Totem Acoustics Rainmaker Speaker Review

[Floyd Toole]

Also add the interior design challenge of having multiple subwoofers in a combined living room, listening room.

Subwoofer cubes are not particularly beautiful. Which can be exemplified by the thread linked below. Currently; 227 pages with 4537 posts:

Most beautiful speakers in the world ?

audiosciencereview.com

But there is no thread on ASR called: Most beautiful sbwoofer in the world?

I have recently relocated from sunny Southern California to my old home of Ottawa Canada, leaving behind my superb home theater in a stand-alone house, and moving into a luxury condominium that better fits the life style and needs of an 86 year old. The room is smaller, 13 x 18 x 8 ft, the largest I could carve out of the allocated 2400 sq ft we now have. Being in a condo, sound transmission to our neighbors is a concern, so cinema sound levels are not possible (even 10 inches of concrete convey low frequencies) so I wanted subs with minimal mechanical vibration (opposing woofers) and small enough to be able to be located where they minimally energize room resonances. From prior experience and the Todd Welti modeling of passive multi-subwoofer solutions in rectangular rooms (which this is) it was clear that one of the best arrangements is to place subs 25% of the way from the walls - front, rear, and sides. In a small room this also places the subs close to the listeners - in the near-field - which is a second advantage to keeping room sound levels down. I had previously used Sonos subs in a second background music system and was impressed by how good they looked and how easy they were to place, but when looking around I discovered that one of my old Canadian manufacturing colleagues, Paradigm, had their Millenia subwoofer that seemed as though I might be well matched to my new purposes. The system is yet to be equalized, but with just two of these subs, located in very unobtrusive locations, the bass was surprisingly good - impressive in fact. A photo is attached, showing the sub tucked in on each side of a sofa. Room modes are very subdued, especially the side-to-side (lateral) modes, as theory would predict. The first order length mode is still in evidence, notably when one moves from the front seats to the rear seats, so I may well purchase two more to be located at the front of the room - I'll see what measurements and EQ can do first. My processor this time is not an elaborate Trinnov based unit, but an Anthem AVM-90, again from my old NRCC day colleagues. It has what is reported to be an effective EQ scheme.

So, depending on your room, lifestyle, and living circumstances, a little lateral thinking may provide more alternatives to the knee-jerk locations against walls, using rectangular box subs. A single monster sub is not a good solution for anyone. Multiple subs can be smaller - there are gains in efficiency.

 

[celroid]

I have recently relocated from sunny Southern California to my old home of Ottawa Canada, leaving behind my superb home theater in a stand-alone house, and moving into a luxury condominium that better fits the life style and needs of an 86 year old. The room is smaller, 13 x 18 x 8 ft, the largest I could carve out of the allocated 2400 sq ft we now have. Being in a condo, sound transmission to our neighbors is a concern, so cinema sound levels are not possible (even 10 inches of concrete convey low frequencies) so I wanted subs with minimal mechanical vibration (opposing woofers) and small enough to be able to be located where they minimally energize room resonances. From prior experience and the Todd Welti modeling of passive multi-subwoofer solutions in rectangular rooms (which this is) it was clear that one of the best arrangements is to place subs 25% of the way from the walls - front, rear, and sides. In a small room this also places the subs close to the listeners - in the near-field - which is a second advantage to keeping room sound levels down. I had previously used Sonos subs in a second background music system and was impressed by how good they looked and how easy they were to place, but when looking around I discovered that one of my old Canadian manufacturing colleagues, Paradigm, had their Millenia subwoofer that seemed as though I might be well matched to my new purposes. The system is yet to be equalized, but with just two of these subs, located in very unobtrusive locations, the bass was surprisingly good - impressive in fact. A photo is attached, showing the sub tucked in on each side of a sofa. Room modes are very subdued, especially the side-to-side (lateral) modes, as theory would predict. The first order length mode is still in evidence, notably when one moves from the front seats to the rear seats, so I may well purchase two more to be located at the front of the room - I'll see what measurements and EQ can do first. My processor this time is not an elaborate Trinnov based unit, but an Anthem AVM-90, again from my old NRCC day colleagues. It has what is reported to be an effective EQ scheme.

