What is proper ratio of money spent on amp/preamp/integrated vs speakers? 1:1?

There are no ratios between amplifier and loudspeaker cost but it is generally agreed that amplifier performance flat lines a heck of a lot sooner than does that of loudspeakers (or turntables). Some feel that amps stop improving after around $500 (some say even lower). Unless you have efficient loudspeakers a minimum of 100 Watts should cover most bases.

Whilst the Contour 30s are good, they are far from the last word in sonic reproduction. Better speakers can easily be found, Dynaudio ones included.

@elizabeth your experience may differ but mine tells me that the difference between a NAD integrated and a Naim Pre/Power combo is vanishingly small once you get over the 'obvious' idea that the Naim must be superior.

Strangely enough after this upgrade the urge dissatisfaction returns and you soon forget how much better the Naim was than the NAD - and so you climb aboard the upgrade roundabout and keep improving your amps. 

Finally, years later out of curiosity you dig out your NAD integrated and compare it to your new ££££ Naim six pack/twelve box combo and your jaw drops and it's not funny.

At the last show I went to some manufacturers were driving £10k+ speakers off MacBooks and iPhones via Wi-Fi. Have a look for yourself the next time you go.

As for the Magico's, as long they have enough power to feed them without clipping I don't think they particularly care about the cost of the amplifier. The Magico's cost is not related to the cost of the amplification required to drive them. Not in any engineering way at any rate. How could it be?

Sure you can spend more on amps if you want, that's your choice - just don't kid yourself you're getting significantly better sound just because everyone says so and every dealer implies it.

One day I intend to explore the world of Valve amplification myself - some certainly sound different from transistors (less earthbound to my ears) and I can hear it. 

I understand the desire for big amps - we British used to make do with 50 watt amps and laughed at the folks across the pond with their 200 watt abominations. We were still laughing when the Krell landed here UK side - then the laughing stopped.

Gradually a cultural change ensued and nowadays a 100 wpc amp is seen as a good thing - some would say 200 wpc are even better - but I think that depends upon choice of speakers. Still more power never hurts.

However it should be asked that apart from the power output of an amplifier, what other measurable differences are there? Have you seen how low the distortion stats are even in the most budget of budget amps? Magazines barley waste time printing them. And they have been that way for decades.

So what else is there? Sure there's all kinds of fancy topology out there, but  none that makes any kind of sonic difference above the threshold of hearing.

Basically you have a choice, get yourself a sufficiently powered transistor (sand) amp or delve into the esoteric world of tube/valve amplification. That's all folks!

@tlinkie, yes white  speakers, white background goes down really well. Helps with imagery a bit too.

As for this magical ratio, well as @mikapen said sometimes spending more = worse sound. Not all companies are like Harbeth or ATC where spending more gives a better sound. Far from it, especially for amps/cables etc. But we all know that, don't we?

Again, it all depends upon at which price point you can hear the performance flat lining.

You might have to discover where the sweet spot in a particular range might be, or else risk being forced out of your listening room by the sheer number of boxes which have almost surreptitiously taken up residence.

I have a friend whose front room looks like he's installed a console from Cape Canaveral. Seriously, reconnecting or rewiring his receiver is a two man half day job.