Let's take a look at that system. The SUA900 was well known for being stupidly powerful, but didn't really have any finesse to go with it. It was an overly warm sound (nice some might say, but when playing something loud when it's smooth is usually initially impressive), which lacked detail due to it's tonal balance, which would be made worse if people used the tone controls and loudness button. Other than this at the time there was Arcam's Alpha 9, which was also wam and smooth, but walked all over it with regards to out and out musicality. CD players were Technics strong point. They were excellent players for the money, and were always the most popular too, as they were all mostly under £200. This was the only thing that really held a Technics system together. It injected some life into their otherwise 'dull' sounding amplifiers. Many Technics users usually bought Wharfedale Modus or Valdus speakers with them, as it just added more of the same. Those who wanted to spend a bit more money bought B&W 600 series 1, again because it was more of the same, but sounded better than the 'Dales. The sound suited certain types of music, and certain types of customer, and no matter how much you pitted the Technics system against anything else, regardless of price, they'd never go for it. It was because the sound the system made was the sound they wanted - even if everything else in the shop sounded better in almost every way.
I hope all that doesn't get taken the wrong way, I'm just relating what I know of these systemsas I used to work for a retailer that stocked them.
Also I'd like to say, having said what I've said above, the Technics sound is quite different from someone like Naim. You only have to do an A/B with some amplification to prove this. As far as CD players are concerned, I can understand this being closer, but I'll try and explain it in one way. Higher end hi-fi gives you a more accurate portrayal of what's on the disc. It's tighter, it's more detailed. Those last two things bring about certain changes that many people don't like. Tighter usually means a perceived reduction in bass - usually because bass notes are starting and stopping when they should do, rather than continuing when they really shouldn't. Also, with more detail comes more HF content. Or an opening up of. Depending on how you want to look at things. A drummer is playing a set of drums in the room you're sitting in. When he hits the crash cymbal, it's not smooth. It's not nice. That, to me, is accurate. Playing a well mastered CD on a high end system (although never really fully recreating that same drumming experience - physically impossible), you can hear the similarities. You know the system is doing it's job. Play that same CD on a cheaper, warmer system, and you'll get a supressed version of what went before it. It will have lost that elading edge, which to some is called accuracy, and to others is called soft/veiled, amongst a number of other things. Gone is the higher frequency detail, robbing it of it's spacial information and it's leading edge, and gone is the exacting kick of the original too. For many, this 'watered down' version is hi-fi bliss as it's easier on the ear, to others it's just a pale imitation of what should be there.