Barefoot Footprint 01 Review (Studio Monitor)

[richard12511]

I am no expert but somehow I guess the transient could be guessed or shown by distortion? coz normally the % distortion partly comes from the bleed from uncontrolled tone remainents from the tone played split second ago..

To my ears, transient response is mostly determined by the bass, which is mostly determined by the room, position(listener and transducers), and room EQ.

Distortion might play a small rose, I suppose, but the Neumanns seem to have lower distortion than the ATCs from what we've seen. We haven't seen the big ATCs, though.

Driver time alignment also may play a small role imo.

It's mostly the room and EQ though ime.

 

[YSC]

To my ears, transient response is mostly determined by the bass, which is mostly determined by the room, position(listener and transducers), and room EQ.

Distortion might play a small rose, I suppose, but the Neumanns seem to have lower distortion than the ATCs from what we've seen. We haven't seen the big ATCs, though.

Driver time alignment also may play a small role imo.

It's mostly the room and EQ though ime.

Right! this makes sense, and from my vague memory during tuning my 8030Cs with the dip switches I recall the bass from desktop mode to counter the huge peak centered at 150hz really makes a huge difference to transforming the sound from very boomy and muddy to tight bass

 

[FeddyLost]

The thing that stood out for me the most was how fast the speakers were. The way that I could hear the movement of the music with such clarity and cohesiveness was truly a paradigm shift for me

Try out 2-way PSI nearfields. They are also deserve some attention if you need cohesiveness and immediacy, but for sure they are cheaper and easier than ATC.
This "fast" quality that you mention is really tough to explain. You can try to connect Morel SCM634 carbon sandwitch midrange directly to good amp and check out if that's same "fastness".
I can induce great off-topic discussion, but it will barely help.

 

[KSTR]

On another note, I’m curious why frequency response and directivity get so much attention but rarely do I hear discussion about dynamics or transient response? Forgive me if I’m missing something… What measurement is done to determine how good a speaker is with dynamics? I’m truly asking to learn.

The null test gives the answer whether a speaker has dynamic issues of any sorts. The idea is to subtract the input signal from speakers output signal. There is a lot to consider here, the most important thing is that the input signal must be modifed before (and just for) subtraction to have the same frequency response of phase and magnitude than the speaker, otherwise the subtraction must fail. The difference signal highlights any form of compression (or outright clipping), distortion, thermal compression, and dynamic instabilities (which can play a much larger role than one might think).

When comparing different speaker for dynamics and "punch", it is absolutely paramount both are EQ'd to the minutely same frequency response (again, for phase and magnitude). Basically you have to do a full digital room correction (in an acoustically well-treated room to start with, mind you) before you can really compare dynamics in isolation.

 

[sarumbear]

I kind of agree and disagree for this. it's like food somehow, some ppl just put Tabasco on any food they ordered be it steak, noodles or pizza.. they are just addicted to that flavor of the sauce, but somehow I do think for music or food, we choose one to enjoy since we like the chef or the producer, so further tuning them defies the purpose. But yea, since this is a hobby, you can enjoy whatever you wanted with your money and absolutely no problem at all!

The issue is we are talking about music here. This is an audio forum where the High Fidelity of audio devices are measured and validated. If it had been about music, there can never be an objective test.

 

[morespinach]

I own a pair of these as well - they are definitely intended for nearfield and not midfield or farfield. Barefoot markets them as such.

Also - distortion graphs?

Yes but similar speakers from competitors like HEDD Type 07 or ideally Type 20… or Genelec 8341 or 8351 are pretty decent living room speakers.

 

[FeddyLost]

Yes but similar speakers

Opposite sealed side-firing LF is definitely not similar to any of mentioned speakers.
If they was crossed lower as in more expensive models, maybe they would be more suitable for home hi-fi also.

 

[Geekusa]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Barefoot Footprint 01 powered studio monitor (speaker). It is on kind loan from a member in Canada who sent it to me as fair bit of expense. The Footprint 01 costs US $3,950 a pair. Seems likes distribution is a bit limited as I did not find it at some of the major online retailers.