So, depending on your room, lifestyle, and living circumstances, a little lateral thinking may provide more alternatives to the knee-jerk locations against walls, using rectangular box subs. A single monster sub is not a good solution for anyone. Multiple subs can be smaller - there are gains in efficiency.

This is such a wholesome post, thank you. I really like the look of that Millenia subwoofer next to the sofa, fits perfectly under that glass table.

 

[DanielT]

I have recently relocated from sunny Southern California to my old home of Ottawa Canada, leaving behind my superb home theater in a stand-alone house, and moving into a luxury condominium that better fits the life style and needs of an 86 year old. The room is smaller, 13 x 18 x 8 ft, the largest I could carve out of the allocated 2400 sq ft we now have. Being in a condo, sound transmission to our neighbors is a concern, so cinema sound levels are not possible (even 10 inches of concrete convey low frequencies) so I wanted subs with minimal mechanical vibration (opposing woofers) and small enough to be able to be located where they minimally energize room resonances. From prior experience and the Todd Welti modeling of passive multi-subwoofer solutions in rectangular rooms (which this is) it was clear that one of the best arrangements is to place subs 25% of the way from the walls - front, rear, and sides. In a small room this also places the subs close to the listeners - in the near-field - which is a second advantage to keeping room sound levels down. I had previously used Sonos subs in a second background music system and was impressed by how good they looked and how easy they were to place, but when looking around I discovered that one of my old Canadian manufacturing colleagues, Paradigm, had their Millenia subwoofer that seemed as though I might be well matched to my new purposes. The system is yet to be equalized, but with just two of these subs, located in very unobtrusive locations, the bass was surprisingly good - impressive in fact. A photo is attached, showing the sub tucked in on each side of a sofa. Room modes are very subdued, especially the side-to-side (lateral) modes, as theory would predict. The first order length mode is still in evidence, notably when one moves from the front seats to the rear seats, so I may well purchase two more to be located at the front of the room - I'll see what measurements and EQ can do first. My processor this time is not an elaborate Trinnov based unit, but an Anthem AVM-90, again from my old NRCC day colleagues. It has what is reported to be an effective EQ scheme.

So, depending on your room, lifestyle, and living circumstances, a little lateral thinking may provide more alternatives to the knee-jerk locations against walls, using rectangular box subs. A single monster sub is not a good solution for anyone. Multiple subs can be smaller - there are gains in efficiency.

Thanks for sharing your current setup. It seems like a smart solution considering, for example, taking neighbors into account. Damn interesting I must say. I'll think about your solution and see if I can do something similar regarding the subs in my apartment.

You said in #373: Bass in small rooms can be managed, and it must because low frequency performance accounts for about 30% of our overall assessment of sound quality.
Here, somewhat unexpectedly, the iconic Sex Pistols singer John Lydon/Johnny Rotten advocates bass heavy music AND good speakers, HiFi equipment. From 2:07 to 3:50 in the video:

Maybe OT to post that video but I somehow found it amusing when an anarchist iconic punk advocates good speakers. I couldn't have guessed that. Prejudice on my part I guess.

 

[dftkell]

