First, the watch analogy was a good one. Otto is right in that any of these receivers would be adequate.
Most people who pop for a flagship receiver aren't doing it for the cool factor. As someone who has sold both Bose and B&O, I see woefully few similarities. They are both far from the best value. However, B&O is superbly crafted, great performing gear, where Bose is not, IMHO. IMHO, if people are buying Bose for the cool factor, they don't know much about hifi.
About those receivers: higher line receivers will provide more features and flexibility. Significantly higher will provide higher performance. Like sportscars, the law of diminishing returns comes into play. Every miniscule amount of additional performance past a certain point will require lots of $$$$. The next higher receiver in anyone's line might only provide 1-2 more features and no more than 1 1/2 times the wattage. That increase in wattage means virtually nothing in volume level, although the additional headroom may be significant.
As to separates or those flagship receivers, they will offer more headroom, better fidelity, more features and likely a wider dynamic range than the lower or midline receiver will. That is what one buys when stepping up to higher price ranges. None of that comes cheap. It isn't for everyone, even if they can afford it. Again, its the law of diminishing returns. Through a set of budget speakers, that flagship receiver may only sound sligtly better. Through a more substantial set of speakers, it may sound hugely better. It can also play significantly louder and offer lots more headroom.
As to why there are so many receiver brands with similar chipsets inside, my recommendation to fredblue is to write whichever manufacturers he deems unnecessary, and kindly request that they cease business operations immediately. Perhaps they'll oblige. Or, they may decide that they're profitable enough to ignore his request and decide to stay in business.
I don't understand how the watch comparison works? A Tag Heuer's internals are not the same as a Seiko, a Seiko's are not like a Rolex, a Rolexes' are not like a Cartier.. and on and on! The basics may be based on the same kind of engineering etc but there have to be differences. If we're talking some cheap bit of digital schlock then fair enough but with something more precision-engineered, if every wristwatch was the same inside there'd be no point choosing beyond the cosmetic. Would there!? I don't know if I'm missing a trick here!?
By the same token if every receiver sounded the same, why do magazines and publications (What Hi Fi here in the UK for example but there are others who go into even greater depth) go to great lengths to review several receivers side by side in test round-ups, pretty regularly and always, always comment on their perceived sound quality findings, even often going so far as to explicitly say one amp sounds "warm" and another "neutral"..??
If they were talking garbage and all receivers sounded the same, they'd have zero credibility and not have lasted over 30 years..!! If its all just smoke and mirrors, "the emperors' new clothes", if you will, designed purely to sell identikit a/v & hi-fi to "gullible idiots" then clearly we've all been had for many, many years.
Ah now, don't get me wrong, Bose are a pile of junk! Pretty and dinky but sound like dreck! I just talked a customer (who I installed a home theatre for last month) out of Bose and into "real" A/V.
As for B&O, I'm not knocking them at all. I'm a fan and I've owned a fair few bits of theirs over the years, including a BeoCentre system, an Avant TV, BeoLab speakers, etc.. However, I do have to say they do not represent good value for money, nor the very best technical quality. Yes B&O are solid, mostly well-engineered and gorgeous-looking but the £1,600 BeoLab speakers I bought over 5 years ago are absolutely trounced by my cheaper, more flexible, more feature-laden separates gear (comprising £500 main speakers and a £1,000 amp..!!).
I don't deem any of the big receiver manufacturers as unnecessary at all because I believe they are all different, all have their niche in the market and all have something different to offer. They all look different and operate differently, offering different sets of features and options.. but I also deem them all necessary because they sound different.
Competition is healthy isn't it!? The more, the merrier I say! The number of different brands keeps the prices of these receivers much lower than if there were only 1 or 2 manufacturers.
Might I ask you QuadLinda, I'm interested to know if your feelings have changed about the 'across the board' sound quality of amps?
I'm sure I'd read that you no longer sell equipment of this nature, apologies in advance if I got my wires crossed.. so I was wondering did you feel that in days gone by when you were selling all this stuff there really was a difference? Or did you always have the notion you were just selling the same equipment just in different boxes even then?
Also, is the lack of difference in sound quality something you consider a good development because solid state amps have been refined and improved so much that they're all perfect now, with perfect frequency responses, silent noise floors, ultra low harmonic distortion, etc..? Or is it a far cry from when you used to sell gear where there was a marked difference and now they are all just rather average and samey?