Pinkus....how perceptive of you..:0) Congrats on the quick fingers and beating me to the thread..;0)
I actually thought this thread had died a while back..
guess I was wrong. My feelings on the G's vs. M's are pretty well known by now. Simply look on the 'Gon and note how quickly the G's sell when and if they come on the
market and compare that to the M's, which BTW seem to come available far more frequently. |
Pinkus,I think Flg2001 hit the nail on the head..
As I have posted before, the drivers in the GH's are IMHO
far superior to the drivers in the M. The Esotar is probably one of the top two or three tweeters in the world and the Audiotechnologie mid/woof was custom built for the GH. The current unit I believe is sourced from Dynaudio ( Yes I know Skanning started both Co's) BUT and this is a real BUT the unit in the M's is not anything special.
Also, look at the ability of the GH's to bi-wire( Which is again IMHO a MAJOR plus) the M's do NOT even offer this facility.
The cost of the drivers and the x-over with bi-wire cabability is far more expensive in the GH than the M's. Frankly, I think and I have said this before; SF wanted to freshen the line and cut costs a little. This isn't the first time a company has done this and won't be the last, but if you AB the two speakers ( which I have done and which i doubt Pinkus has done) then the superiority of the GH is obvious. One last thing, just because something is new and revised doesn't always mean it's has to be better.
In audio this circumstance seems to apply frequently, however, the reviewers and the manufacturers don't necessarily want the public to know that. |
Flg 2001, The mid-woofer is as a custom made Audiotechnologie unit in the GH and a Dynaudio sourced unit in the GM. |
Pinkus, Read the review more carefully from Fremer. He states he has not heard the GH's and that the mid-woofer is a Audio Tech in the GM. It isn't... Look at the SF site and see that it is sourced from Dynaudio.In the review MF also states the mid-woofer in the GH is a Scanspeak, it isn't either, it's an AudioTech. Reviewers are not infallible; they make errors just liked everbody else and as for KK-- Well there was a time that he liked the NHT's better than any other speaker he had ever heard! Like everyone, he is entitled to his opinion, BUT I personally do not rely on reviews by audio mag writers as anything more than just cursorary information. I like to use my own ears to determine their sound and that is what you might want to do as well... Before picking up this post again, go and compare the two speakers ( the GH vs GM) and then reply. I know you own the GM and want to defend them, just make sure that your position is defensible prior to posting! |
Pinkus, while I generally agree with your comment about modern technology, this is not an absolute. For instance, most 'philes including myself would argue that analog LP's are a superior medium for sound reproduction than digital systems.
When Franco designed the G, I believe he did so as his
'statement' product next to the Extremas. Today, the statement product is the Strad and then the A Annerversario and then the GM in that order (although some would say the Elipsa comes before the GM, I wouldn't). I also wander if the 'bean counters' and the 'marketing people' at SF don't have more of a say in the product than in the past.
Franco is no longer designing the product and to me there has to be a good reason for that.
I will look forward to your opinion as to the differences between the GH and the GM once you have heard the two.
Good thing it is easyish to sell GM's on the 'Gon. ..:0) |
Semi,
I have heard the Scanspeak Revelator, the Raven ribbon, the Accuton tweeter, the Accapella Plasma Ion tweeters, the Maggie ribbons and others. IMHO, and frankly in many other 'philes opinions, the Esotars are still up there with the best. Why not ask Bobby at Merlin why he still uses them? Comparing the GH to the GM I still believe that the cabinet, the x-over, the drivers and the bi-wire ability of the GH is superior to the GM.
Sorry, but when we 'AB'ed the GH with the GM, the magic of the GH was not present. Not just my opinion but our entire audio club that evening.
Comparing the GH to the LS3/5A would seem to indicate that you have not heard the LS3/5A's or maybe the GH's. The LS3/5A's are good speakers but have a definitive BBC coloration ( boxy somewhat woody sound), which I do not think that Italian speakers of any brand exhibit..:0) |
Flg2001, I think the Jadis amps are a great match for GH's.
The only question is if they have enough drive capability.
You might also consider Joules and Lamm's. I also recently heard BAT amps with them, not bad at all but not as good as the Jadis.
Again, this subject is very room dependant. |
Stevehuff1, Are you saying that the GM's are an easier load on the amp than the GH's?
