I went away for a few hours, and it looks like the thread blew up.
I feel like I probably can't add much to what's already been said in the above responses since my last post, but I would like to take this opportunity to stress that this thread exists out of a need for sharing information. As such, I'd like to request that the contents of the thread remain respectful. I'm more interested in seeing dissemination of information with the goal of learning something new about a product that will soon enter the market. I'm much less interested in people with agendas coming here and bandying words with eachother in an attempt to "make a point".
@Visualguy: If your requests were in earnest, and you were truly interested in comparative analysis of the acoustic qualities of the CLL, I would make an effort to get a hold of the prototype unit again (even paying for shipping both ways out of my own pocket, assuming such an arrangement would be okay with Dr. Cavalli) if you could provide a 727 for me to compare it with. However, based on the overall tone of your posts, I get the impression that your requests aren't in earnest, and you're simply trying to "make a point". I am many things, but I'm certainly not stupid. I can read between the lines.
Do people really feel that this amp is a threat to the existing electrostatic market? The reactive verbiage I've heard here reeks of fear, that maybe the new kid on the block might actually *gasp* be good. Why bare prejudice instead of giving the amp a fair shake? I'm not asking anybody to go throw down $4250 and buy the thing, but to just give it some consideration and an honest try. I'm not trying to market for Cavalli products. I'm trying to spread awareness of what exists out there. It's never bad to have one more option at your disposal. If you choose not to buy a CLL, and you find that the KGSSHV or SRM-727 better suits your needs, then I'm happy that you've made progress in your journey to audio nirvana.
If it's necessary for you to see a photograph of the amp's internals before purchasing, then you should wait until the production model is released to market. Distributing a photograph of the innards of a preproduction model almost six months prior to market release is basically an open invitation for IP theft and some sort of a reverse-engineering scenario reminiscent of an industrial espionage film. To put it as bluntly as I can, it'd be a poor business decision, and nothing good would come of it. The car analogy is frankly not applicable, as there's more to a car than just an engine, and you can't reverse engineer an entire vehicle using a high-resolution picture of the engine. An amplifier is just a circuit, and I would imagine one would be able to use an internal picture as a schematic for building a clone. No company is going to give out their "secret formula" prior to selling their product. Why do you think Apple doesn't let *any* information of their new iPhone products, let alone a picture of the innards, leave Cupertino until they allow it to do so? The risk is simply too much.
@Seacard: Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful post. Your post exemplifies a respectful attempt to learn more about a product, utilizing well-constructed questions and avoiding accusatory and/or aggressive language.
Once again, I'd like to request that this thread remains civil. Civil disagreement is welcome, and differences in opinion are accepted here, as everybody is entitled to their opinion. However, libel and smear tactics will not be tolerated. I'm hoping that we can remain respectful of one another and share information in a constructive manner, exercising behavior befitting a group of polite and knowledgeable individuals. If we can't maintain the peace, I fear this thread may need to meet a premature end.