I have recently relocated from sunny Southern California to my old home of Ottawa Canada, leaving behind my superb home theater in a stand-alone house, and moving into a luxury condominium that better fits the life style and needs of an 86 year old. The room is smaller, 13 x 18 x 8 ft, the largest I could carve out of the allocated 2400 sq ft we now have. Being in a condo, sound transmission to our neighbors is a concern, so cinema sound levels are not possible (even 10 inches of concrete convey low frequencies) so I wanted subs with minimal mechanical vibration (opposing woofers) and small enough to be able to be located where they minimally energize room resonances. From prior experience and the Todd Welti modeling of passive multi-subwoofer solutions in rectangular rooms (which this is) it was clear that one of the best arrangements is to place subs 25% of the way from the walls - front, rear, and sides. In a small room this also places the subs close to the listeners - in the near-field - which is a second advantage to keeping room sound levels down. I had previously used Sonos subs in a second background music system and was impressed by how good they looked and how easy they were to place, but when looking around I discovered that one of my old Canadian manufacturing colleagues, Paradigm, had their Millenia subwoofer that seemed as though I might be well matched to my new purposes. The system is yet to be equalized, but with just two of these subs, located in very unobtrusive locations, the bass was surprisingly good - impressive in fact. A photo is attached, showing the sub tucked in on each side of a sofa. Room modes are very subdued, especially the side-to-side (lateral) modes, as theory would predict. The first order length mode is still in evidence, notably when one moves from the front seats to the rear seats, so I may well purchase two more to be located at the front of the room - I'll see what measurements and EQ can do first. My processor this time is not an elaborate Trinnov based unit, but an Anthem AVM-90, again from my old NRCC day colleagues. It has what is reported to be an effective EQ scheme.

So, depending on your room, lifestyle, and living circumstances, a little lateral thinking may provide more alternatives to the knee-jerk locations against walls, using rectangular box subs. A single monster sub is not a good solution for anyone. Multiple subs can be smaller - there are gains in efficiency.

I enjoyed reading your book and I've gone back and reread many parts over the years. I also loved seeing pictures of the home theater setup in your SoCal home in the online article. Would you consider giving us a photo tour of your new, smaller HT? I would love to see how it ended up and what your decisions and considerations were both for audio and video. (Could be in this thread, or perhaps in a new thread?) Thanks!!!

 

[Floyd Toole]

I enjoyed reading your book and I've gone back and reread many parts over the years. I also loved seeing pictures of the home theater setup in your SoCal home in the online article. Would you consider giving us a photo tour of your new, smaller HT? I would love to see how it ended up and what your decisions and considerations were both for audio and video. (Could be in this thread, or perhaps in a new thread?) Thanks!!!

I'll think about it. I have not had time to finalize the setup, but when it is "done", I may post a description. I suspect a lot of forum members live in multiple dwellings and face the same issues I do. Thanks for the thought.

 

[Artsfols]

Back in the days when LPs were the source of programs for listening tests, when I was a research scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and took little for granted, I investigated what could be done to maximize the sound quality from LPs. It was a learning exercise, and I documented most of it in articles written in the Canadian audio magazines - the good old days . . . The research is summarized in the 4th edition of my book (due later this year), and some of original articles will be in the companion website. It is evident to me that a great many people today don't understand how LPs are created and played and the simple fact that it is a very non-linear process, with significant "art" involved in the very compromised "LP mastering" exercise.

Long story short: LPs do not and cannot replicate what is on the master tape: the original art. What is heard is a significantly modified, noisy, distorted version. I made a test recording and compared what went in to what came out - they are different. Distortions of all kinds in whole percentages, noise that was not subtle.

One of the saddest facts of the LP era is something that Phil Ramone told me (Google him - he is a somebody). He said that a senior person supervising the priceless archives of master recordings (analog tape at the time) decided that LPs were the final stage of audio evolution and to save tape he preserved the LP cutting tapes and sent the masters back to be recorded over. The masters of those performances were lost and what was saved was the manipulated version created to drive the cutting head making the original lacquers. These have mono bass (to prevent the stylus from being thrown out of the groove), modified spectrum and dynamic range so that the grooves could be closer together (playing time) , rolled-off high frequencies near the centre of the record (to minimize stylus tracing and tracking distortions when groove velocity drops). It is no surprise that some comparisons between LP and CD versions had puzzling results. When the best LP playback is compared to the master tape from which is is created, it is a different experience - the master wins. Digital copies of the analog master tapes are indistinguishable from them. Today all masters that matter are digital. End of story.

All else is nostalgia, imagination, and folklore. We have moved on, but old things still have fascinations. I like some old cars, but would never argue that they are as good as their modern versions. Nice for a Sunday drive.

