• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Totem Acoustics Rainmaker Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 169 68.7%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 69 28.0%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 6 2.4%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 2 0.8%

  • Total voters
    246
I don't need high SPL speakers with at that SPL level low distortion because I basically only play at lower levels.I'm a little fascinated by those who start threads here and are looking for speakers that can produce a level of 100-110 dB while at the same time sounding good and not just loud. Those levels are for me just pushing the pedal to the metal to test levels but nothing you (I) listen to for a long time.

Same here. If those type of levels are fun for some people good for them. I personally listen that lower sound levels, having already done enough damage to my ears from high levels playing in abandoned the 90s.

My comments about my speakers, sounding smooth and low distortion weren’t in the context of only comparing speakers when they are played loud. It’s an across-the-board perception. That said, those loudspeakers allowed me to listen louder than I ever have before, without discomfort.

I think Semmy Lazaroff's remark was mostly aimed at those Hifi people who like the "soft", "warm" tube amp sound.

The only thing missing in Lazaroff’s take is the context or recorded/reproduced music versus real instruments. He’s essentially referencing what he perceives to be features of the sounds of real instruments. There wouldn’t be much debate if recordings and sound reproduction actually reproduced what real instruments sound like. But for the most part they don’t. All sorts of colorations arise from the recording process down through the mixing and reproduction, which means there are all sorts of alterations of the character of instruments once you hear them.

And since generally speaking recordings are all over the map and the reproduction departs from reality, audiophiles may find themselves making choices about which aspects of the sound is most important for them to feel like it is more natural.

In terms of these trade offs: I would imagine that an audiophile with the mindset of Lazaroff would care most that his sound system reproduce transients and leading edges with sharpness and precision, where another audiophile may perceive that body and richness of instruments and voices is often underserved in reproduced sound, and even that leading edges are often exaggerated, and if it a bit of that richness, warmth and body is added back in, he/she may cue in on that aspect, and it will sound more natural.
 
Same here. If those type of levels are fun for some people good for them. I personally listen that lower sound levels, having already done enough damage to my ears from high levels playing in abandoned the 90s.

My comments about my speakers, sounding smooth and low distortion weren’t in the context of only comparing speakers when they are played loud. It’s an across-the-board perception. That said, those loudspeakers allowed me to listen louder than I ever have before, without discomfort.



The only thing missing in Lazaroff’s take is the context or recorded/reproduced music versus real instruments. He’s essentially referencing what he perceives to be features of the sounds of real instruments. There wouldn’t be much debate if recordings and sound reproduction actually reproduced what real instruments sound like. But for the most part they don’t. All sorts of colorations arise from the recording process down through the mixing and reproduction, which means there are all sorts of alterations of the character of instruments once you hear them.

And since generally speaking recordings are all over the map and the reproduction departs from reality, audiophiles may find themselves making choices about which aspects of the sound is most important for them to feel like it is more natural.

In terms of these trade offs: I would imagine that an audiophile with the mindset of Lazaroff would care most that his sound system reproduce transients and leading edges with sharpness and precision, where another audiophile may perceive that body and richness of instruments and voices is often underserved in reproduced sound, and even that leading edges are often exaggerated, and if it a bit of that richness, warmth and body is added back in, he/she may cue in on that aspect, and it will sound more natural.
Since recorded/reproduced will never be like live music, in the end it's just a matter of creating an illusion, or something that reflects it as best as possible.

After all, the title of Dr. Toole's book is: Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms
It's about reproduction and not live music.

The most reasonable starting point should be to get it as close as possible, but really there is nothing that says you can do it any other way. Color the music heavily, for example, and this illusion of live music appears. Intuitively, I think it's a backwards approach, and besides, this coloring can appear to others (most?) as a bad approach to reflect live music.

From Wikipedia about HiFi:

High fidelity or hi-fi is a way of describing a very good home music system. "High fidelity" means that the sound is as close to the original as possible with no changes or added noise.
As close as possible, no changes or added noise. Doesn't sound like coloring is preferable, quite the opposite.

But having said that, there is nothing that prevents colouring, seasoning as desired. I do that myself when I listen to old hard rock, heavy metal. I add bass because I think many of the old recordings are so bass thin.
 
