Looks like they did a pretty good job of copying the Mark Levinson logo. The similarities end just about there, of course. For example the ML-2 was a monoblock, while the supposed clone is a stereo amp. Each ML-2 monoblock weighed 65 pounds (130 pounds for a stereo pair); this stereo amp weighs 40 pounds. This stereo amp is also much smaller than a single ML-2 monoblock.
I suspect that a diminutive 1980s Carver M400t cube amp (the "t" version of the M400 having been designed to emulate the "transfer function" of the ML-2, i.e., the relation between its output and input) would come a good deal closer to emulating its sonics. I owned an M400t many years ago, and it sounded surprisingly good, at least with the easy to drive speakers I was using. Its predecessor model M400a, which was not "transfer function modified," sounded very poor though.
Regards,
-- Al
I suspect that a diminutive 1980s Carver M400t cube amp (the "t" version of the M400 having been designed to emulate the "transfer function" of the ML-2, i.e., the relation between its output and input) would come a good deal closer to emulating its sonics. I owned an M400t many years ago, and it sounded surprisingly good, at least with the easy to drive speakers I was using. Its predecessor model M400a, which was not "transfer function modified," sounded very poor though.
Regards,
-- Al