This is very loaded respond because there are a few layers in it. 

Layer number one, you had an opportunity to be exposed to ML2 which certainly has impact to a listening perception. It is not the only one which has this capacity but there is insultingly low number of similar amplifiers and most other people never hurd this capacity. I can tell you more, even many ml2 owners did not get it and pass it as they pass from any other amplifier of the year. Even the majority of so-called audio reviewers who were writing 25 years ago glorious bullshit about ML2 had no idea what they are dealing with. There are multiple explanations for it.

The layer number two is that it is not completely known what in whatever ml2 (or similar apps) does is responsible for formatting of a listening perception. Is that typical order simpletons want a simple explanation and they feel that ml2 produce better sounds. I very much do not subscribe this believe.

In fact, my experiment with ampX concept suggests that the actually auditable sounfs might not have necessary direct correlation with the force we experience in our listening room. 

And there is layer number three, that is more but I will stop on the 3rd. A contributions that amplifier bring to Total experience of an installation I would estimate no more than 25% of success. Another 25% come from acoustic system. The rest, is in very intricate interaction, at the DPoLP level, between a given efforts of entire installation and The listening room. It is not the sounds are being better presented by the efforts of room treatment or room dimension. It is rather that the efforts of entire playback chain along with the listening room are able to create a new Force, I call it X-Force, that super dramatically catalyzed listening sensories, an interpretive awareness of a listener. 

The last aspect is one of the reasons, why I completely decouple efforts of playback from anything which took place before. That what my video above was all about.