Well, I just picked up the new issue of "Absolute Sound" and the thread title says it all. Now I own the 2900 and couldn't disagree more with Mr. Buettner's review of the 2900. He considered the 2900 a sonic departure for the company. He writes: "The 2900, however, is lean and almost skeletal with all three formats. When I fired the 2900 up, it was apparent that either the low end was anemic, or the midrange was just plain bright." I could go on but you get the point. I remember when a TAS reviewer wrote he couldn't tell a difference between SACD/Red book CD playback on the Marantz 8300. Having heard the Marantz, I thought this was plain ridiculous coming from someone with golden ears. Buettner gives no figures or hard data to back up his impressions (terms such as bright, forward, are commonly used) just his plain opinion which is fine. As a 2900 owner, I have experienced none of the things he pointed out, though the 2900 can be a bit "bright" on redbook CD. Unlike many others, I often attribute this to the quality/style of the recording, than the player itself. Anyway, just thought I'd share this in lieu of the fact that EVERY other review I've read of the 2900 in the press has said just the opposite of Absolute Sound including Stereophile, What Hi-fi, Sound and Vision, and the online audio sites as well. I guess this just goes to show how subjective good sound really is. Reg BTW, Neil Gader panned the Sony SCD-C222es which I also own and find outstanding, but Gader found "Though competent, didn't fully make the case for SACD." It appears that we are seriously at odds this month!