Last edited:
You don't hear that "speed." You hear pressure waves. And those waves must follow simply linear relationship between frequency, wavelength and hence, velocity (which is a simple function of the former two).

Think of it this way. Have a driver playing at very faint volume where you can't even see the cone moving. Then crank it up where it is playing at is maximum excursion. You think the sound changes because the cone has farther to travel in the second case?
Yes, I mentioned that perhaps you don't hear it and other factors are more important. But it doesn't discredit the fact that smaller drivers in general are indeed "faster".
That's what you guys seem to miss. It's the fact that they are "faster", not just whether you can hear it or not.
 
I take on board what you are saying although it's not exactly my more primitive language so it took a bit.
So when I am talking about velocity, I'm not talking about the speed of the cone moving through air. I'm talking about the ability of the cone to move from say, producing a "C" note to producing a "D" note, and how long that transition takes in relation to the time it takes in the source. The cone is vibrating at one speed, and then must shift to vibrating at another speed.
To enlarge the question a little bit. (First, I'm not sure I completely understand how a cone can vibrate at 261.6 HZ (middle C) and 293.6 Hz (D) at the same time. My view is that it would produce a more complex wave encapsulating both frequencies, so that if you measured the wave lengths crest to crest, you'd get a variety of distances due to the intermingling of the two notes, and the speaker then produces that rather dissonant wave. Tell me if that is wrong.)
Now consider a full orchestra, with not only all kinds of notes, but various identifying harmonics that create the timbre of each unique instrument.
So what I think you have told me is that if a speaker can produce each tone from say 20 HZ to 20 kHZ, which is well outside my audible range, and also reproduce faithfully the gain level of the source (flat response), then that speaker will have no problem reproducing the fidelity of a full orchestra.
That is problematic for me. Why do I still need 5, 7 or more speakers to reproduce spatiality? I only can hear 2 waves even with 8 speakers, I should be able to reproduce any spatial effect through headphones, i.e. any directionality. Maybe I can ...
Further, even with my more limited hearing range now topping out at 10kHz, plus tinnitus so I miss very low level sounds, a live orchestra still sounds better to me than any recording. It's true I can turn my head to pick out what the harp is playing, say, which I cannot do with my stereo, but the overall fidelity and ability to hear individual instruments simultaneously can not be matched by my reasonably good stereo equipment.
So, I think there is more to the art of reproduction than just a flat frequency response, and I have trouble believing that a flat frequency response is a complete measure of musical fidelity.
Don't get me wrong on this, I am a strong believer in the efficacy of lab tests. But I still need to hear the speaker as well. For electronic equipment, I'll buy without hearing, strictly on the specs.
The live orchestra differentiates itself by having many many individual sources of sound that are all different shapes and directivity, and are usually played in a carefully tuned room.

A speaker is able to play the recording faithfully enough, but it cannot recreate all those source points. If you were able to have many many speakers all around you with individual channels, you would get a closer representation.

The ideal speaker would be some kind of volumetric, infinitely variable frequency/dispersion field.
Maybe we are more likely to create that with headphones if you could simulate enough of the reflections and timing differences the brain uses to perceive direction, depth etc. :)
 
But it doesn't discredit the fact that smaller drivers in general are indeed "faster".
Please supply measured evidence of this.
 
Yes, I mentioned that perhaps you don't hear it and other factors are more important. But it doesn't discredit the fact that smaller drivers in general are indeed "faster".
That's what you guys seem to miss. It's the fact that they are "faster", not just whether you can hear it or not.
Of course a small tweeter is faster, moves faster, than a big bass driver. But maybe you meant something else?

If a subwoofer goes down to 20 Hz and is perceived as "fast" or having firm bass, it is not the lowest bass frequencies that give that impression, but bass tones higher in frequency plus bass harmonics emanating from low bass fundamental.
5StringBassSignalvsFreq.png

Around 20 Hz, for natural reasons what the frequency is, it moves slowly, compared to higher up in frequency.

A "slow" "spongy", "cloudy" subwoofer can be due to distortion. Huffing and puffing bass ports can also be a tedious problem.
 
