Lamm ML2 - ML2.1

Has someone owned one (or both) of them and can write some of the musical differences between them?
Reliability? Which speakers are used ....
Thank you
I have the ML2s; believe that the amps are virtually identical, though the 2.1 has solid metal (brass?) binding posts while the ML2 makes do with the ubiquitous red/black plastic-covered ones. May be some minor circuit/component parts differences as well.
Can't speak to the sonic differences between the two models, Thomas, but I can tell you that I recently acquired the ML2s to replace my Audiopax 88s, running a pair of Avantgarde Duos. The differences are profound, but not in the hi-fi 'spectacular' way. I always thought that the Audiopax was quite transparent and musical in the mids- and it is- but the Lamm brings a sort of 'relaxed continuousness' to the sound that makes the Audiopax sound forced and almost mechanical by comparison.
The bass- and mind you - the way the Avantgarde is set up I run the Lamms directly to the midhorn with a jumper to the woofer-- is substantially deeper. There is more 'air' around the bass notes, and they sound more like the rest of the range, since I have not been as happy as some with the integration of woofer and horns. NOw, far better.
Also, changing the power cords to the Kubala EMotion, from the Shunyata Anaconda made a real difference too.
If you buy the Lamms, get yourself a high quality meter to check tube bias.
Also, I finally got the correct sized amp stands for the Lamms- I am partial to the Grand Prix Monaco stuff- but experimentation here could pay off too.
Hello Triode, thank you. Don't know what to do, honestly, to go for a ML2 or the ML2.1 ....
I definitely preferred the ML2 to the later model.
I don't know the circuit differences -- but there must be some...

Listening was through horns. (BTW, horns were the only available spkrs; I am not saying you MUST use horns.)

I remember that mid-highs were better in particular, and that the musical presentation overall gave a better impression with the 2. BTW, various sources say that both amps use up the driver stage tubes quite fast (but they're cheap to buy). Cheers
I own and love the ML 2.1's. IMO and for "my" ears it is the best amp I have ever owned and I have owned many top end amps.

At 18 wpc, they provide plenty of headroom to drive my Wilson X-2's. I doubt if I will ever buy another amp.
I own a pair of the later ML2's which have the brass binding posts. I have not heard the ML2.1 but really like my ML2's. I think the main difference is supposed to be that they had to find a new source for the custom made transformers as they were having delivery issues with the original source. I believe the new source used the same basic specs but the transformers may sound slightly different. I really doubt you can go wrong with either, I have had no maintanence issues with my ML2's since I have had them.