Tube pre- or amp: does it matter?

The Arc LS25 was a great match with my MC300, great tight bass and better extension on the highs than using a Mac solid state preamp. The Arc wasnt too tubey, had AU24's all around and was quite happy.

Another thought would be to also listen to the hibred amps.
I had a Moscode, which was tube input and S.S. output. 300W. Old circuits I assume as there was something about that unit that was lacking air. but alot of tube gear can seem that way. As well, S.S. can seem thin and shrill.
But there is a CJ that is tube in and mosfet out and that might also allow, (maybe) for a passive pre, which can add clarity that few powered pres can match.
If i had to do it, I'd get a VAC, or Joule pre, or an ARC and run it into S.S. That way you are amplifying music, even if thinning it out; as opposed to squashing music or squashing thin sound with tubes. I'm trying to figure which could be the worst outcome, and I think I'd go tube pre or tube hibred amp.

I have not looked at the other posts, so sorry if I'm repeating anything. Just focus on the amp/speaker combo and stop even thinking about the front end for now. The amp will-WILL make the biggest real (musical) difference of any component period. It is where the music will come alive or not. No other component can make the kind of impact that the amp can. A preamp is important when and only after you have the amp of your dreams. use a cheap pre with a statement amp and it will kill the statement pre/budget amp hands down. I wish the stupid mags and reviewers would just admit the amp is king and people would'nt have to keep trying to upgrade their way overpriced allready cd players and or go for even more obsene expensive speakers trying to get better sound.

Thanks to all for your responses. I'm getting a sense that the biggest difference is probably the comparative price of tube rolling (and perhaps the heat on those hot summer days). I confess that I put the proverbial cart before the horse (in this case, the amp before the pre) by leaping at the dutch auction of TAD-60 amps earlier this week. I was struck by the impulse and then decided to ask the question. I figured I could audition it for the 15 day trial period with the Placette pre and see what difference it makes.

There was a modicum of rationale to the impulse, in that I thought the combo of transparent passive pre with tube amp might be a more balanced combination than less transparent MacIntosh and tube pre. On the other hand, I've also thought of replacing both with a tube pre and perhaps something like NuForce amps (having been intrigued by some of the comments here and elsewhere).

I appreciate Mahandave's point about anchoring the system with something strong because every 5 years I've gotten the itch and each time it gets more and more expensive. (not to say that my 5 year itch will ever entirely cease.)

Your responses are extremely helpful as I go down the road.
Thanks again,

To try and answer your original question... If you are going to go with just one, the general consensus is to go with the preamp. Reason being that the amp can only "amplify" the signal it is sent - so you can induce tube goodness with a pre. Beyond that, a s/s amp offers tighter bass control.

From a practical perspective this does two things for you:

#1 - you can spend less - look at the AES AE-3 for about $400 on Agon

#2 - you don't have to worry about how much poop you need for your speakers, the speaker impedance curve etc if what you already have works well. Also as Gunbei notes, a big tube amp throws lots of heat which may or may not be an issue for you. Since the only way to get more power is to use more or bigger tubes...