Benchmark ABH2 compared to Merrill Element Series and other ultra high end amps

At different times, I heard a single AHB2 and stereo Merrill Element 114 at home.  The AHB2 was more neutral at continuous low/moderate SPL's, but it shut down at moderate SPL peaks when driving my inefficient electrostatic speakers.  The 114 was warmer/sweeter, more dynamic, with fuller bass.  Bridged AHB2's are probably more dynamic than a single AHB2, but they shouldn't be used if the inefficient speaker has very low impedance at certain freq.

soundhound,
My electrostatics are the Audiostatic 240 from early 1980’s. They are still the most detailed stats I have ever heard, although I admire the ML CLX as next best. My 240’s are mellowing out compared to when I got them nearly 40 years ago, so I have added the Enigmacoustics Sopranino electrostatic tweeter in parallel. This gives me SOTA HF, but the impedance combo at the highest output 8kHz setting is probably 1.5 ohms or so, with a weird phase angle, so most amps are severely limited in the power they can deliver without shutting down. I make this sacrifice in power for the glorious brilliance at lower SPL’s which is doable for most classical music I listen to.

soundhound,
You cannot have it all in any system.  If you like fine stats like the ML CLX, you value accuracy and detail.  The Benchmark AHB2 is an accurate amp in like manner.  There are certainly many amps that emphasize power and large scale dynamics, which will make the stat sound more like a dynamic speaker.  Unlike people who say the AHB2 is lifeless, I find that other amps which are fuller and rolled off in HF by comparison, take away from the exciting subtle musical detail that the AHB2 reveals.  The Merrill 114 is worth auditioning if you want warmth and fullness in lower midrange and bass.

soundhound, 
Yes, I agree.  As a violinist, I enjoy the sound under my ear and a few feet away playing string quartets, and playing in the orchestra.  Unfortunately, as a concertgoer sitting even in the 1st row center, my perceptions have been greatly diluted in the amount of musically important detail I have heard, compared to my close encounters as a player.  The first row is approximately the sound "heard" by the microphones in most recordings, so to make a valid comparison between your system and being there, the 1st row is the approximate reference.  Even the 2nd row is veiled compared to the 1st row, because high freq are short wavelengths which are absorbed by any distance.  One day, when playing in the 2nd violin section, I sat close to the French horn.  Usually on recordings played on most systems, the horn is an amorphous glob of vague sound, but sitting close I heard lots of rawness and spiky attacks in the tone even when the music was sostenuto.  Most people think of the horn as a smooth midrange instrument, but James Boyk showed that it has significant overtones as high as 9kHz.  The tuba has lots of bass energy, but it also has significant high freq overtones that enhance its clarity and power.  On most systems, the tuba sounds like wooly muddy thuds because HF are not sufficiently revealed.  

So to reveal the truth, I want an amp to have as much detail as possible.  Since we cannot have everything in any system, I have made the choice to go for components that sacrifice bass extension and fullness in order to get maximum detail in mid bass and higher freq.  The ML CLX is a great example of such a speaker that rolls off bass at 56 Hz, which has the effect of maximizing the clarity where most of the music is.  Although I have never heard the flagship Neolith, my guess is that it does not have the clarity of the CLX in that range, although it appeals to the bass lovers.