The Footprint 01 differs from its competitors in a number of ways starting with the "PA" enclosure material:

View attachment 130597

It is super dense material though so other than looking industrial, it seems like a decent choice.

Another departure is dual side-mounted woofers which are crossed at 250 Hz:
View attachment 130599

This is a common technique in subwoofers and larger tower speakers to take advantage of vibration cancellation. It worked as combined with the dense cabinet, I could only feel some vibration at the center of the cabinet and the back metal side only.

Note that despite being an active DSP speaker, that only applies to the woofer to mid-range transition (and bass response). The midrange and tweeter are driven by one amplifier so the crossover is passive! Seems like the wrong tradeoff to me as I rather get the midrange to tweeter right than the woofers which get messed with in the room anyway (so need external DSP for correction). But maybe they know something we don't.

Here is the back panel which departs yet again from the norm:
View attachment 130600

Notice the absence of universal dip switches to tailor the tonality of the speaker. It is replaced with a rotary control (not shown) that mimics a few other speakers/target responses (including distortion???). We also lack digital inputs which at this price range should probably be there.

----
Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I performed over 1000 measurement which resulted in error rate of around 1% except for around 4 kHz where it reached about 2% error.

Testing temperature was around 65 degrees F.

Reference axis for measurements was the LED light just above the tweeter as the manual instructs. I actually ran it both at this setting and center of the tweeter and there was no difference to speak of in the measurements.

Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.

Barefoot Footprint 01 Measurements
As usual we start with our spin frequency response measurements:

View attachment 130601

As we see, the passive crossover is not optimal with a prominent resonance at 1.3 khz surrounded by other roughness. Company literature from what I recall talks about uniformity of dispersion but that clearly is not the case with the tweeter getting beamy proportional to frequency to far greater level than I have seen in many speakers much less monitors. This directivity loss is seen in company measurements as well but an entirely different view is shown of the on-axis response:

Their vertical scale is zoomed in even more than mine yet they show a remarkably flat response. The explanation may be them using a warehouse with a speaker raised from the floor for measurements which most likely includes some manual tweaks.

Our early window reflections (for far field listening) shows the impact of the drooping side radiation from the tweeter:
View attachment 130603

Combining both, far-field predicted in-room response doesn't look good:

View attachment 130604

Result will be somewhat boomy sound with some strangeness around 1 to 3 kHz.

Beamwidth plot shows how the woofer is getting directional at 250 Hz before hand off to the mid-range which is not:

View attachment 130606

And of course the tweeter's beam width gets narrower with frequency in textbook manner:
View attachment 130605

The vertical directivity is no better or worse than any other:

View attachment 130607

Near-field response of each driver shows a mid-range that doesn't have a flat response which a DSP could have fixed:

View attachment 130608

I was surprised bass distortion was not better than it is:

View attachment 130612

View attachment 130613

Waterfall shows some resonances:

View attachment 130609

Barefoot Footprint 01 Listening Tests
I assumed the inclusion of the dual beefy woofers would make for a good far-field listening so I placed the Footprint 01 on my usual stand in my 2-channel listening setup and started to listen. I was mistaken. There was little that I liked about the sound. It was somewhat boomy and I did not like the sound in mid-range. I brought out EQ tools and corrected what I could but the end, I was not satisfied at all. I was also surprised that I could get the clipping light to come on before a level that I thought was too high. Fortunately it was not indicative of massive distortion so more loudness could be had.

A couple of times I heard some spatial effects that were unusual. Hard to describe but the background male vocals seemed to come from behind the front baffle. My guess is that it may be due to the side woofers playing these notes due to their high crossover point. I put my ear in front of the woofers though and could not confirm this. So take it for what it is as the saying goes.

