Ia a good amp more important than a good DAC?

must first pass through the amp which is their preceding component so does it not stand to reason that in order to receive an accurate example of whatever is behind it, it must be honest?

It can be honest as Mother Theresa, but if all she has to pass on is the lie she's been told by the source your "accurate, honest" amp will not really start benefiting you until you feed it the truth.

I visualize like the childhood game of "Telephone" where there is initially a message written down on a piece of paper. The first kid in a line of kids is allowed to read the message on the paper, then they whisper it in the ear of the kid next to them. They in turn repeat exactly what they said to the next kid. And so on until the message gets to the end of the chain of kids. Most of the time there are 'weak links' and the message is quite distorted by the time it reaches the end. Sometimes it actually made in there verbatim. Your good amp is like having one "perfect" kid, right in the middle of the line, who hears and conveys the accurate message along 100% of the time (not very likely, but lets just imagine). Having a poor source would be as if the first kid in the chain were dyslexic (in which case you would never get an accurate accounting of the message on the other end).

Don't get me wrong, an honest amp, a clear conduit for the truth, is certainly money well spent. That just ain't the whole story, as I bet we can all agree. On the rest, we can all agree to disagree.

I have always spent more on the source compared to the amplifiers. My recommendation is to spend equal amounts on all components, and I am a firm believer in the weakest link concept of audio.

One thing is that the difference between a $1k and a $2k CDP may not be very much. They may even use the same parts. Notable differences in CDP occur at larger increments in price. There are some great sounding and outstanding values in CDPs under $2k. However, the jumps in quality are probably more in line at $5k, 7.5k, 10k, etc.

As your amp improves, you are likely to hear weaknesses in the chain, including the source. They may not be obvious in the first 30 days, but you may hear them over time.

The OP noted that a more expensive CDP had a slight improvement on A/B comparison. Sometimes, slight improvements can result in a large difference in enjoyment. The opposite may also be true, in that large and obvious differences may not translate into more enjoyment, despite clearly being an improvement. The question more relates to system goals and synergy, and creating a sound that draws you into the music and not into the sound itself.

Another consideration is the type of music. Good CD players excel at unamplified acoustic instruments that have a natural resonance, placed upon a stage of a certain width, depth, and height. Not all music is recorded in this manner with regards to rock, popular, and electronic music. Even acoustic jazz in the 50's and 60's had been engineered to have an unnatural presentation, with exaggerated stereo separation, close miking, filters, and an inflated image size. It takes time for your ears to open to these new details. An inexpensive CDP can convey the brushes on a cymbal or the fingers sliding up and down a fingerboard of a guitar, but they may not convey the spatial details of the performance. The point being that some musical genres may benefit more from money spent on amplification. If you like rock, then yes, the speaker and amplifier are going to be much more appreciated.

Jax' joke (the link to a child's record player) actually brings up a very good point. In the old days, there was a huge difference between a poor record player, a good record player, and an excellent record player. That is when the source-first argument was popularized by Linn. I had a good (not great) record player (Dual 616Q w/ Ortofon) when I got my first CD player (Magnavox CDB650 - one of the first to be declared "musical"). There was no question that the CD was better then the analog. I don't mean to start up the digital vs. analog debate, but I do want to highlight the vast differences in quality of sources in the early 80s. The differences between digital sources is not so great.
As an aside to teh whole Linn HiFi Heierarchy, the shortcoming to my analog was the cartridge, not the table/arm. I did try a Linn Axis w/ the Ortofon cartridge, and heard no difference. Changing out cartridges made a huge improvement, though.

Well, in keeping with the question, the amp is the only component in the chain that every other component is subject to, ie:frequency response, frequency extension, dynamic range,slew rate, rise time, headroom. All parameters that with modestly priced co-components will be realized including speakers.

all the trouble you're causing thomas :)

i'm not surprised you heard little difference between the CA and the bryston. in a blinded test my money is on you, or anyone, not hearing any difference. IMO most 'sources', cd players in this case, over say $300 will sound identical. that has been my experience, albeit limited. and it's easy to do a blinded test with a cd player. i own the 840c. if i had it to do over again i'd get a much less expensive player. and i always hear the mantra 'garbage in = garbage out' and while of course true, the fact is with most cdp's, even inexpensive ones, you don't get garbage in.

amps will mostly sound the same too, IMO. i guess build quality, component longevity and warranty can up the cost, but likely not change the sound much once you're over a certain price point (not exactly sure what that would be). of course there are caveats related to listening level and speaker impedance. there is endless debate on whether amps sound different. see the blinded tests done back a decade or two ago. yes, dated. are there more recent blinded tests? as a statistician by profession, it is amazing and disappointing to me that there are not more blinded tests in audio.

room, speakers and the quality of the recording make by far the biggest differences IMO.

Peace.