I am catching up, and not sure if I read this post before. (I may have already responded).
In terms of evaluating sound quality subjectively ... there is nothing like the human voice. I have a small collection of recent vinyl and I play it mainly for nostalgic reasons, now and then. When I do ...it sounds fantastic. Yesterday I played Jacob Collier's Djesse, volume 4. The record contains a duet with Lindsay McAlpine who is a very soft voiced singer (all the rage right now, i.e. Phoebe Bridgers, Billy Eilish) but with incredible colour to her voice. She sounds great on vinyl. Why? It might be subjective.

Or, as a conjecture, how do we know that DACs don't flip bits and what happens if they do? Would a frequency response curve pick that up? Could that account for the warm sound of vinyl in comparison? Tests generally involve tones and not music and that bothers me a bit. Your post on LP fidelity relies on a source to output comparison. There is no better way to test and your comments are completely believeable. Do modern speaker test measurements make source to output comparisons, or just rely on generated tones?

 

[Artsfols]

As I said, with the digital horsepower that is now widely available binaural/transaural signal processing is readily accomplished, and BACCH is one version. Harman continues to use versions of spatial processing in multichannel automotive audio systems. All such systems rely on knowing where the listeners are seated with respect to the loudspeakers. There is still a "stereo seat". The current high interest in binaural processing is for headphone presentation.

I currently have 7 channels, three fronts in the normal locations, two sides that have been located at around +/- 60 deg - i.e. what is called the "front -wide" location, and two rears at around +/- 135 deg. This suits my personal listening preferences, where envelopment is given priority over the appearance of an occasional gunshot or special effect off to the side. I have tired of "blockbuster" films where loudness and special effects compensate for limp story lines and character development. This is a new setup in a new dwelling, and I may not bother with elevation loudspeakers this time - for much the same reason. The key to a truly compelling listening experience is properly set up multiple subwoofers that tame room resonances. Bass is about 30% of the overall impression of sound quality.

I have been fortunate to have had two wives that appreciated the acoustic and visual results sufficiently to accept that multiple loudspeakers are part of achieving it. In terms of "selling" the need, I have found that apart from a few movies, that there are several compelling and very entertaining music concert videos that most people have never experienced. A large video display and multichannel sound with multiple subs are the enablers. My Kaleidescape collection of videos contains a high percentage of concerts and I enjoy playing "disc jockey" with it, extracting musical selections from concerts and movies. It is quality entertainment.

As I mentioned, I have a 3.1 system. Would 2 "wides" help? I have no place to put rear speakers. The room is 12 x 10 feet. Current speakers along one long wall. What if I added 2 speakers about 5 feet along each side? And then, likely the main reason this would never work, what channels would I feed to them?

 

[amirm]

Or, as a conjecture, how do we know that DACs don't flip bits and what happens if they do?

If it is the higher order bits, it would cause massive corruption that would show up in every test I run. If it is the low order bits, then tests like linearity catch it even though with real music it may not batter as it can't use the full 24 bit dynamic range.

 

[Artsfols]

I have recently relocated from sunny Southern California to my old home of Ottawa Canada, leaving behind my superb home theater in a stand-alone house, and moving into a luxury condominium that better fits the life style and needs of an 86 year old. The room is smaller, 13 x 18 x 8 ft, the largest I could carve out of the allocated 2400 sq ft we now have. Being in a condo, sound transmission to our neighbors is a concern, so cinema sound levels are not possible (even 10 inches of concrete convey low frequencies) so I wanted subs with minimal mechanical vibration (opposing woofers) and small enough to be able to be located where they minimally energize room resonances. From prior experience and the Todd Welti modeling of passive multi-subwoofer solutions in rectangular rooms (which this is) it was clear that one of the best arrangements is to place subs 25% of the way from the walls - front, rear, and sides. In a small room this also places the subs close to the listeners - in the near-field - which is a second advantage to keeping room sound levels down. I had previously used Sonos subs in a second background music system and was impressed by how good they looked and how easy they were to place, but when looking around I discovered that one of my old Canadian manufacturing colleagues, Paradigm, had their Millenia subwoofer that seemed as though I might be well matched to my new purposes. The system is yet to be equalized, but with just two of these subs, located in very unobtrusive locations, the bass was surprisingly good - impressive in fact. A photo is attached, showing the sub tucked in on each side of a sofa. Room modes are very subdued, especially the side-to-side (lateral) modes, as theory would predict. The first order length mode is still in evidence, notably when one moves from the front seats to the rear seats, so I may well purchase two more to be located at the front of the room - I'll see what measurements and EQ can do first. My processor this time is not an elaborate Trinnov based unit, but an Anthem AVM-90, again from my old NRCC day colleagues. It has what is reported to be an effective EQ scheme.