I brought the speaker to my workstation area but it was too big to put on the side of my monitor. So I put it on top of my test instrument rack to my right. 5 seconds of playback showed remarkably good sound! Track after track was enjoyable to listen to with the EQ I had developed in the fair field:

View attachment 130611

One big difference here was listening level so maybe distortion was playing a role. Another major difference is activation of room modes which would be wildly different in the new setup than old. And maybe he effect of the side-firing woofers was different.

Conclusions
The Barefoot Footprint 01 charts its own way with a studio monitor that is not architected the same as its competitors. Some of these departures are working in their favor, others are not. I suspect some of the flaws here is their improper measurement scheme that is not allowing them to see the flaws in the execution of this speaker. $1000 spent on an NFS measurement would do them wonders instead of using semi-DIY schemes as they seem to be deploying.

Anyway, near-field performance is very good with a bit of EQ. Far-field use is more questionable and likely requires proper in-room measurements to correct for all bass modes and lots of time spent on positioning due to poor directivity.

I am going to put the Barefoot Footprint 01 on my recommended list for near-field listening.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150

why do you leave out the scores on some speakers?
How do I find all your reviews. The search function in the forum is faulty on my end or just doesn’t work properly

 

[Xyrium]

Hi, welcome aboard..

The search function works for me. What problem are you facing with it?

Also, can you edit your post and delete the quoted content?

Thanks!

 

[dfuller]

Opposite sealed side-firing LF is definitely not similar to any of mentioned speakers.
If they was crossed lower as in more expensive models, maybe they would be more suitable for home hi-fi also.

In hindsight, I have to wonder about that whole crossover point choice. Probably would be fine, if all speakers were front firing, but they're not.

 

[HBIII]

Hi all, was there ever a response from barefoot as to why the measured frequency response here was so different from their claimed frequency response?

I had a pair of Hedd Type07 MK2s and one of them had some issues, so I was thinking about replacing them with a pair of Footprint02's.

 

[YSC]

Hi all, was there ever a response from barefoot as to why the measured frequency response here was so different from their claimed frequency response?

I had a pair of Hedd Type07 MK2s and one of them had some issues, so I was thinking about replacing them with a pair of Footprint02's.

Seems like there’s not

 

[HBIII]

Seems like there’s not

I read that @amirm had a conversation with them, but I guess we never got the details then.

 

[amirm]

I read that @amirm had a conversation with them, but I guess we never got the details then.

Communication stopped after that. I think they realize they had work to do with respect to their measurements and factory calibration of each speaker. Hopefully that is being put in place.

 

[HBIII]

Communication stopped after that. I think they realize they had work to do with respect to their measurements and factory calibration of each speaker. Hopefully that is being put in place.

Hopefully it is already in place... I have a pair of footprint02's heading my way next week. I couldn't find any other alternatives to the hedd type 07s that I liked that were under $3k per pair besides the FP02s.

 

[dfuller]

I'm intensely curious as to what amplifiers the Footprints use. I don't think they're Hypex given they'd have mentioned that like they do with their other speakers, but 500W is far more than you could get from any chip amp. Judging by the amount of power available, I'm hazarding a guess it's ICEPower, but I suppose it could be Pascal too.

 

[Dolomick]

I’m new to the forum and a bit unclear on the takeaways from the Footprint 01 review. It is a near field that did not do so well when used as a far field, and then seemed to do well when placed in the near field. Can anyone clarify/summarize where the current thinking has landed on these?
I have Hedd Type 07 mk2’s and am considering adding their sub, going with Neumann KH310’s, or the Footprint 02 actually, because I am in a 12x14 foot room. I do have GIK traps and first reflection treatment and make drum and bass so the Footprint 02’s are tempting me for their low end.
I am demoing the KH 310 right now and they are interesting because most things sound good on my Hedd’s whereas the Neumann’s definitely sound not so great on certain tracks, a few classic Dr. Dre songs had snares/claps that sounded overly bright/wrong. I want a monitor that shows mistakes so maybe that’s a good thing or maybe they aren’t working well in my room. Some tracks have real nice bass on the 310’s and likewise, with others I struggle to feel the bass. Maybe these are very good for spotting flaws, whereas the Hedd’s may be more flattering to everything.
What would people here say about just adding the Hedd sub to my system, vs the 310’s, vs the Footprint 02’s given my need for low bass but also wondering if a dedicated three way would be more cohesive?

