These compact three‑way speakers are Barefoot’s most affordable monitors to date.
Somewhat surprisingly, I’ve not reviewed a Barefoot monitor since the Footprint01 in 2017. Back then, Barefoot were still relatively new entrants to the monitor market, but these days they feel like part of the establishment, and the company should be applauded for surviving and apparently thriving in an intensely competitive market.
With the Footprint03, Barefoot have in two respects entered new territory. Firstly, the Footprint03 is significantly more compact and affordable than other products in the range. And secondly, it’s Barefoot’s first reflex‑loaded monitor. All previous Barefoot monitors have been closed‑box designs, and the company have been evangelical advocates of the benefits of closed‑box loading. It will be fascinating to see how the engineers at Barefoot have managed the trade‑offs inherent to reflex loading.
Baby Steps
The Footprint03 is a three‑way active monitor of relatively compact dimensions and light weight that ought to be easily compatible with the majority of studio installations. It’s an attractive and neat‑looking design that follows the established Barefoot aesthetic of dark grey textured paint, rounded cabinet edges and aluminium trim panels.
The rear panel offers just mains power and balanced analogue input sockets, along with a stepped input‑sensitivity knob. There are also a couple of tapped, standard pitch‑mounting hardware attachment points, and I can absolutely see Barefoot having multi‑channel Atmos studio aspirations for the Footprint03. Why sell monitors by the pair when there’s applications out there for seven, nine, 11, or even more? The Footprint03 is optionally compatible with Barefoot’s proprietary MEME (Multi Emphasis Monitor Emulation) technology, which aims to offer the subjective characteristics of alternative monitors, and the rear panel offers the necessary sockets. However, the review pair didn’t include the MEME hardware controller so I wasn’t able to try it.
The rear panel hosts a single combi XLR/jack input with a stepped input gain control, and jacks for accommodating a Barefoot MEME controller.
Downstream of the input, the Footprint03 includes separate Class‑D amplification for its bass, midrange and tweeter drivers, rated at 100W for the bass and midrange and 60W for the tweeter. Prior to its amplification stages, the Footprint03 incorporates a DSP module, with 28‑bit/96kHz conversion, which handles EQ and crossover functions. However, there’s an interesting twist in the way the Footprint03 crossover filters are configured, in that an initial low‑frequency filter is implemented in the analogue domain before the DSP. Once the low‑, mid‑ and high‑frequency signals reach the DSP, further digital filter stages then complete the necessary crossover filter function. This patent‑pending composite filtering technique, which Barefoot call SPOC (Spectrally Optimised Conversion), is claimed to ensure that digital resolution isn’t lost in accommodating the typical spectral balance of music, where high frequencies generally reach lower maximum levels than low and mid frequencies.
Motoring Along
The drivers comprise a 165mm aluminium‑cone bass unit, a 90mm aluminium‑cone midrange unit and a newly revised, 25mm fabric‑diaphragm ring‑radiator tweeter that, say Barefoot, boasts increased sensitivity and diaphragm excursion capability and reduced compression. The ring‑radiator tweeter architecture is fundamentally that of a dome tweeter, except that the apex of the dome is fixed and the surround area outside the voice‑coil diameter is enlarged. Ring radiators offer a slightly different set of characteristics and compromises compared to traditional dome tweeters, and when they were first introduced (by Danish driver specialist Vifa) in the late 1990s, they made quite an impact among driver engineers. The impact has died down in the intervening couple of decades, but Barefoot have stuck with the ring‑radiator format, and to my mind, it definitely offers some benefits. A significant one is typically a very low fundamental resonance frequency, combined with good high‑frequency directivity.
The midrange driver is of small diameter, so you would expect it to be relatively limited in terms of low‑frequency bandwidth. This will tend to pull the bass‑midrange crossover frequency upward, and that’s confirmed in the Footprint03’s 600Hz specification. The bass‑midrange crossover in a monitor with a larger midrange driver would typically be around an octave lower. At the other end of the midrange band, the driver’s small size takes the pressure off the tweeter by enabling a higher‑than‑usual 3.9kHz high‑frequency crossover frequency. This will potentially minimise distortion at the lower end of the tweeter band, and reduce the possibility of thermal compression — a phenomenon which typically affects tweeters first because the thermal mass of their voice‑coils is smallest.
A small midrange driver only requires a modest isolating enclosure, and this helps keep the overall monitor dimensions compact. The driver features a small roll‑surround, its minimal size made possible by the diaphragm not requiring the generous excursion levels of bass drivers. Having said that, Barefoot specify the midrange driver as having ±3.5mm linear excursion potential, which is pretty generous for such a small driver. The driver incorporates multiple copper shorting rings in its motor system, which bodes well for distortion performance and subjective clarity.
The Footprint03 bass driver features a generously dimensioned rubber roll‑surround and is specified with an impressive ±9.5mm linear excursion. Like the midrange driver, the bass driver’s motor system incorporates multiple copper shorting rings for lower distortion and minimal inductance modulation (shorting rings significantly reduce the degree by which a driver’s voice‑coil inductance varies with diaphragm position). The driver appears to be a very competently designed example, although you can’t entirely separate a bass driver from its enclosure, and with that of Footprint03 being reflex‑loaded via a side‑mounted port, there’s a few things to unpick.
It’s All In The Reflexes
The decision in monitor design between closed‑box or reflex (or even transmission line) loading isn’t entirely one of electro‑acoustics. Sales and marketing factors play a part too, because the size and manufacturing cost of a monitor are fundamentally influenced by its bass loading technique. And with the Footprint03 being compact and relatively inexpensive, reflex loading is no great surprise. I’ll explain why that’s the case.
The choice of reflex or closed box falls out of the more fundamental trade‑off inherent to any moving‑coil speaker between cabinet volume, electro‑acoustic efficiency (acoustic power out versus electrical power in) and low‑frequency bandwidth. Change one of those factors and the pesky laws of physics inconveniently demand that one or both of the others must change also. For example, if you want more low‑frequency bandwidth, either the efficiency must fall or the cabinet volume must grow (or both). However, if you slip reflex loading into the equation, you can persuade physics to let you squeeze a little more out of the fundamental sum. That’s possible because what’s actually happening with reflex loading is that the acoustic energy radiating from the back of the bass driver diaphragm is being used to drive a reflex port resonance, rather than being dissipated as heat inside the cabinet. So with reflex loading you can potentially reduce the size of the cabinet without losing bandwidth or efficiency. And even though you might imagine you’ve cheated the laws of physics, you still pay a price; it just lives in the time domain, where there’s an unavoidable latency inherent to the 180‑degree phase change that the rear driver radiation undergoes as it takes on its new reflex port output identity.
But there is one element of free lunch with reflex loading, and that’s a less expensive bass driver. This is because, at the reflex resonance frequency, usually between 30Hz and 50Hz where there’s typically lots of high‑level programme material from bass guitars and kick drums, it’s the port doing much of the acoustic heavy lifting rather than the driver (this is why port aerodynamics are so important). Diaphragm excursion demands on the driver are reduced significantly, and that potentially means money saved on the expensive components that make up the motor system: the magnet, pole‑piece, top plate and back plate. So when Barefoot decided that the Footprint03 was to be compact and affordable, reflex loading must have been the obvious choice. As I’ve described many times in the past, though, there’s reflex loading done well, and reflex loading done not quite so well.
Pass The Port
So which is it on the Footprint03? The signs are good. The port is tuned low, to around 37Hz by my measurements, which means its peak group delay will be below most important musical information. And the port itself is of large diameter, straight, and generously flared on both its entrance and exit. The volume of air that can flow in a port without turbulence directly influences how effectively it works, so generous diameter and flaring are vitally important. This is because when airflow becomes turbulent, a port, rather than contributing a significant portion of a monitor’s low‑frequency output, will lean increasingly towards behaving like a noisy leak. Compression, reduced bass output and potentially audible turbulence will result.
