My initial feeling at the start of this thread was "an A65+ can't drive Rainmakers". The Rainmaker is the better speaker, but its requirements further up the chain are far greater. The Dreamcatcher is much easier to drive and so it's more likely that this is why you prefer the Dreamcatcher.
Of course, each speaker has a different voice so it's perfectly possible that you simply do prefer the presentation of the Dreamcatcher, but I sincerely doubt it.
The other Totem that may be worth a visit is the Mite. This is slightly larger than the Dreamcatcher and easier to drive so it may suit the A65+ best. That said, I've had very 50/50 results with the Mite from many demos so you may still prefer the Dreamcatcher.
In the same way as the Rainmaker, the B&W805 is well beyond the remit of the A65+. It's a very good speaker indeed, but needs better electronics to breathe properly and deliver its true performance.
Middling. They're harder to drive than Dreamcatchers, Mites, Sttafs or Hawks, but easier to drive than Rainmaker (I think), Model-1, Mani-2, Winds and Shamans.
I struggled with the Rainmaker. Eventually I decided that the Arro is the easier to drive based on an experience I had when I moved up from an Avi integrated to a Naim 202/200 and the difference showed that the Rainmaker had been stifled whereas I knew the Arro would not have shown that difference and would have still been well driven in either case.
David, I haven't tried the 272 myself but the paper specifications would indicate that it should be able to drive them all day easily enough. I haven't heard the combination for myself so I cannot endorse it as a good combination.
I really wasn't sure it just seemed that the Rainmaker can reach it's potential with less current than the Arro's, in either case they both require an amp that will bring it, so to speak.
The Arro's when driven and setup properly have a 3 dimensional soundstage that is world class as well as very good imaging. They don't get particularly loud and don't play deep bass but what does come out of them is pretty amazing. The Rainmaker loses some of the magic of the Arro's soundstage and imaging and trades them in on a beefier sound, more bass and can rock. Don't get me wrong they still do a very good job at the audiophiile qualities that I mentioned, they just can't do the kind of disappearing act that the Arro's can.
Interesting. Thanks Art. Funny thing is, a lot of people and reviewers say the Arros aren't a good rock speaker. My experience tells me otherwise. They're lightning quick, tanally accurate, can be very dynamic when set up right and played at an appropriate volume, and while somewhat restricted in depth, the bass is tuneful and very tight. How do those qualities not equal playing rock music the right way?
The first time I heard them was one of the few times I was awe-struck by audio gear. I didn't know anything about them before that. The first two tracks were "The Great Gig in the Sky" followed by "Time."
I think that the problem with reviewers is that they tend to put all rock in one box. A lot of speakers that rock quite nicely don't do metal well or ones that are ideal for metal may not be the best for another sub genre. Then there are speakers that do most everything well...