Last edited:
Of course a small tweeter is faster, moves faster, than a big bass driver. But maybe you meant something else?

If a subwoofer goes down to 20 Hz and is perceived as "fast" or having firm bass, it is not the lowest bass frequencies that give that impression, but bass tones higher in frequency plus bass harmonics emanating from low bass fundamental.
View attachment 418805

Around 20 Hz, for natural reasons what the frequency is, it moves slowly, compared to higher up in frequency.

A "slow" "spongy", "cloudy" subwoofer can be due to distortion. Huffing and puffing bass ports can also be a tedious problem.
The sound is a consequence of the membrane >accelerating, positively not its movement at some speed. Both, getting faster, but also stopping it. As we all assume so far, acceleration is a combination of force and mass like a = f/m with some yet unknowns from corrections to Newton‘s. But as a rough estimate that model of reality may serve the audiophile up to 235 kilo$$ systems, maybe even beyond; especially with mediocre recordings.

For me the rainmaker is an unsuccessful attempt to scale down „good enough“ speakers. Compromises not balanced, tonality, cost, size, bass, resonances … but who knows to whom’s desires it was designed?
 
Can you explain:
There is General Relativity, or Mond as an alternative for instance. Anyway, my post was meant to exemplify how far hearing driven scrutinity (what the audiophile hears, but cannot be explained by contemporary science) escalates, but very basics are not taken into consideration.

All in all some „good enough“ product the Reinmaker is not, in my humble opinion. Whatever terms people associate with it - fast.
 
Please supply measured evidence of this.
You don't need measured evidence. It's basic physics.

Sway side to side, one side per second.
Now, keeping that one side per second, move from one wall in your room to the opposite wall.

Did your body keep the same speed, or did it have to move faster to keep the same frequency at higher distance?

I've already questioned if the physical speed would be audible; it seems likely not.

On the flip side of things not being audible, just because it's not audible doesn't mean it doesn't happen physically.
 
You don't need measured evidence. It's basic physics.

Sway side to side, one side per second.
Now, keeping that one side per second, move from one wall in your room to the opposite wall.

Did your body keep the same speed, or did it have to move faster to keep the same frequency at higher distance?

I've already questioned if the physical speed would be audible; it seems likely not.

On the flip side of things not being audible, just because it's not audible doesn't mean it doesn't happen physically.
So exactly what I said in post 201 a few pages back, then:

Ah, I see. You are describing the maximum velocity of the coil past the magnetic poles (in a conventional driver) which is at the zero crossing point for symmetric waves. This won't have an impact on sound assuming the driver is operating linearly. The person I was responding to was talking about "fast loudspeakers" as perceived in a room some distance from the driver. This is a different matter
 
The live orchestra differentiates itself by having many many individual sources of sound that are all different shapes and directivity, and are usually played in a carefully tuned room.

A speaker is able to play the recording faithfully enough, but it cannot recreate all those source points. If you were able to have many many speakers all around you with individual channels, you would get a closer representation.

The ideal speaker would be some kind of volumetric, infinitely variable frequency/dispersion field.
Maybe we are more likely to create that with headphones if you could simulate enough of the reflections and timing differences the brain uses to perceive direction, depth etc. :)
I have spent a lifetime wondering about this. Well, in elapsed time, not in actual time. :)

How can a single point source, a speaker, reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra, many point sources playing simultaneously.
So, first let's simplify the issue and cover or plug one ear.
In that case, it does not matter how many point sources are involved, the ear detects only a single wave, that can be represented in 2 dimensions, time and frequency.
Where multiple point sources are involved, that single wave is a cross product of all point sources, plus any reverberations, plus harmonics and so on.
So ... in theory, a speaker should be able to reproduce an entire orchestra 100% with no sound loss.
Of course, it can't, because of limitations in speaker technology. And this is what I have been probing ... what are the limitations? Amir has stated that any issues in reproduction will be picked up in terms of anomalies in the frequency response and in distortion. I believe that, but that moves the goalposts, i.e. what are the kinds of distortion, and what causes them.

