Ia a good amp more important than a good DAC?

I just very much disagree with the statement that a "system is only as good as its weakest link." As I have upgraded components that are not the weakest link, the sound of the system has improved and hasn't stayed the same, as implied by the statement. I wonder if people writing this are trying to say something different.

My advice would relate to marginal cost/marginal benefit. Where can you get the biggest bang for the buck?

The question "is a good amp more important than a good DAC" is only meaningful when discussing the system's speaker.

A great amp can sound lousy with great speaker. It's all about matching properly.

That being said, I would choose the amp for this discussion.

Good digital sources and DACS are a dime a dozen in today's market.

Markwatkiss, "On contrary Al,the rationale for "source first" has and always will continue to make a whole lot of sense irregardless of what is downstream."

I'm surprised that more discussion hasn't taken place on the use of "irregardless", as opposed to "rationale". We ALL make typos, but "irregardless" is a horse of an entirely different color.

As for me, I'm in the amp first camp, but understand a lousy source is also a dealbreaker. Just that I've tried both ways on many occasions, and I usually wind up getting more enjoyment with an amp that meshes well with my tastes and system.

Bill makes a most cogent point - to have meaning, an amp must reference the loudspeaker it's being paired with.

Trelja, thanks for wording it better than I have.

Even an inexpensive DAC has very low self-noise, low distortion, and no headroom issues.

Can't say the same thing for a cheap amp.

Amps are big analog circuits with lots of components and connections operating in a hot, high-current environment.

A DAC is just a digital processor (a chip) with a line level output stage.