What ancillary equipment are you using and is this the same
equipment and room your were using for the GH's?
What does 'maybe not as syrupy' mean in regards to the midrange reproduction?
The GH's are indeed legendary, why do you think that the GM's are not? |
Semi,it is interesting that you mentioned the size of the room. My room is very small which probably has something to do with how well the GH's integrate in the room.
I cannot support much bass in the room and of course the GH's don't really do much below 50Hz's.
We AB'ed the GM to the GH in my room and while the magic in the mids was lacking, the GM did offer a little more bass response, we all figured it began to break up about 45Hz's or so.
In your bigger room, that might be valuable and possibly your GM's may go even lower. I am not a headbanger, but I also realize that music has a fundemental in the bottom octave and a certain reality that comes with being able to reproduce the lowest octave at reasonable volume with little to no distortion. The Amati A's or the Strads are probably much better in this regards than either of the G's in a larger room. (But not so good in a small room like mine)...It really is "horses for courses". |
Milimetr, I have a small room,albeit a dedicated room.
The room is appx. 12ftX10ft with a vaulted ceiling that rises to appx.13ft. The room is constructed of wood/drywall and I use a couple of large LP racks as absorbtion in the corners behind the speakers.
The only real drawback to the GH's is that I do not think they can reproduce deep bass in a large room. In my room, this is a bonus as a speaker that could plumb the depths would easily overload my room. I feel that what you give up on deep bass is well compensated for with the GH's magical mids and highs.
You might read my review that I just posted on the GH's in the review section. |
Hi George, I heard a Jadis Defy 7 mk1V a couple of years ago with
SF GH"s. It was a very nice match indeed; almost made me sell my
Jeff Rowland model 8. The only thing that kept me from doing that was
that the Jadis seemed to lose a little detail when compared to my 8.
Nonetheless, I do agree that a tube amp is a GREAT way to go with the GH"s.
I am enjoying an ARC D70 mk2 with rolled in tubes right now. This amp seems to have real simpatico with these speakers.
BTW Pinkus, I wouldn't trade SF GM's for GH's, my ears would never forgive me. |
Once again Semi, what is IYHO a 'fact' is far from it.
Is the Esotar still SOTA, not to your ears, ok I can accept that, however,
to say it masks micro dynamics and detail tells me that there is something else in your system that is the culprit in that area.( The Esotar certainly does not do that in my system, in fact my female a'phile friend enjoys this aspect greatly and I suspect she has better hearing than you do!) I don't know what is in your system as i notice that for some reason you don't post it on 'Agon and therefore we have no way of seeing your room or equipment.
I presume that you own the GM's and therefore the bias.BTW, you seem to have owned numerous pieces of equipment that have come and gone, are you really happy with the GM's? |
Flg2001, i think a little salt in this thread is a good idea..
It doesn't really surprise me that there are many GH owners in Italy,
or anywhere else for that matter, that are "reluctant" to give up their
GH's for GM's. A backward step is never anything anyone does unless
they do it "reluctantly".
IMHO if people will use their ears when they compare GH's to GM's,
the obvious superiority of the GH's becomes very evident. |
Pinkus on another thread you wrote and I quote"Of course it is also possible that I am highly suggestible, and I am the one with the tin-ear."
I think that may speak for itself..:0)
BUT in all seriousness, I do agree that 'each to their own' is applicable with SF G's and in fact this applies to any speaker or other piece of equipment. Nonetheless, along with many other 'phile friends,it has been my experience that when using our ears we come away with a MAJOR preference for the GH's over the GM's. Obviously, your mileage differs. |
Semi, I can only speak for myself, BUT I personally have no problem with any type of tweeter as long as it sounds good. I have owned Titanium domes, Be tweets, ribbons,stats and alum domes-- I enjoyed them all.
However, I do NOT think that I prefer a 'romantic' presentation, although a bright presentation does bother me. I do feel that if a speaker has a tendency towards brightness and "glare" then very likely the culprit is the tweet. (and many times that tweet is a hard dome).IMHO you cannot really generalize so much in regards to people's taste in presentation as much as you may think.
