Rainmakers vs Hawk

I own the Rainmakers and have done a direct A/B comparison with the Hawks. If my budget allowed for it, I would have definitely chosen the Hawks over the Rainmakers as they have a much more pronounced mid-bass, which I personally find very enjoyable. However, the Rainmakers are a really great overall bookshelf speaker and there's nothing technically wrong with them. In my opinion, it really comes down to your budget. If price is not an issue, the Hawks are better. I just didn't think they were better enough to justify the large price jump. One thing that is worth adding, is that both speakers are very picky when it comes to the amp you pair them with. I'm using an NAD c375bee which is fine, but I've also listened to both speakers with a Rogue Audio Cronus Magnum (int tube amp with 90wpc) and the difference was drastic--much more lively with a huge soundstage and fantastic imaging. Once I can afford it, I will upgrade to tubes.

I've listened to both the Rainmakers and the Hawks. In fact, I had the Hawks in my HT system for a couple years. The Rainmakers have a surprisingly full sound for a speaker of its size, but does so with mid-bass exaggeration and some degree of congestion with louder passages. The Hawk is a much better speaker, with both better clarity and LF extension. In Totem's lineup, I like the Hawks and Arros best.

I used the Hawks in my HT system, without a subwoofer, to good effect. No real complaints, except I felt that Totems center channel speaker I was using wasn't as articulate as I'm would have liked. So I went with all PSB for my HT. Ive never heard of problems using Hawks with HT, BTW.

Hope that helps.

Michael

Has anyone used the hawks for movies in addition to music. I was going to buy the hawks until I talked to totem and they said that you had to crossover to a sub at 60hz to protect the Hawk's woofer. I don't have a sub and so that was the end of that. Although, I guess I could have just bought a cheap sub for movies if I was really worried about hurting the speakers. I guess I am just interested in other peoples experience.

Ask a simple question, get a thousand answers...these threads are becoming like Chinese proverbs...
the Rainmakers are an extremely nice sounding $1000 standmount...and whoever says nasally has not connected them to the right gear, for they are nothing of the sort. You don't mention your gear, but connect them to something like a Nait 5i integrated and you would be so happy. for $1075 and $1600 or so, you'd be well served.
The Hawks are fuller, and just give you more than the Rainmakers. No depth? ha...connect them properly, and they'll disappear and give that crazy holographic audiophile image some can't do without. Go listen for yourself...you'll never understand the rain if you listen to a thousand raindrops...

I can't tell you Hawks vs Rainmaker but I can tell you if you can swing it go to the Forests.
I have the Shamans,Winds and Forest and they have difference drivers than the Hawks and all the Totem products. I tried the Hawks and sold them right away.
They have no depth.

Yes, if you are just powering two channels out of the NAD 747 it should drive the Hawks just fine. BTW I agree with the other posters, the Hawks are the sweet spot in the entire Totem line -- they have a beautiful, well integrated sound top to bottom, whereas the Rainmakers are less coherent and a bit nasal IMHO.

do you think my nad 747 would be enough for the Hawks?
NAD 747 rated:
7 X 60 watts Simultaneous Full Disclosure Power
7 X 120 watts Minimum Continuous Power (FTC)

The Hawks for sure... Infact I would put the Hawks against the entire Totem line up. They are that impressive!

The Hawk are the best value in the Totem line up.

I heard the Rainmaker and I did own in the past the Model 1, Hawk and Mani-2 Signature.

The Rainmaker are ok but the Hawk are at another level.