The other aspect of this that I conveniently skipped is the fact that we generally have not one ear, but two. With two ears, we hear two waves, and it is very difficult to simulate two waves as experienced in a concert hall with two speakers. It can be done with a binaural recording and headphones. And also,Floyd Toole above discusses some speakers that could do this, which is intriguing and new to me.

Anyone feel free to correct anything I have said, as I have no formal education/ training on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Since recorded/reproduced will never be like live music, in the end it's just a matter of creating an illusion, or something that reflects it as best as possible.

After all, the title of Dr. Toole's book is: Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms
It's about reproduction and not live music.

I’m curious how you believe the second paragraph relates to the first paragraph.

In your first paragraph you are saying reproduce sound is about creating an illusion.

An illusion of what?

For many it’s about creating the illusion of musicians performing.

But in your second paragraph you are saying it’s not about reference to live music.

So when you use the term “ illusion” you mean illusion of…what exactly?

I don’t think we are very far apart in our view here, but I’m just curious about the above.
 
To take one more stab at velocity, I don't think that when used colloquially it has anything to do with the speed of the speaker cone.

I think what it is, is the degree to which a speaker can follow the original recording. So it would refer to a time delay between the wave in the source and the audible wave. I think it would show up as distortion as Amir indicated. But what we're talking about is clear, distinct sound in a fast speaker, i.e. one that keeps up with changes in the sound versus mushiness in the sound from a speaker that can't keep up. Illustration. Imagine a speaker that is playing a flute effectively and then a bass note is played. The speaker loses some attack on the bass note, and adds decay, because it can not excurse sufficiently to follow the signal. This would be an example of a speaker not being fast enough.

I am described something that is subjectively perceived. Whether this is what is actually happening, I do not know.
 
You don't need measured evidence. It's basic physics.

Sway side to side, one side per second.
Now, keeping that one side per second, move from one wall in your room to the opposite wall.

Did your body keep the same speed, or did it have to move faster to keep the same frequency at higher distance?

I've already questioned if the physical speed would be audible; it seems likely not.

On the flip side of things not being audible, just because it's not audible doesn't mean it doesn't happen physically.
There is much wrong with your physics, dunno where to begin. It is really irritating.

Sound is generated when the membrane accelerates—start and (!) stop, not at speed. Due to a force, balanced against mass. Frequency is not a physical reality, but a descriptive, mathematical tool. Better to stick to common terminology (!) rather than trying to derive Newton‘s Laws of Motion from ‚what you hear‘—fast speaker. Only to salvage some, at best, niche design.
 
What I think some people are talking about is "rate of change of momentum", rather than "velocity", which is clearly the wrong term to be using.

Since momentum captures both mass and velocity, how quickly momentum can be changed is what is key in the thought experiment. If my 15" cone material is made of centimeter-thick lead, the mass will have a higher momentum than a 15" cone with made of micrometer-thick carbon fibre. In order to reproduce a note at a certain level, more energy is needed to get the heavy cone moving and to make it change direction.
 
Funny discussion - too many holidays and sips of wine?


and finally (RIP Siggi)
 
Last edited:
I’m curious how you believe the second paragraph relates to the first paragraph.

In your first paragraph you are saying reproduce sound is about creating an illusion.

An illusion of what?

For many it’s about creating the illusion of musicians performing.

But in your second paragraph you are saying it’s not about reference to live music.

So when you use the term “ illusion” you mean illusion of…what exactly?

I don’t think we are very far apart in our view here, but I’m just curious about the above.
An illusion of how it sounded live.

I don't know of what I write below answers your question? It might be tangential to it. A little bit of waffle because I'm not entirely sure myself if it's right. Consider it to be speculation:
It depends on what you want. If the intention is to get a HiFi sound something like live music or if you just like what you have as it is. Without taking any consideration or rather if you have no desire or need to reflect live music. In the latter case, you don't have to worry about creating something that reflects reality (a bit). But if you want to reflect to get the feeling of being live, you need to put yourself in a state of mind that allows that illusion to be created. Doesn't just have to be linear, colorless sound. It could be so much more. Hide your HiFi so the very sight of the stuff doesn't break the illusion?

