Oh I know about the tricks with volume. You can also check with friends, I think you would then agree with me that cheap AV amps sound less good for music than dedicated stereo amps.

Anyway I agree with your remark on speakers. In general the biggest sound difference happens at the speakers, also in passive mode. Bigger than any digital source change.
I also agree that the way forward is towards active bi/tri-amped speakers, ideally with dsp processing both the speaker response and doing proper room adjustment. Genelec is one of the brands that offer this, at a hefty price. I use bi-amped KRK monitors in my computer room. Fun to do occasional home movie edits on, and a true pleasure for listening.

I am critical enough, and not swayed by hifi marketing. Why don't you try it yourself. Go to a decent hifi dealer, ask to compare a cheap AV amp, say an entry level Denon, and a reasonable traditional stereo amp, say a NAD, both driving the same good speakers. Bring a well recorded cd, preferably acoustical with voice. They should use a good cd player as well. Take a blindfold if you will. You will hear the difference immediately, it is not subtle. Whether you can reliably hear the difference between 2 decent analogue amps, that is another matter entirely.

Yes. Just try it yourself when you have the opportunity, you will notice that affordable multichannel AV amps are really not that good for well recorded music compared to a traditional well designed stereo amp. Both driving good speakers. You will notice it immediately, no need to be an audiophile with perception issues. The DA chips and other components in these affordable AV amps are very basic, I think that is where the difference comes from. I am interested in good musical rendering, I am not a hifi snake oil believer. There is indeed a lot of crap going on in that little world.

I have currently a specific interest in the topic as my current vintage amps: preamp Quad 44 has problems, and previously already refurbished Quad 405-2 power amp has a bit of a buzz now but that is repairable. Both were reference grade in de 1970s and 1980s and are still very good. No real need to change the power amp after repair. But for the preamp I want to be able to connect a number of digital sources (hdmi, optical, coax), yet it should still sound good for music - which is not that easy to find. A Classé CP-800 would fit for practicality but I don't want to pay crazy money. This afternoon I will check out the Nuforce AVP-18 which seems both practical, minimal and really quite focused on good audio quality (according to all reports so far) and a reasonable price that still has relation to the expected performance. It is in essence a rather flexible multichannel dac. I would use it only for stereo. More after I can hear it, should you be interested :-)

Indeed well conceived amps are very close. But in fact I recently heard the Naim Uniti and the Linn Majik DSM. Both are very good, and there is a small difference in character between them, which might be down on their DA conversion process. A bigger difference is audible between listening to affordable AV amps and well executed stereo amps. I wonder if it's the signal processing chips in the AV amps that, even played direct, sound less good for music than a proper stereo amp (say a NAD for example).

As an aside I loved all Adam speakers that I heard so far.

You know, I am not really disagreeing with you.
In this comparison I don't have an issue with the Behringer - I agree that there is not so much, if any, sound quality difference between well designed amplifiers driving speakers that are a normal load. And don't get me started about the cable myth.
However!
At least in my system the difference between the separate DAC (a DACMagic Plus, a decently engineered product but not crazily expensive) and the analog out of an affordable older CD player is immediately obvious even when switching blindly.
My wife likes music but is not at all into hifi, and she also noticed it immediately. So did a friend who admittedly is into the subject.
Longer ago I had originally one of the earlier cd players,a TEAC with a traditional multibit DAC and then a Harman Kardon with the then newfangled 1-bit DAC - the Harman had presumably better audio components as well. There was also a bit of immediately recognisable difference between the 2. Mind, the TEAC was ok, but esp. with well recored acoustic music there was a bit of difference.

>> If you think your amplifier influences the "Pace, Rhythm and Timing" of your music, you need a straightjacket.

I never claimed that, I am not that interested in the marketing, but fact is that their products are sounding very good indeed.

Yeah well, there is a lot of crap in audiophilia but there is equally a lot of crap rejecting it blindly. In theory a dirt cheap cd or blu ray player and an expensive one have very similar paper specifications for audio. That is what scientific measurements would tell you.
However if you listen on a good system the sound quality difference between the cheap and the expensive player is immediately obvious, without needing to be an audiophile maniac. Similarly I compared a few D/A convertors, as I had a few sources with only optical out (such as an Apple TV, and a blu-ray player with only hdmi and optical) and an old but good analogue-only amp. Well, there was a subtle difference between the models up to say $800. I could always pick the same one which was a bit better than the other 2 I compared against. Not much difference but it was there.

Actually, labels like Linn and Naim (sister companies of very good hifi producers) and a few make recordings available at different quality levels. You won't find typical hit music there, but a lot of interesting jazz for example.

In demos with very good gear and very good speakers I do notice that a lossless source sounds at CD quality level a bit better than a 320 kbps mp3. It is not a difference in detail level but a bit of a feeling of depth in the music (assuming it is well recorded of course), the mp3 sounds a bit more flat. If you don't listen closely then the 320kbps mp3 is perfectly acceptable of course.
Comparing then to the same recording at studio master quality level (24/192), well it is difficult for me, I have the impression that the three dimensionality of a good acoustic recording is still a bit better at the top quality level, but the difference is subtle at best to my ears.

(I also replied the following elsewhere in this discussion, but it is apt here as well)

I currently live in Asia. Whatsapp is very, very popular over here.
A good number of my European contacts are also using it.
I don't know how popular it is in the USA.
I find it a very useful piece of software, one of the most used apps on my iphone.

I currently live in Asia. Whatsapp is very, very popular over here.
A good number of my European contacts are also using it.
I don't know how popular it is in the USA.
I find it a very useful piece of software, one of the most used apps on my iphone.

I am less sceptical than the average slahdot reaction regarding these rumores

Medical devices: an area that could use good innovation. I can imagine Apple being well placed to combine lots of non-invasive sensors into a userfriendly (watch?) deivce) to monitor health. It is not an unrealistic expectation.
They also bought a home automation company some time ago, I can see them defining a standard that will be as popular as Airplay is these days. I can imagine using an idevice/watch to quickly dim the light in the living room for example.
Tesla, now that is really interesting. Indeed a different industry but that does not need to spell failure. Both companies have an innovative attitude, both companies have experience with high quality manufacturing. I can imagine the skills and experience to be nicely complementary. Currently these cars are a the top end of the market, and issues remain, but I bet it is a growth area.

It is not really a news site, but I would pay for wikipedia if paywalled. I did voluntary pay a bit, twice. It is in general very useful for me. Otherwise perhaps occasionaly for an in depth article by a repute dpublisher (even then, max. $2), but not a subscription.