My post about computing the price of the 978 using the Marantz as a standard was meant tounge-in-cheek ― mostly. To the degree it's inaccurate, it is so because my sampling was small, i.e., one. If you plotted weight vs price for, say, 10 comparable units, you could make some fairly valid assumptions.

Because product pricing usually has a large arbitrary component, weight comparisons are more valid in predicting product quality rather predicting price. To the degree this is true, it's because materials cost money, and no builder is going to spend money just to add weight.

I fail to see any "danger" in this exercise. I was comparing comparable products: Two, rather contemporary high-end pre-amps. So there is no need to talk of receivers, legacy junk, or animal protein, or boat anchors you may have lying around. After comparing the specs, which are similar enough (not withstanding additional features of the Marantz) that I know I couldn't tell the difference in sound, an inquiring mind might wonder just what does contribute to the weight difference. And yes, power supply might be a good answer, at least for some of the weight.

The point is, I can't think of any disadvantages to a heavier unit (shipping charges excepted.) So for comparably sized units with comparable features, I at least want a reasonable explanation for the weight differences, say in excess of 10 percent.

Is it a coincidence that the Marantz doesn't gold plate any of the rear connectors? That's not specked. Is it important? I'd say at least as much so as using oxygen free copper for speaker connects. Did they also cut some corners inside which resulted in a weight reduction? Fair and balanced, You decide.