Many of you may wonder if your XMs are now outclassed by the GX and of no more use. This is far from the case. The XM still has a lot to offer.

The GX does provide the new current/angle biofeedback options along with a higher frequency output range. This is why adding it to your rig is valuable.

Both generators are operated the same when it comes to running frequency applications. Whatever you can wire to the GX, you can wire to the XM. Contact, Remote, Plasma, Cold Laser, PEMF, etc.

The new GX biofeedback scan range defaults to 18 MHz at the top end. The XM can hit 25 MHz, so either can be used to apply the results of a standard GX biofeedback scan.

However, the GX having a higher frequency range (40 MHz) means that it can hit those frequencies directly and with more detail retained -- better sharpness in the output.

This should translate into better efficacy rates when using the correct frequency.

It is a lot like a good audiophile grade stereo amplifier. The best did not run at full power, but ran at less than full power (headroom) to ensure every detail was rendered accurately.

This does not render the XM obsolete. The XM may not retain as much sharpness as the GX at higher frequencies (greater than 5 MHz), but is still able to generate the frequency with the use of a wave cycle multiplier (up to 25 MHz).

If your budget does not allow for multiple GXs, having at least one opens the door to the new features. The XM is still the most affordable way to expand your rig for parallel frequency applications.

How you expand your rig may come down to budget and desired output.


Authored by Jeff Kaczor

GeneratorX vs XM-Generator