I'm searching for a receiver to use for music exclusively. First I had a Onkyo 500, but didn't like it's tonal quality for music. Then based on the recommendations of this forum I got a HK 125. I found it to be much better balanced for music, but it didn't seem to have quite the clarity of the Onkyo (but I wasn't sure if it was my imagination or not). Then a couple of days later I found out I could order the HK 220 from Hifi.com for about $120 cheaper than I paid for the HK 125 at Circuit City. So I returned the 125 and got the 220. Even though the 125 and 220 have almost exactly the same specs, the 220 seems to have a much clear sound than I remember the 125 having (although again since I'm going off memory I don't know if I'm correct of not). That would be good then, but the problem comes in that with the 220 it mutes the first second of the tracks on audio CD's that have a gap between songs (and this gets quite annoying). I know the 125 didn't do this because the Onkyo I had first did that as well, so when I got the 125 I checked it for that problem and it was fine (and since the 220 is last year's model and the 125 this year's, I assume it's a problem they corrected for this year). So long story short (too late), my question is whether there is any reason the 220 would sound better than the 125 even though they are the same brand and have almost exact specs. If it's just my poor memory that the 220 sounds better then I'll return it and get a 125 again so I can get rid of this annoying "muting" problem. If there is a legit reason the 220 might have better sound then I don't know which would be better to get. The only spec differences I can see between the two is the 125 has a High Instantaneous Current Capability of +/- 25 while the 220's is +/- 28. Also the 220 weights about 7 lbs more which indicates it might be built differently. Both have the same power and THD ratings.