Perhaps more widespread, or fully omni speakers to smear out the sound but with the advantage that it will be more difficult to locate the speakers? That's because you don't want to be reminded, and thus break the illusion, that the sound is coming from a pair of speakers. But on the other hand, the question may then arise; wait now a mushy sound, that that's not what i heard, experienced live. The illusion is broken again. Then everything else related to psychological aspects but that's a topic for another thread.:)

Then to complicate it, it can sound in different concert venues. That with acoustic musical instruments. Electronic music created in the studio, how should it sound at home with the HiFi you have?
Thus we eventually land at Floyd Toole's Circle of Confusion.
 
Last edited:
An illusion of how it sounded live.

I don't know of what I write below answers your question? It might be tangential to it. A little bit of waffle because I'm not entirely sure myself if it's right. Consider it to be speculation:
It depends on what you want. If the intention is to get a HiFi sound something like live music or if you just like what you have as it is. Without taking any consideration or rather if you have no desire or need to reflect live music. In the latter case, you don't have to worry about creating something that reflects reality (a bit). But if you want to reflect to get the feeling of being live, you need to put yourself in a state of mind that allows that illusion to be created. Doesn't just have to be linear, colorless sound. It could be so much more. Hide your HiFi so the very sight of the stuff doesn't break the illusion?

Perhaps more widespread, or fully omni speakers to smear out the sound but with the advantage that it will be more difficult to locate the speakers? That's because you don't want to be reminded, and thus break the illusion, that the sound is coming from a pair of speakers. But on the other hand, the question may then arise; wait now a mushy sound, that that's not what i heard, experienced live. The illusion is broken again. Then everything else related to psychological aspects but that's a topic for another thread.:)

Then to complicate it, it can sound in different concert venues. That with acoustic musical instruments. Electronic music created in the studio, how should it sound at home with the HiFi you have?
Thus we eventually land at Floyd Toole's Circle of Confusion.
Very much like with all that sound-alike „physics“ the advertizing did a darn good job in getting people oft tracks. Just in case someone was really under the impression that a recording was even steering in the direction of replicating a concert, I would say, get yourself a better stereo. For me other intentions are to obvious.
 
Very much like with all that sound-alike „physics“ the advertizing did a darn good job in getting people oft tracks. Just in case someone was really under the impression that a recording was even steering in the direction of replicating a concert, I would say, get yourself a better stereo. For me other intentions are to obvious.
"Just in case someone was really under the impression that a recording was even steering in the direction of replicating a concert ..."
My reference here is classical music.
The main point is that no recording sounds as good as good seats in a live concert hall. That does not mean any recording should try to replicate concert hall sound, but at its best, where best means good seats in a hall with great acoustics, live sound represents a gold standard in sound quality.
While reading here about hifi equipment measurement and considering a speaker upgrade, I realized that beyond a certain point in audio reproduction, the biggest variable isn't the equipment. Rather, the method used to record the music, as well as the acoustics of the concert hall or recording studio where the recording was made, weigh far more heavily in the equation.
1950s recordings made in Abbey Road studio, or on the Mercury Living Presence label, sound as good as any audiophile recording made today, in spite of technological gains in recording equipment.
And 1970s recordings are often the worst, because recording studio engineers thought they could balance the sound of an orchestra with close mic-ing of individual instruments and mixing the resulting multiple tracks to balance the sound. The recordings don't sound right, because acoustic classical instruments are not designed for listening at a very close distance.
And beyond this, the recording medium also matters greatly. To say that audiophile equipment won't improve an old 78 proves nothing, but how about an SACD versus a CD. To my ear, SACDs always sound great, although some of my CDs, but not all, also sound great. The difference might simply be the care taken in recording.
For all these reasons I likely won't upgrade my Totem Arro's. (For anyone thinking we're on a tangent, this is actually all about Totem, the title of the thread. :) )
I have an REW SPL graph of what my Totem speakers put out. Would that be beneficial to anyone in advising me on the benefits of a speaker upgrade?
(I have no doubt that better speakers exist, but it's a question of diminishing returns for money spent. I am not unhappy with the current setup.)
 
Back
Top Bottom