There's a likely reason why you cannot find an objective reason.  It's probably because there are no objective reasons.

People throw all sorts of stuff out there to show there is an "objective reason" for all these audible differences.  Measurements, jitter, and heaven knows how much other stuff.  But so much of it crumbles under blind testing. 

Maybe the more expensive stuff does measure better.  But are these improvements audible?  To me these differences are a lot like arguing a chair that can hold a 2000lb person is better than the chair that can hold a 1500lb person.

Sure, maybe the 2000lb chair is better.  But I've never even met a 750lb person so how does it matter if I buy a chair that can holds 2000, 1500, or 1000 pounds?  It's the same with human hearing.  Human hearing is incredible.  But there are limits to what we can hear and making equipment that measures better and better is of questionable audible benefit when we cannot hear those improvements.

The explanation is simple. Do you feel inclined to post these pictures because those massive designs necessarily imply some advantage for you?

People actually do hear a difference while looking at their beloved, powerful units, but this ability vanishes instantly as soon as you hide from them, where the music is actually coming from, this gear or a high quality budget component at a fraction of the price.

Go for sane audio specs, features, and usability regarding this kind of gear. Spend the rest on speakers.

There's a likely reason why you cannot find an objective reason. It's probably because there are no objective reasons.

People throw all sorts of stuff out there to show there is an "objective reason" for all these audible differences. Measurements, jitter, and heaven knows how much other stuff. But so much of it crumbles under blind testing.

Every other reason that the high end comes up with has been dubunked and they always stick with that the analg stages in the high end are so much better but since they do not measure better I don't by into it.

The same question as from the beginning, high end audio and its users keep raving about how the sound quality is so much better over a basic yamaha receiver and I am trying to find out if this is just another snake oil comment from the high end.

If you spend months searching for answers and the only ones your find are "But I can hear it" that should tell you something.

Why are you still searching?  Couldn't your answer simply be that many audio reviews are just  BS?

Bump.

I recently switched amplifier in my setup, going from a $6000 Electrocompaniet AW250 to a $3000 Pioneer surround receiver. […] I assume one would expect a radical reduction in sound quality, right?

Quote from: hybris on 2009-09-20 10:10:01

I recently switched amplifier in my setup, going from a $6000 Electrocompaniet AW250 to a $3000 Pioneer surround receiver. […] I assume one would expect a radical reduction in sound quality, right?

Not to take the audiophools' side but I would expect the former to be a 25+ year old product and the latter to be the result of as many years of advances in not only technology itself, but manufacturing costs as well. And yes, $3000 is more than what most people make in one month. Not the best example.

Quote from: Steve Bruzonsky on 2009-09-19 23:07:11

Bump.

I recently switched amplifier in my setup, going from a $6000 Electrocompaniet AW250 to a $3000 Pioneer surround receiver. I guess most people on this forum thinks even the latter is a  total waste of money, but if we forget that for a moment:

I went to an amplifier that costs half as much. And in addition to the actual amplification circuits, the receiver also has a gazillion other features. I assume one would expect a radical reduction in sound quality, right?