sonus faber GH with Sub vs Amat Homage

Smaj, its dificult to advice without knowing what you are seeking. 97% of monitors avalable will not provide large dynamic swings to reproduce large orchestra without compression. ar any similar music. If you mainly listen vocals and small jazz groups monitor is best. I bet Amati wont work in your room neutraly- its already punchy speaker eeven in bigger rooms and need some time to blend seamlesly in bass/mids. personaly I cant live with lifted up midbass(lower bass 25-35hz is much more tolerable even if it in +10db- keep in mind this on GH and sub combo feature) if you can live with it- give a try. I didnt compare GH with Amati directly, is memorry serves me well both are smooth and litle bit dark sounding(thought less than Cremona series at that time) speakers, Amati having better intrument palpability and localiation in midrange area, while GH having more pleasant lushier tonality in male voice and lower strings.

Smaj, Thanks for the compliment..:0)

BTW, Elviukai, I do not think that my GH's are at all lacking in instrument palp or localization in the mids... even in comparison to the Amati's. When I have heard the Amati's in the past, my impression was that the only area that they had it over the GH's was possibly in their ability to drop down deeper in the bass; in all other areas I preferred the GH's. If you heard any kind of darkness with any of the SF's then I would suspect that could be laid at the feet of the upstream gear and/or a room interaction.
The GH's in particular are known for there midrange abilities and IMHO, if set up right simply disappear in the room. I do think that like many speakers, set up is fairly crucial with the GH's; a listener should not mistake a poor setup/room interaction as a speaker problem.

2-26-10: Daveyf
Smaj, Thanks for the compliment..:0)

BTW, Elviukai, I do not think that my GH's are at all lacking in instrument palp or localization in the mids... even in comparison to the Amati's. When I have heard the Amati's in the past, my impression was that the only area that they had it over the GH's was possibly in their ability to drop down deeper in the bass; in all other areas I preferred the GH's. If you heard any kind of darkness with any of the SF's then I would suspect that could be laid at the feet of the upstream gear and/or a room interaction.
The GH's in particular are known for their midrange abilities and IMHO, if set up right simply disappear in the room. I do think that like many speakers, set up is fairly crucial with the GH's; a listener should not mistake a poor setup/room interaction as a speaker problem.
Oops, sorry for the double post..:0(

Elviukai's impressions very much match my own. I chose the Amati Anniversarios for overall capability, but the GH's have a magic with male voices and cello that I've only ever heard matched by electrostatics.

Have you auditioned the Electa Amator II? Many view this speaker as good choice between the GH and the larger SF floor-standing models. EAIIs can also be a bit punchy in smaller rooms, but I've been very happy with the speaker.