Totem Rainmakers vs Sttaf

To answer your question of Rainmaker vs Mite's, the Rainmaker has better LF extension, a touch better in the midrange, and better "fullness". That said, the Mites sound very, very good for the price, and I would say clearly represent an alternative to the Rainmakers.

I have listened to all Totem speakers except the Model One, and as high value as all of Totem's speakers are, nothing quite beats the Rainmaker and Mites in the price/performance ratio (not even the Arro's).

I would make sure you listen to a couple of these speakers, and preferably under HT conditions.

Michael

Thanks for the feedback.

Unfortunately, the Hawk's are out of my price range. I'm comparing the two because, including the stands, they actually come out to very close to the same price. (About 1600CDN or 1300US.)

It was suggested to me by the sales guy, to put the Mite TC with the Sttaf's as the center, and to have the rainmaker center with the rainmakers L/R's. The rainmaker center is about 450 more then the Mite. Is there a noticeable difference? Is there any truth to 'matching' the center to the L/R's?

As for Sttaf vs. Rainmaker, it sounds like they are fairly close in performance, with maybe an edge to the rain. I will no doubt have to extensively audition both.

Thanks again.

I'm not familiar with the Rainmakers, but have owned a pair of Sttafs for 2 years now. I would recommend them to anyone. Here are some considerations:

- They are incredibly musical. They image as well as any speakers I've heard, and better than most (including Totems up the line, Vandersteen, GMA, Von Scheikerts, Regas, others). They totally disappear from the room, leaving only the musicians.
- They are very compact and use little floor space. Compared to Monitors with the addition of the stands, it's easier to place the Sttafs. Note, the Sttafs want to be out in the room to sound their best, not against a wall. I assume this also applies to the Rainmakers
- They are attractive. Moreso than a monitor/stand combo.
- Bass performance of the Sttaf is very good (actually excellent given their size), but if you're a freak for deep, deep bass like I am, they may leave you wanting (though this also goes for the Rainmakers). I added a Rel Storm III after a year with them. Integration was easy and is seamless. I can listen to them all day long.
- They will do well with the music preferences you indicate, I find them to be less satisfying for heavy Rock/Fusion than others I've heard (eg GMA Europa's), but they still do quite nicely even with that.

If you can afford to I would try and stretch for the hawk. I think its worth the extra money, and you probably would not need a sub with it. Basically you could buy it and probably never regret it.

From what I understand the Rainmaker is sounds like a bookshelf version of the hawk. But the drivers and tweeters (probably crossover as well) are a step down from the hawk.

The stfaf is their floor-stander that is supposed to be very component friendly. It will help mask bad equipment upstream. But because of that it can never be as resolving as some of the others.

That being said. if it was up to me and between those speakers I would buy the Rainmakers. Just make sure to get good stands, otherwise maybe the Staff would be a better choice.

As far as the sub goes. I have never been happy with sub/sat integration and will probably not bother with one (other than for HT duties).

Cheers,
Nick

The difference between the two speakers (besides the price) will be a slighly more delicate mid to high frequency response with the Sttaf's, and more fullness with the Rainmaker. You might actually get a subjectively better bass response with the Rainmaker, from my experience with the different speakers in the Totem line.

If it were me in a small apartment, I would just go with the Rainmakers and save a considerable amount of money. They are very hard to beat in the price/performance ratio department. Your NAD will drive them just fine.

Enjoy,

Michael