But this claim:
Is dubious at best.
Dubious on what grounds? I find it quite odd to see a statement like that. I've done lots of critical listening on lots of different systems. The differences between systems is sometimes subtle and sometimes startling. And yes, not dubious in the least... the Arcam compared to the Marantz and NAD simply had no equal. And I'm saying that as someone who doesn't own an Arcam and has no stake in the company.
My suggestion is that you go and do a test listen for yourself at a quality setup. I'm completely open to having an audioholics challenge here. I see boredsysadmin is in NYC. Let's see where people are, get an audio store to hold a challenge and do nothing but change the receivers. I just find it extremely odd that I'm backing up what I'm saying with engineering fact and listening experience and yet the contrary statements have neither. Hmm....
(I'll exaggerate Adam's cynical here, though I know he wasn't necessarily promoting this) The comments about adjusting settings and rigging things really have no place nor do they have any scientific basis. I'm sure that there was a wizard behind a passive switcher affecting everything.
Facts are facts. Different electronic equipment sounds different. To prove my point very simply, those having done any RTA tests on a computer know you need to ideally have not only a calibrated mic but also calibrate the input and outputs of the computer and audio device(s) being used. The logic being presented here is that since all audio equipment is the "same" you'd never have to do this. Well, the results are simply startling and measurable when you go from different equipment to different equipment.
So, my very strong conjecture would be that those making the claim that all equipment sounds the same simply haven't listened to different setups. I continually see ad hominem and other non-factual arguments to combat what I and others say.
Different receivers have different components with different capabilities and noise in the signal path. As I said, and it's a fact that cannot be disproved scientifically. That affects the sound and it's both measurable and audible. A $300 100wpc Onkyo will not sound the same as a $1,500 Anthem nor as an $8,000 McIntosh. Engineering, component selection, etc. all make an audible difference. You simply cannot prove the contrary from science, listening, our double-blind tests. In fact, all three definitively prove my point.
But if you're only buying for features and not buying for audio quality, then none of that matters.