So, depending on your room, lifestyle, and living circumstances, a little lateral thinking may provide more alternatives to the knee-jerk locations against walls, using rectangular box subs. A single monster sub is not a good solution for anyone. Multiple subs can be smaller - there are gains in efficiency.

If it is the higher order bits, it would cause massive corruption that would show up in every test I run. If it is the low order bits, then tests like linearity catch it even though with real music it may not batter as it can't use the full 24 bit dynamic range.

I need to know more about encoding to even ask the question intelligently. Flipping bits was not a good way to put it. I think the question is if you went D to A, then took the acoustic output and encoded it back to D, how close would the original source digital stream match the output digital stream? (And when I say A, I mean line out to line in, not through speakers.)

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I need to know more about encoding to even ask the question intelligently. Flipping bits was not a good way to put it. I think the question is if you went D to A, then took the acoustic output and encoded it back to D, how close would the original source digital stream match the output digital stream? (And when I say A, I mean line out to line in, not through speakers.)

Already done some time ago by @Blumlein 88 not once, but eight times!

Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

...that is the best take on the subject I have seen so far... ...it is clear to any thinking person that there are asspects involved we have no way to measure... ...it was just stated there are only three asspects measured at the current state of the art...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Artsfols]

Already done some time ago by @Blumlein 88 not once, but eight times!

Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

...that is the best take on the subject I have seen so far... ...it is clear to any thinking person that there are asspects involved we have no way to measure... ...it was just stated there are only three asspects measured at the current state of the art...

audiosciencereview.com

I think the suggestion here is to listen to the audio output after 8 loops?
What I'd like to see is a comparison of the digital output after, well, 8 loops will do.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I think the suggestion here is to listen to the audio output after 8 loops?
What I'd like to see is a comparison of the digital output after, well, 8 loops will do.

TL;DR the difference is inaudible

 

[Artsfols]

TL;DR the difference is inaudible

Of course it is, and a hearing test is subjective and limited. That's why you should compare D to D. (And yes, I have no idea how that is done.) I suspect it would be very close, and probably just reflect noise in going A to A, but it would be interesting.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

(And yes, I have no idea how that is done.)

A real benefit of ASR is that it is chock-full of people who know how to do these tests, and they have taken the time to do the tests, and they have shared the results with us all. It takes a bit of reading, experimenting and asking questions, but you can learn how to do this sort of testing yourself!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Of course it is, and a hearing test is subjective and limited. That's why you should compare D to D. (And yes, I have no idea how that is done.) I suspect it would be very close, and probably just reflect noise in going A to A, but it would be interesting.

I looked at this somewhat with those 8th generation files. Distortion increased a small amount around the level you would expect from the gear used. Noise increased just about as you would predict. The noise floor would become audible before other aspects of it would if you continued doing more loopbacks.

I don't know if you are aware of pkane's Deltawave software. Lets you do null tests using music. So you can compare loopbacks, find out what the difference is and listen to that difference. I don't remember where the post is, but I used that and some recordings of speakers. The results are not great. However, I used various positioning of the microphones and clearly that made for much of the difference or more specifically how much room reflection corrupted the sound. I also at one time recorded the same song over my living room system with various miking techniques and let people hear it. It primarily demonstrated the ways that microphones don't hear like human ears. One of the large issues is our ears have a way of filtering out nearly all early reflections. So mostly direct sound is what we hear.

When you record speakers and then play the recording you hear the reflections clearly because in the recording they are coming from the speaker and our ears cannot filter it out since it is in the source. It is quite amazing that we don't hear those as they are substantial.

