How a pair of Mark Levinson ML2 stands with the best amps today ?


I saw a pair of these.  They appearead overkill amps with superb construction. Just about sound quality (not reliability) how they stand with today best amps ?
legarem


Here is an very old shot of the ML3 I had to repair
200 W/channel at 8 ohms, 400 W/ch at 4 ohms, 800 W/ch at 2 ohms

It opens up like a clam very thoughtful design for techs and you can power it up like that, it was so big it wouldn’t fit on my work bench, so I used the kids homework table. Some 24 bi-polar outputs per channel 2 x massive transformers, true dual mono amp.
https://ibb.co/XCxYmkz
Didn’t come within cooee of the 25w ML2 monoblocks for sound quality

I just find it quite admirable that a class A transistor amplifier from 1977 still can on sonic grounds (the most important quality/criteria IMO) outperform so many current production amplifiers.
If you look at it nearly all tube amps today are based on the 1949 Williamson circuit, https://www.preservationsound.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/WilliamsonAmp_1947.jpg
Similar can be said about transistors, especially Matti Otala’s, Nelson Pass, John Curl, etc etc designs


Cheers George


Reading Al’s post concerning other "original" ML amps with higher power output, George answered my first thought/question. Did the higher powered ML3 rival the sound quality of the revered ML2? I should have known that would be the answer .How do true talents such as Mark Levinson and Dennis Had (Cary) get booted from their own companies? How can one discard that level of passion, commitment and talent? This would the same as Audio Research getting rid of the( late)  William Zane while still very active and involved with the company..

Charles

How do true talents such as Mark Levinson ... get booted from their own companies? How can one discard that level of passion, commitment and talent?

Hi Charles,

The "Background" section of the following court case summary provides an excellent overview of the relevant history:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/799/814/117849/

Perhaps the financial troubles that were referred to contributed to Mark & Tom’s decision to produce the relatively low cost (and presumably much more widely marketable) ML-9 and ML-11.

Best,
-- Al

Al, thanks for the link. I just arrived home and will read it in the morning. 
Charles