Semi,
MF at Stereophile reviewed the GM's in Vol 30 #8.
In it MF says the GH's use Scanspeak woofers, which as we both know they don't. He also says he hasn't heard the GH's so of course he cannot compare the two models ( fair enough).
The 6" Audiotechnology unit in the GH's was custom made for SF... apparently true for the GM's also. Now I have one question.... Do you believe that the ability to bi-wire is of value?
Also, so we are all clear on this point, I do NOT feel that the GM and the GH's are vastly different; there is a very similar family resemblance between the two speakers ( they are both SF's after all) and both are excellent speakers, both are mini-monitors however and because of this cannot compete against larger floorstanders with the ability to move air.(Bass response if frankly the weak point of both designs). I just feel the GH's have a certain magical midrange that the GM's seem to lack. That is IMHO.
MF at Stereophile reviewed the GM's in Vol 30 #8.
In it MF says the GH's use Scanspeak woofers, which as we both know they don't. He also says he hasn't heard the GH's so of course he cannot compare the two models ( fair enough).
The 6" Audiotechnology unit in the GH's was custom made for SF... apparently true for the GM's also. Now I have one question.... Do you believe that the ability to bi-wire is of value?
Also, so we are all clear on this point, I do NOT feel that the GM and the GH's are vastly different; there is a very similar family resemblance between the two speakers ( they are both SF's after all) and both are excellent speakers, both are mini-monitors however and because of this cannot compete against larger floorstanders with the ability to move air.(Bass response if frankly the weak point of both designs). I just feel the GH's have a certain magical midrange that the GM's seem to lack. That is IMHO.