I think it would make a "noticeable" difference only in a large room and at high SPLs. At moderate levels I don't think it would be noticeable but I never had the chance to make a comparison.

I know when I went from a cheap Sony 100wpc amp to a more expensive Pioneer Elite 110wpc, there was a night and day difference. I'm assuming that if I went from what I have to some really good, and powerful separates, that this night and day difference would probably be there also. (More noticeable with M80 than M22).

I agree. But this is a touchy subject.

Around here, the prevailing attitude is that amps don't affect sound quality. I disagree (based on my own personal experiences), but I choose not to fight that battle. IMHO, it's the Kobayashi Maru of online audio discussion.

There is little agreement about whether technical differences among amplifiers are reflected in sound quality. The most relevant test of this, double-blind listening comparisons, are so much trouble to conduct that they are rarely done. So, what it comes down to is acquiring a set of prejudices that let people arrive at conclusions in the absence of relevant evidence. My suggestion: Don't believe anything.

I believe in canaries.

Now that's funny Peter!

Yeah I know the whole amps don't sound different debate and I have some mixed feelings there but no facts to back anything up. I know that debate can't be completely separated from this discussion, but my point in the original post was more a question of how do reviewers attribute what amps sound like in a review when the speakers and other factors have a much greater affect on sound quality?

And back to my other rhetorical question, would a modern Pioneer vs. a modern Denon vs. a modern Onkyo all of similar quality/power ratings really sound any different from each other played within their limits?

My personal opinion (yeah, I know, no body asked for it, but I just can't help myself (pestering addiction)) is if they are similar, there won't be any difference. But if there are major design differences, such as better power supply, bigger transistors, etc. that there will probably be a difference if more power / headroom is available, and is being used.

The reviewers have their "reference" system, that they are supposed to know intimately. They can then swap out a part (like the receiver) when they are doing a review and compare what they hear to what they remember. (I already have a problem there, as audio memory doesn't last that long.)

Then they use flowery terms to describe what they are hearing. Words that have no relationship to measurable quantities. There's no way to argue how warm the midrange is, or sweet the highs.

I used to pour over equipment reviews when I was a kid. Trying to imagine what these words meant, how I was missing the chocolaty middle while listening to my mom's Sound Design stereo system. Over time I grew more and more aware that these reviewers are writing to appeal to readers (and their advertisers). They're telling a story that people want to hear, but it is mostly fantasy.

Pour chocolate over the reviews? Wouldn't that make them hard to read?

Mmmmm chocolate. I want some.