers than a good CDP or TT that retrieves more of the signal and tranports it to average speakers.
It seems fairly easy to understand that a good CD or LP played on a good TT or CDP will recover more of the signal and transfer it through better electronics (which will degrade the signal less) to an average pair of speakers providing better sound quality.
Speakers will never sound better than the signal provided to them. The idea of good speakers reproducing an inferior quality signal sounding great is impossible unless the listener has lowered thier standards to a great degree.
I would much rather own great electronics and average speakers than great speakers and average electronics. The former system will always sound better than the latter.

Spent plenty of time in the audio business, and I totally disagree with speakers being the most important part in the chain. Maybe they are the most important part of the mid-fi business chain, but not the audio system chain.

I think the proof is in the pudding when David Wilson demo'd his new Sophias on a $600 parasound amp to awe of the crowd---the crowd thought it was the spectral 360s, when it was the parasound under the table cloth really driving the speakers.

I say speakers. I ran a trainload of electronics through my Boston Acoustics without noticing any real change. The last front end I got for the Bostons was a Sony ES that sounded a lot like the other players that preceded. I got it because over a hundred audio reviewers five starred it, and my previous one had broken.

Then I got a speaker that was a whole lot more revealing than the Bostons. In short order, I found out what crap all my five star equipment was. Out went the Sony right away. Next was the B&K, then the Bryston. I tried tubes, and found much better synergy.

Since then, I have upped the ante on the speaker twice, and both times I had to scramble to find electronics to match the speakers' demands, both physical, and aesthetic.

I still have some of the old stuff. Recently, I plugged in an Onkyo five disc changer. It sounded lovely on my Boston A 150 speakers. On my new speakers, it was like I had smothered the things.

Had I bought the great speakers first, I would have saved myself a lot of time and expense.

I have heard or read about a stereophile article from the 70's that described a blind test, where no one could (to any statistically valid degree) pick out the finest electronics from "a consumer grade pioneer receiver". I haven't read the article myself, but its intriguing. I'd also like to think that I could pick out the difference in a blind test....

That said, there's clearly no doubt in the vast differences in speaker quality. My vote's for speakers being the most significant contribution to your overall sound "output".