 

[testp]

It is quite amazing that we don't hear those as they are substantial.

its all subjective, but substantially better or worse/wierd..?

 

[Blumlein 88]

its all subjective, but substantially better or worse/wierd..?

Substantially worse and weird. It is something like if reverb were turned way up too far on the recordings. Way too far. If you are imagining hey a little more reverb or reflective space might help some recordings it is too much for that.

 

[Artsfols]

I looked at this somewhat with those 8th generation files. Distortion increased a small amount around the level you would expect from the gear used. Noise increased just about as you would predict. The noise floor would become audible before other aspects of it would if you continued doing more loopbacks.

I don't know if you are aware of pkane's Deltawave software. Lets you do null tests using music. So you can compare loopbacks, find out what the difference is and listen to that difference. I don't remember where the post is, but I used that and some recordings of speakers. The results are not great. However, I used various positioning of the microphones and clearly that made for much of the difference or more specifically how much room reflection corrupted the sound. I also at one time recorded the same song over my living room system with various miking techniques and let people hear it. It primarily demonstrated the ways that microphones don't hear like human ears. One of the large issues is our ears have a way of filtering out nearly all early reflections. So mostly direct sound is what we hear.

When you record speakers and then play the recording you hear the reflections clearly because in the recording they are coming from the speaker and our ears cannot filter it out since it is in the source. It is quite amazing that we don't hear those as they are substantial.

That is fascinating stuff. My problem is that I am curious but have so many subjects that I study out of interest, I am not sure I should do another deep dive. I think I would rather enjoy the fruits based on the bottom line and let someone else do the hard work. But I will look into the leads you provided here.

 

[Artsfols]

Substantially worse and weird. It is something like if reverb were turned way up too far on the recordings. Way too far. If you are imagining hey a little more reverb or reflective space might help some recordings it is too much for that.

If you ever record a voice in a busy restaurant or office, you realize how much we filter out background chatter and noise. I suspect this is the same effect as you have encountered. Thankfully, as I have 7x24 pulsatile tinnitus but still enjoy music a lot.

 

[Mnyb]

I looked at this somewhat with those 8th generation files. Distortion increased a small amount around the level you would expect from the gear used. Noise increased just about as you would predict. The noise floor would become audible before other aspects of it would if you continued doing more loopbacks.

I don't know if you are aware of pkane's Deltawave software. Lets you do null tests using music. So you can compare loopbacks, find out what the difference is and listen to that difference. I don't remember where the post is, but I used that and some recordings of speakers. The results are not great. However, I used various positioning of the microphones and clearly that made for much of the difference or more specifically how much room reflection corrupted the sound. I also at one time recorded the same song over my living room system with various miking techniques and let people hear it. It primarily demonstrated the ways that microphones don't hear like human ears. One of the large issues is our ears have a way of filtering out nearly all early reflections. So mostly direct sound is what we hear.

When you record speakers and then play the recording you hear the reflections clearly because in the recording they are coming from the speaker and our ears cannot filter it out since it is in the source. It is quite amazing that we don't hear those as they are substantial.

+1 …..and still people are are comparing DAC’s or amps with in room recordings of speakers sound on YouTube.

Or any speaker sound recorded on YouTube ?

And actual recordings, it can’t be stated enough that microphones are not ears you can not really document an acoustic event as a human mind hears the same event . Great production with the tools of the trade makes enjoyable ”fakes” that apear realistic over speakers, that’s also awesome that it actually works reasonably well.

But science knows some things about the human ear brain system I think hence a question.

Is there any plugin or sfx trying to mimic the human hearing and apply this filtering to a microphone signal ?
For headphones only there are these dummy head recordings that smartly moves the process to your own personal filter in your brain.

Simplest attempt to make microphones pick up the ”essential” stuff and disregard the ”unwanted” is probably different coverage patterns like omni or cardioids btw is not Blumlein an early stereo recording pioneer who invented a microphone placement technique among many other things ?

Just thinking if anyone has taken further steps like recording omni and have the polar pattern applied after the fact , but maybe the true directional information is lost ..