Ia a good amp more important than a good DAC?

Unsound said it best, in response to the source first camp. I have found the system sounds no better than the weakest link. It doesn't matter how much beautiful music your source is putting out if your amp mangles it on the way to the speakers. And cast my vote for there being a bigger difference between great and mediocre amps than great and mediocre digital. I also suspect that the real differences in sound of digital gear has more to do with their analog sections than their digital sections.

Or another example - I have a friend who is a dance instructor. Every so often she has a recital in the high school auditorium. THe auditorium has a sophisticated PA system that has been calibrated (for frequency and tme delay) to the auditorium. She plays her music on a $40.00 boom box whic feeds through its headphone jack into a mini headphone-to-RCA adapter into the mixing console. Sitting in the audience, it sounds reasonably good. Not audiophile approved, not like you're sitting at Symphony hall, but clear, powerful, usually non-fatiguing. Does anyone think it would sound better if she used $40.00 speakers and a DCS / Wadia / MBL etc. stack, or a Rockport turntable?

Regarding source first, would you rather have sushi from the best independant Japanese chef in the big city if it had to be delivered to your house in a biker's back pack on a hot August day, or would you rather go to a Legal Seafood, where your fish could be delivered by a short walk from the kitchen to your table?
Jult - I think we agree. Upgrading parts of the system which are not the weakest link will still yield improvements, but just not as much as they should. I'm thinking of my system's cables. I had changed major components over the years, with some good results, but not until I changed the cables did I notice a huge improvement. Now, I can go back and change out some of the components I have not sold yet, and hear bigger differences between them than i oculd before I changed cables. I think the cabe;s were the weak link, and were preventing my other improvements from having the impact they should have.

The sushi analogy isn't lame if you're not too illiterate to understand it. The point is it doesn't matter how good the fish starts out if the trip to your mouth destroys it, just like the signal's trip through your stereo system to your ears. Odd thing is, I think Mr. Feil and I agree more than disagree on the question posed.

Pubul - That was my point exactly.

Thomas - one thing I've found to make a huge difference is placement of the speakers in the room, even more so than putting acoustically absorbent materials around the room (although my room is fairly dead already).

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.

Tanglewood, clearly your ears are not golden!!!