Rich, that reply from someone on Audiogon is a rather extreme example of using extravagant language in an attempt to make a point when the writer has no credible evidence to support him. I've previously commented about the silliness of using terms such as "huge", "night-and-day", "blows away", etc., in connection with a subject where even subtle audible differences haven't been proven to exist.
The amplification process simply adds voltage to a small incoming voltage from the source material so that there's enough voltage to drive a speaker at an easily audible level. If this is done with audibly level frequency response and inaudibly low noise and distortion, as is typical these days with even modestly priced receivers, the amplification has been done transparently and no sound differences can magically appear. This standard is the same regardless of whether the amplification process is divided between two or three boxes or is integrated in one in a receiver.
Claims to the contrary abound, of course, but collapse when subjected to properly controlled blind listening tests. Anyone selling these items and claiming superior sound would be free to commission such tests by an independent organization, but there appears to be about as much enthusiasm among these folks for that as a vampire has for sunlight.
