What's more important: phono stage or amp

Source, source, source... because you want the signal to be the best it can be and work from there. A quality source can survive mediocre amplification but super amplification will always suffer from a bad source.

And for the record, it's a good question and I had no problem understanding the INTENT of the op. I think there's hardly a post on this forum that someone can't find fault with if they are looking to be feisty.

Dhcod: As you I don't have any doubt that the source is the most important audio link in an audio system but seems to me that that was not what the gentleman on this thread ask it.

Would you post about? I think that you have a good answer on it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Thanks for all the responses. It was a poorly worded question. I was trying to decide on keeping my NAD 326 Bee integrated amp and Phonomena phono stage, or "upgarde" to a musical Fidelity integrated A3.2 with built in phono. The speakers are Usher X718. Source is Sota Comet.

I agree that the amp needs to match the speakers. I also agree that the source is the most important component in the system.

The Musical Fidleity A3.2 integrated with 110 watts per channel drives the Ushers to more satisfying levels than the 50 watt NAD. The MF phono stage is very good and suits my tastes for now.

The NAD is already sold, but the Phonomena is available for 300 OBO. Thanks again.

Rauliruegas, I guess I just consider the phono stage part of the "source" equation. Arm + Table + Cartridge + Phono Stage. Not 4 different things.

Good.

Raul.