The human ear perceives sound through physical properties like frequency, amplitude, phase, and spatial characteristics. These properties correspond to measurable parameters such as sound pressure level, frequency response, distortion, or room effects. Modern audio measurement equipment—such as microphones, analyzers, and software—can detect these properties with far greater accuracy and sensitivity than the human ear. For example:
Fair enough. I respect that you don’t want to get into subjective preferences. At the same time I’d just point out that listening experience is not meaningless “bias,” it’s the very reason this hobby exists. Measurements matter, but so does how music actually feels in a real room. Both perspectives can inform each other.
The frog lost legs, but it wasn’t deaf.
In the end, priorities define the magic. For some it’s live dynamics, for others it’s micro-detail and precision. What matters is what moves you.
I mentioned Romy’s comments simply because his long-term use of both the ML2 and ML2.1 is well documented and often referenced in this community. It wasn’t meant as “parroting,” just as context from someone who actually lived with those amplifiers. I’ve also been transparent that I haven’t personally heard every version, which is why I framed it as sharing what’s been written rather than presenting it as my own direct experience.
A customer of ours placed a microphone at his listening position and then did distortion measurements and bandwidth measurements based on the mic's output, before and after a change. He was able to show that there were changes in the system distortion at certain frequencies based on a change of a capacitor.
True. Bias, preference, and personal taste are part of what makes this hobby so engaging. My only point was that listening impressions shouldn’t be dismissed as if they’re irrelevant. They’re what give the numbers and measurements context and meaning.
That’s exactly right. Every choice in audio comes with a trade-off. The “price” just depends on what each listener values most.
You are mistaken, Romy liked ML2 and not 2.1: “The ML2.1 is not really good amp and Art Dudley was wrong to use it. It mish be any other reason why he got rid of it – but who cares why he did it? I feel that if person was damn enough to buy ML2.1 after the ML2.0 then any further observation of this person should not be considered.”
You’re right. Romy’s clear favorite was the original ML2, and he was critical of the ML2.1. In the same way I mistakenly tied Romy to the second version of the ML2, you once tied David to the second version of the Sasha lol
I’m not looking to side with any camp or “cult.” My only goal here is to share context on how these amps have been written about and experienced. For me it’s about the technical and listening side, not forum politics.
No antihistamine needed, the only thing I’m allergic to is bad physics IoI
Personally I have always been drawn to the simple physics and straightforward paths of sound rather than the overly complex engineering marvels that sometimes seem more about marketing than music. Of course good engineering matters, but when brands hide behind layers of pseudo science or needlessly complicated designs to justify high prices I lose interest. For me the most convincing products are those that let the basics such as efficiency, clean design and natural dynamics speak for themselves.
I see your point. By “clean” I didn’t mean minimalist or free of challenges, but rather designs that don’t rely on unnecessary complications or pseudo-science. Horns are indeed complex, but their complexity serves a clear acoustic purpose, which to me is very different from adding layers of marketing-driven “engineering."
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |
