Barefoot Footprint 01 Review (Studio Monitor)

[mrmoizy]

$4k should buy better performance, but $1k strikes me as unrealistic. A pair includes around $250 of raw drivers, a stereo 150W amp, a stereo 500W amp, passive XO components, DSP, cabinets, and packaging. Plus R&D, assembly, QA, & support/warranty costs. And dealer profit, as Barefoot's not internet-direct. How long could Barefoot stay in business at $1000/pair?

That's the thing, if you're not manufacturing at scale, procuring parts at a good scale, then the costs creep into the retail price. Those parts I linked are the retail value - scale manufacturers wouldn't pay even half those prices for similar components. $1000 isn't much for active studio monitors, but haven't there been active monitors reviewed here that outperform these, yet come in at or below the $1000 mark? Their pricing seems high for the performance and functionality they provide, that's all I'm saying.

 

[3125b]

And the KH310 is another similarly priced option if you want a comparable 3-way.

I'm not here to defend these speakers, there are issues and they should be better for 4.000$.
I don't know about the much cheaper 8050B, but the KH 310A certainly have these beat at a comparable price point. And they have the SPL capability that these (and many other active monitors) lack.

@amirm
You have tested quite a few active monitors now. If you can recall and would care to answer: wich of them have you liked best subjectively, disregarding price?
Thanks!

 

[amirm]

This review, and a few others recently, prompted me to create an ID to post a message. I am drawn to this site by one word: 'science'. Interpretations & opinions are a dime a dozen but science in measurement gives us information that helps us decide for ourselves. Generally the conclusions here have aligned with the science. Lately it seems to be drifting. This speaker is an example.

• $3995/pair (well above average)
• Frequency Response (3 significant issues)
• Reflections (2 significant issues)
• In-Room Response (one issue)
• Beamwidth (2 significant issues)
• Directivity (uneven)
• Near field response (needs correction)
• Bass (distorted)
• Waterfall (resonances)
• Listening (all fields have issues, odd spatial effects)
• EQ (4 points, above average)
• Near-field listening is very good with EQ (subjective)

Conclusion

• Recommended (?)

You forgot one thing: preference score of 6.0. That is partially driven by good bass extension. While many monitors run out of power in bass in my testing, this one did not.

While I personally don't put huge value on preference score, directionally it is a good objective metric which would be at odds with your conclusion.

To be sure, this speaker was headed toward a "I don't know" panther until I listened to it near-field. It sound very good there. My rule is that I am never going to put down an audio product sounds good to me. Doing so would be lying about my observations of an audio product.

 

[amirm]

@amirm
You have tested quite a few active monitors now. If you can recall and would care to answer: wich of them have you liked best subjectively, disregarding price?

I am terrible at remembering all that I have tested. But for some reason, a couple stay in my mind. Neumann KH310 is one. And JBL 708P is another.

 

[respice finem]

...To be sure, this speaker was headed toward a "I don't know" panther until I listened to it near-field. It sound very good there. My rule is that I am never going to put down an audio product sounds good to me. Doing so would be lying about my observations of an audio product.

Maybe it might be useful (in addition to the panthers) to create a more "granular" rating system, separately for objective performance, performance vs. price, listening in nearfield/midfield, etc. ?

 

[amirm]

If those can be determined objectively, then members that are maintaining a database for speakers can add them. If you mean me scoring them that way, I just can't as I don't remember what all I have tested. Nor do I have the side by side to compare.

The current rating is simple: I weigh everything I have learned from evaluating and measuring a speaker, think about it for a few minutes and render a verdict. In general, this rating does NOT take into account the cost as that is outside of the performance of a product. There are exceptions of course such as a very expensive product being badly designed.

 

[respice finem]

What I think would be the single most beneficial to potential buyers: a rating like "would I buy this item for this price", and "what would I buy instead for this purpose". Would not earn much love with many manufacturers, I know, but it doesn't already

 

[infinitesymphony]

What I think would be the single most beneficial to potential buyers: a rating like "would I buy this item for this price", and "what would I buy instead for this purpose". Would not earn much love with many manufacturers, I know, but it doesn't already

That's the magic formula. Initially we thought Olive PPR vs. price might be enough, but because PPR doesn't take distortion / max SPL into account it's not a useful metric by itself. It's also possible to EQ a speaker to improve its Olive PPR score.

So, for anyone trying to create a formula, it needs to weigh the best theoretical post-EQ Olive PPR vs. distortion vs. cost (and each of these need to be assigned relative values and proportional weights). Frequency extension and self-noise (i.e. "hiss") could be left up to use case and personal preference.

In the meantime, @MZKM's Performance : Price graphs are one of the best starting points, although at least for me the speaker names are getting difficult to read due to the small size.

 

[sarumbear]

The current rating is simple: I weigh everything I have learned from evaluating and measuring a speaker, think about it for a few minutes and render a verdict. In general, this rating does NOT take into account the cost as that is outside of the performance of a product. There are exceptions of course such as a very expensive product being badly designed.

The reason I like ASR is because the rating is that simple. I want to know the product for myself. I don’t know @amirm nor his tastes. What he thinks is a good sound may not be good for me. I can’t rely on a subjective viewer, unless you know the person, in person. However, what @amirm measures will be almost the same who ever measures it. I can rely on his data. It’s objective.

The panthers brings in a bit of fun but I never consider them a rating element.

 

[dfuller]

I think I may end up getting rid of mine. Not because of the sound (in nearfield, they sound quite good) but because the bit @amirm mentioned about exciting room modes made something click. They're exciting a really bad mode in the direction the woofers fire. It's not something I necessarily anticipated when I bought them.

 

[sarumbear]

I think I may end up getting rid of mine. Not because of the sound (in nearfield, they sound quite good) but because the bit @amirm mentioned about exciting room modes made something click. They're exciting a really bad mode in the direction the woofers fire. It's not something I necessarily anticipated when I bought them.

Room modes at frequencies the woofers operate would be exited however the orientation of the drive units will be as the wavelength is much larger than the speakers enclosure.

 

[flipflop]

I think I may end up getting rid of mine. Not because of the sound (in nearfield, they sound quite good) but because the bit @amirm mentioned about exciting room modes made something click. They're exciting a really bad mode in the direction the woofers fire. It's not something I necessarily anticipated when I bought them.

Why don't you just EQ out the room mode?

 

[HammerSandwich]

To be sure, this speaker was headed toward a "I don't know" panther until I listened to it near-field. It sound very good there. My rule is that I am never going to put down an audio product sounds good to me.

Makes sense to me to recommend products when they work well with usage/environment which suits their abilities. Otherwise, you could recommend nothing, because nothing works well in every possible situation. Especially speakers.

 

[stevenswall]

If bass extension can carry this poor directivity, nearfield only, ragged response speaker to a 6... man, looks like bass extension is underrated.

 

[digitalfrost]

I did a bit of digging as I was curious about the drivers chosen. They all looked rather familiar. As far as I can see the drivers are basically:

• Bass: Tymphany/Peeless SLS 830667
• Mid: Dayton Reference Series RS100
• Tweeter: Tymphany/Vifa XT25SC90

These are all what you would call high value low cost drivers, and good choices. Each punches above its weight, but they are pretty cheap.
A mid/tweeter crossover of 3600Hz is pushing things.

I have these peerless woofers and built multiple subwoofer designs with them. They need a lot of volume as they have high Qts, and that enclosure is definitely much too small for these. That is probably the reason why they used DSP for the woofers - they absolutely require it to work in this enclosure.

For the price these are absolutely not for me. I realize there are a lot of overhead costs in running a speaker company and the drivers in other expensive speakers probably were quite cheap as well, but 4k for this, I don't see it.

 

[617]

If you want a hipster approved MUSA monitor the Mesanovic RTM 10 is going to be way better. Costs quite a bit more, but what kind of person puts money ahead of art? Not me.

FYI the JBL 70* series are made in Mexico and the Neumanns are made in Ireland.

Genelecs are made by these people in Iisalmi, Finland:
http://www.ziogiorgio.com/images/2008/30gen2.jpg

 

[sarumbear]

If you want a hipster approved MUSA monitor the Mesanovic RTM 10 is going to be way better. Costs quite a bit more, but what kind of person puts money ahead of art? Not me.

https://www.kmraudio.com/mesanovic-rtm10-studio-monitor-pair.php
It looks like they took the idea but said, one larger monitor is cheaper to produce, sod the opposing forces, and really it should be a 3-way with DSP in order to have a flat response from that tweeter

 

[dfuller]

Why don't you just EQ out the room mode?

I have it notched on my EQ already, but even with the amount of absorption I have in my room it just isn't enough.

Room modes at frequencies the woofers operate would be exited however the orientation of the drive units will be as the wavelength is much larger than the speakers enclosure.

While this is true, it's far worse with these than it is with other speakers I've owned in the same room which certainly had enough extension to get down that low (it's around 77-78hz, an Eb2), all of which were front firing.

 

[H-713]

You forgot one thing: preference score of 6.0. That is partially driven by good bass extension. While many monitors run out of power in bass in my testing, this one did not.

While I personally don't put huge value on preference score, directionally it is a good objective metric which would be at odds with your conclusion.

To be sure, this speaker was headed toward a "I don't know" panther until I listened to it near-field. It sound very good there. My rule is that I am never going to put down an audio product sounds good to me. Doing so would be lying about my observations of an audio product.

The last point is key here, which is that a listening test can still be valid. In this case, it seems as though any "issues" this speaker has do not cause a significant problem in its intended use case (nearfield).

You can always fix issues and make it perfect, but sometimes those "issues", for one reason or another, are not worth fixing.

 

[Deleted member 12642]

If you want a hipster approved MUSA monitor the Mesanovic RTM 10 is going to be way better. Costs quite a bit more, but what kind of person puts money ahead of art? Not me.

FYI the JBL 70* series are made in Mexico and the Neumanns are made in Ireland.

Genelecs are made by these people in Iisalmi, Finland:
http://www.ziogiorgio.com/images/2008/30gen2.jpg

My KH80's said made in Chile.

These speakers seem like the would go well with the BLA revolution, another made in America product with lackluster performance.