Just for the record, performance in two channel does not equate to performance in surround sound listening. I believe Steve has done a sufficient job in proving that the two channel performance of the three units tested are very similar. However, one should not draw the conclusion that multi-channel performance of the three units would also be similar
Wow, you still don't get it. Different DSPs will all route the same digital information to the same channels in DD or DTS, so unless you are using some form of post processing equalization, YES, this test is an indicator of surround sound quality, we just tested with two speakers to eliminate as many variables as possible.
If you want to test a new medicine for lions, you don't jump out of a Jeep, wrestle the lion to the ground, and force feed the medicine down its throat, you shoot it with a tranquilizer dart, take the lion back to your research center, and administer the medicine there. Yeah, yeah, bring on the jokes, but it relates - too many challenges with testing with 7 speakers, a sub, and a compressed format to be confident in your results, much easier to just test with two speakers and higher quality recordings to get the same results.
As Steve mentioned in his first post, the Pioneer 1014 has "a reputation as being great for movies and not so great for music." How could that be if two channel performance = multi-channel performance?
First off, you're only looking at half of the story. That reputation was made when comparing it to other pieces of equipment, so they would say it's great for movies but not as good for music as say the HK 635, which they would then say is more musical. Second, to directly answer your question, it seems obvious to me. People figure "Hey, it's only $400, it can't be good for movies AND music" - this gets back to people wanting to feel justified for paying more in ALL REGARDS to performance - the better amp, more features, and more inputs must not be enough, it also has to sound better - which we found just isn't true.