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

[please excuse my poor English]

A friend sells his ML-2 pair (2nd hand).

- is the ML-2 topology fully balanced ? I read that the XLR input was an option; this suggests that the circuit is not fully balanced. Which in turn implies that the RCA/Camac inputs are more "direct" (no additional circuit to balance the signal just after the input). Is it correct?

- On this sample, there are only Camac inputs & XLR (my Aries Cerat Incito preamp is not fully balanced, but has an XLR output; so RCA outputs of my preamp are more "direct"). So it means I would enter the "connections compatibility hell".

- if Nr 1 is correct => preferred output for my preamp is RCA <> preferred input for ML-2 power amplifier is Camac...

SPEAKERS: analysis Epsilon, 85dB, 4 Ohms nominal (3 Ohms above 3 KHz); flat impedance curve. Moderate level. Classical music. 50m², but listen midfield; excellent acoustics (brick walls and curvated vaults ceiling).

Thanks.

"Stenalx,

"

A very late reply to Charles1dad question above about later ML's using more gain stages + Feedback etc:

As Georgehifi correctly mentioned, their newest offerings appear to be simpler design with low feedback.

I was of course referring to the ML amplifiers post ML-2's and up to no 33's.

They got crazy complex (just look at the schematics) and the sound was really not that great. I have listened to /owned many big ML's. Although their build quality is always second to none, their sonics remained a lot to be desired.

ML-2's are a totally different beasts.

Good luck

Could anyone here (Georgehifi) comment to how the ML2’s compare to the 20.6’s sonically?
I have JBL Hartsfields that I was running with Marantz Model 5 tube mono blocks (trioded), until I acquired a pair of Mark Levinson 20.6 mono blocks recently. I can’t believe it, but the 20.6’s sound considerably better~
I also own Quad 57’s, so ML2’s may be something for me to consider purchasing~

Thanks for any response and enjoy the music~