Interestingly, I have a female 'phile friend, whom has superior high-end hearing capabilities to my male 'phile friends high-end hearing . She can pick up a
bright/glaring speaker in a country minute; she almost always dislikes titanium domes and in fact told me that she actually HATES all Wilson's for this reason. My female friend also tells me that her older husband cannot hear this problem and likes Wilsons along with many other what she calls 'Screaming' speakers. |
Semi, you miss the point about the GH's vs the GM's. The GH's certainly do use the Esotar driver, no they don't use various hard domes or ribbons which you imply are better designs; BUT then neither does the GM! The GM uses a ring radiator sourced from Scanspeak, which IMHO and that of many many others is TOTALLY inferior to the Esotar.
Why would I want to read anything about drivers when I can use my ears to determine what I feel recreates the best sound? It has become VERY clear to me that you are one of those 'philes who buy equipment based on written reviews and nothing else; next time try using your ears instead. I suspect you may come to an enlightenment. |
Milimetr, that's an interesting picture. For some reason my speakers don't have this sticker on the drivers; Today I took a flex mirror and looked at the tweet. Mine has nothing on it at all. Perhaps your picture is of a replacement driver that someone ordered? IMHO virtually impossible to tell exactly which driver this is from this picture,except we know it is from Dynaudio and someone attached the maple rear piece. Assuming of course that the sticker belongs on that driver. |
To follow up my post, look here:http://www.hifisound.de/oxid/oxid.php/tpl//lang/1/cl/alist/cnid/eb642232681286cf0.79190334
I think one can clearly see from the face of the driver that the tweet is the D330 Esotar and NOT the D28. |
Elviukai, I thought my answer to you on the SF GH review thread that I wrote was clear! In addition this is what MF said in the SFGM review that was done in August of '09 in Stereophile...quote:"More important, the original Guarneri Homage, fitted with a custom-designed 6" Scan-Speak( ok, he's wrong about the woofer...it's a Audiotechnology woofer, we all make mistakes, BUT he didn't make two this time) woofer and custom Dynaudio Esotar tweeter, received rave reviews across the board for both its measured and its musical performance. But its high price ($9400/pair) and limited availability put it in the hands of only a lucky few around the world."
BTW, it says nowhere on my speakers anything to do with D28/2, your memory must be mistaken. SInce I currently own these speakers I am NOT relying on any memory! ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE MISTAKEN WITH REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE. |
Milimeter and Elviukai, it's true that SF did some minor changes to the GH's as time went by; I think mostly in the cabinet construction however.
My pair are Anno2004, and were according to my dealer the last pair imported into the US, the Tweet does not look like an Esotec, But??
It is interesting to note that over the appx. 14+ year production run of these speakers that they have always been said to utilize the Esotar. I looked back at the old review by Martin Colloms and he specifically states that the driver for the tweet is a modd'ed Esotar. The same comment used by Michael Fremer and many many others in print. If you look at all the chat on the Audio Asylum pages about these speakers, numerous posters over the years refer to the driver as the Esotar. Could they all be wrong? I guess it's possible, BUT like Brianmgrarcom suggests, maybe a call to SF might be in order. I think I will try that to maybe clarify once and for all this issue. |
Elviukai, I think that you may be confused regarding the tweeters that SF uses in its various products. SF has for many years had their various tweeters modified by the different manufacturers to SF's spec's. This scheme has been used by numerous manufacturers to 'customize' their products as well, thereby making generalization on identification difficult.
I do not think that you can make such generalizations in regards to the GM's vs.
the Auditor M's tweeters or other speaker drivers in their line. For example, you originally brought up the idea that the GH's tweeter is NOT an Esotar because according to you it doesn't look like any Esotar you are familiar with. While that may be true, I have talked since my last post, to other SF owners and my SF dealer, they say that it has been known from the beginning that the SF GH tweeter is a customized tweeter made by Dynaudio especially for SF and the GH in particular. Nonetheless, the consensus is that it is a modified Esotar in the GH.
I am still going to see if SF will confirm this, however, let's not jump to conclusions with the drivers and their design in the SF line.
BTW, I also would like to see this thread veer back to the original question of GH vs GM and NOT a discussion on the various types of tweets in the SF line, just IMHO. |
Milimetr, could you post the link to the review that you are referring to
with the D28/2 information. |
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. |
