Importance of Amplifier versus Preamp?

Thank you all of you Gentlemen and Ladies for the insight.
I feel like I am learning a lot about this magical world!
Here is my equipment:
amp: SAE 2401, vintage
preamp: Nikko Beta 2 , vintage
Sony TA77ESD, vintage
Yamaha CD300S cd player new.
cables from Blue Jean cables.
I listen to classic rock, blues, some classic.
as far as budget , I am looking at maybe another 1500.
All advice is much appreciated.

I generally agree with Syntax; great pre-amp and very good amp if a compromise has to be be made. In this case, however, I think an integrated really makes sense. There are some very nice tube and solid state choices listed here right now in the $1K-$1.5K range if you want to buy used (or new, the Wyrd4sound mINT integrated w dac and headphone amp is a new piece). Your speaker choice is very important in terms of going to tube vs. solid state amplification. Generally "speaking", speakers with lower sensitivity (listed in specs as dB/watt/meter or foot), those spec'd as nominally lower impedance (4 ohms or less) or with large variations in impedance with frequency, are better suited for solid state amps. Conversely, higher sensitiviy, higher impedance, more constant impedance curves are well suited for tube amps. Since you like rock and blues, I'm thinking that if you went tube, an "ultra-linear", tetrode or pentode circuit type would be more to your liking. They make more power with the same tubes and are often described as having more "drive" than triode circuits. For a variety of reasons, most people feel that tube "watts" are more powerful than solid state "watts". Of course, from an electrical standpoint, watts is watts, but to many people's ears, a 50 wpc tube amp would sound as powerful as a 100 wpc (or more) solid state.

Of course you want the amp and preamp to be faithful to the source but after using several preamps with my amp (McCormack DNA 125) I realized one thing quickly....that the amp was not the bottleneck. In fact that amp went through several upgrade phases and I felt no need to change it out. I used three different preamps and three different pairs of speakers during the time I had it. I have since replaced it with a pair of Quicksilver mono amps. Are they better ? In some ways yes, but that DNA 125 was a great amp.

Its more useful to discuss the order in which one tackles these things.

For best results fastest, you always want to get the biggest issues resolved first.

That is the amp/speaker/room domain That makes it very important to get this area all right together first.

Only then you are in a position to judge whats upstream further for its "sound quality", much of which is a very personal and highly subjective decision making process, hence the interest shown there by many.

But first thing is first. Tackle the biggest issues first! That's basic engineering best practice. You have to get the biggest nuts and bolts right first before sweating the details, no matter how important those are as well. In the case of a home audio system, that is the amp/speaker/room "subsystem".

Other ways might work out in the end but will take longer and likely end up costing more total.

In some cases, like with a single source with volume control, you could well end up with no pre-amp. Or if more than one source, possibly an inexpensive passive pre-amp that frees up money for elsewhere where truly needed.

01-27-15: Rockanroller
as far as budget , I am looking at maybe another 1500.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, integrated amp.
It will work better at your level, $1500, and a whole lot more.