 

[YSC]

I’m new to the forum and a bit unclear on the takeaways from the Footprint 01 review. It is a near field that did not do so well when used as a far field, and then seemed to do well when placed in the near field. Can anyone clarify/summarize where the current thinking has landed on these?
I have Hedd Type 07 mk2’s and am considering adding their sub, going with Neumann KH310’s, or the Footprint 02 actually, because I am in a 12x14 foot room. I do have GIK traps and first reflection treatment and make drum and bass so the Footprint 02’s are tempting me for their low end.
I am demoing the KH 310 right now and they are interesting because most things sound good on my Hedd’s whereas the Neumann’s definitely sound not so great on certain tracks, a few classic Dr. Dre songs had snares/claps that sounded overly bright/wrong. I want a monitor that shows mistakes so maybe that’s a good thing or maybe they aren’t working well in my room. Some tracks have real nice bass on the 310’s and likewise, with others I struggle to feel the bass. Maybe these are very good for spotting flaws, whereas the Hedd’s may be more flattering to everything.
What would people here say about just adding the Hedd sub to my system, vs the 310’s, vs the Footprint 02’s given my need for low bass but also wondering if a dedicated three way would be more cohesive?

I personally would say get a sub, a UMIK and then use EQ APO/ DIRAC etc. to do proper room correction is the way to go. without measurements you never know what your room modes will look like, or what to fix.

demoing the speaker might gives you some idea but you will never know which one is "right", especially if the music was mixed with your old speakers by yourself. Even if it's someoneelse's work, after adapting to the old setup your brain gets used to what should it sound as "right", a short audition of a new system will definitely sounded "wrong".
same for exposing flaws. Say if I use a pair of $5 earbuds from the 00s without bass output, even if the song is 30db bass boost you won't hear any bass, but then it is not "bass shy" in the music itself.

 

[Dolomick]

I personally would say get a sub, a UMIK and then use EQ APO/ DIRAC etc. to do proper room correction is the way to go. without measurements you never know what your room modes will look like, or what to fix.

demoing the speaker might gives you some idea but you will never know which one is "right", especially if the music was mixed with your old speakers by yourself. Even if it's someoneelse's work, after adapting to the old setup your brain gets used to what should it sound as "right", a short audition of a new system will definitely sounded "wrong".
same for exposing flaws. Say if I use a pair of $5 earbuds from the 00s without bass output, even if the song is 30db bass boost you won't hear any bass, but then it is not "bass shy" in the music itself.

Well these were very famous Dr. Dre songs that had some overly bright snares/claps that sounded way off. Other songs by him sounded fine, and other well mixed songs sounded fine, so I think it was a case of that mix being a little bit imperfect, which is exactly what I want monitors to tell me. I found a deal for a KH750 for $1000 bucks, so I may get that and some used/B stock KH310s. And of course the MA-1 system from Neumann.

 

[YSC]

Well these were very famous Dr. Dre songs that had some overly bright snares/claps that sounded way off. Other songs by him sounded fine, and other well mixed songs sounded fine, so I think it was a case of that mix being a little bit imperfect, which is exactly what I want monitors to tell me. I found a deal for a KH750 for $1000 bucks, so I may get that and some used/B stock KH310s. And of course the MA-1 system from Neumann.

yea, that's what I mean, even famous songs can have mixing errors as no tools/ human is perfect, but somehow I feel that upon a certain level of engineering, most respected monitor vendor's product are more similar than different, so somehow changing from A to B likely is more about gear acquisition syndrome than factual upgrade, especially considering the built in/ easy to use EQ and correction available nowadays