Um. Actually, the general statement that one stage of amplification is ALWAYS better than two isn't supportable either in theory or in practice. It's too great a generalization to be relied upon.
As a counter-example (which couldn't exist if the author's claims were valid), take the Sony TCD-10 Pro DAT recorder, on which I once spent nearly $3000 thinking that I'd found the machine I would record with for years to come. It has a single set of balanced inputs which can be switched to either mike or line level, so according to the author of that message, it's better than if it had separate mike and line inputs, with a gain stage in between.
Turns out that the mike inputs can easily be overloaded by condenser microphones of average sensitivity, while the line inputs are so noisy that to drive them requires signal levels that come near the clipping limit of many professional outboard preamps. In what way is that a good arrangement, except that it saved Sony an extra pair of XLR input sockets?
The notion that fewer stages is ALWAYS better is just that--a notion. In reality there isn't always any neat correspondence between circuit simplicity and good sound, or between the number of stages in a component and its practical usefulness. I'm afraid it comes down to particular cases and situations. If you want to know something about the behavior of a piece of equipment, test that piece of equipment and see how it behaves; then you know something about it. Don't just sit on the sidelines and draw questionable conclusions based on misapplied generalizations.
--best regards