One result of the generous diameter of the port is that it needs to be relatively long, because the port tuning frequency substantially defines the low‑frequency bandwidth limit of a reflex‑loaded speaker; the longer the port, the lower the tuning frequency. In the Footprint03, therefore, the port reaches internally from its side‑mounted position to not far short of the opposite inside wall of the cabinet. And because, below the port resonance frequency, a reflex‑loaded speaker’s output falls at a steep 24dB/octave, there’s not even any practical opportunity to use equalisation to recover things, as to do so would require both huge levels of amplifier power and massive driver diaphragm excursion ability. Having said that, the Footprint03’s published specifications describe an 18dB/octave low‑frequency roll‑off, so somewhat surprisingly, it seems the monitor EQ does indeed include a 6dB/octave boost below the port frequency. This potentially will eat significantly into the low‑frequency amplifier headroom and driver excursion capability — although there’s typically not much signal below 37Hz in most music.
Diagram 1: On‑axis measurements of the Footprint03’s frequency response, measured at both 84 and 94 dB SPL (at 1m). The results are normalised and overlaid — and yes, there are two traces in this graph!
So, the Footprint03 has a long port because it needs one. However, long ports can introduce a secondary, undesirable phenomenon, typically located well above the port’s fundamental resonance, known as an organ‑pipe resonance. I’ll examine that later, but first, Diagram 1 illustrates the Footprint03’s axial frequency response, measured at both 84dB and 94dB SPL at 1m (normalised so that they overlay). Measuring at two levels, one relatively quiet and one significantly louder, reveals if any level‑dependent changes occur in the monitor (fast thermal compression, for example), and the results of the Footprint03 are impressive in this respect. The two curves of Diagram 1 overlay almost perfectly. Diagram 1 of course also reveals the axial frequency response of the Footprint03, and while it’s not one of the very flattest, it looks perfectly acceptable, being within ±2dB from 100Hz to 15kHz. The slightly depressed region centred around 550Hz followed by the subtly raised presence band might result in a subjective signature sound, but the proof of that will be in the listening.
Diagram 2: The axial frequency response (94dB SPL at 1m), and second‑ and third‑harmonic distortion (green and blue traces, respectively).
Moving on, Diagram 2 again shows the 94dB axial frequency response, this time accompanied by the second‑ and third‑harmonic distortion curves. The Footprint03 again delivers an impressive result, with the more troublesome third‑harmonic distortion remaining very low — typically 0.3 percent or below.
Diagram 3: Comparing the on‑axis response (red trace) with 15‑degree horizontally off‑axis responses (HF and LF sides; green and blue traces, respectively).
Diagrams 3 and 4 investigate how the Footprint03’s frequency response changes 20 degrees off‑axis. Diagram 3 illustrates the above‑ and below‑axis curves (with the monitor in landscape orientation), and Diagram 4 illustrates the left (LF driver side) and right (MF/HF driver side) curves. Things to note are firstly that the relatively high bass‑midrange crossover results in some off‑axis variation down below 1kHz, secondly that the response is slightly tidier below axis than above, and thirdly that in most situations, where the monitors are installed in landscape orientation, it’s probably advantageous to have the tweeter/midrange driver array located on the inside. Having said that, the generally impressive level of response consistency the Footprint03 shows off‑axis means it potentially offers good installation versatility. For example, portrait orientation, with the midrange and HF driver array uppermost, might be a useful option in some situations and it would likely work perfectly well.
Diagram 4: As Diagram 3, but measured vertically off‑axis, above (green) and below (blue).
Finally, Diagram 5 reveals whether Barefoot have managed to keep the almost unavoidable organ‑pipe resonance of long reflex ports under control, and the answer is that they have. A resonance is apparent at 550Hz but its peak is 15dB below the port output, so is unlikely to be specifically audible. For interest, I captured the port data at volume levels equivalent to 84dB and 94dB at 1m, and the overlay in Diagram 5 shows that either the port has begun to compress or that the Footprint03 has some bass driver protection limiting built into its electronics. The fact that the level loss mainly occurs below the port resonance suggests the latter — although low‑frequency port noise was clearly audible when I made the 94dB measurement.
Diagram 5: Close‑mic measurements of the port output, at 84dB SPL (blue) and 94dB SPL (yellow).
Listening In
So, the Footprint03 delivers an impressive set of measurements, it looks great, it’s usefully compact and it’s relatively affordable. But how does it sound? It sounds very good indeed. Starting at the low end, the Footprint03 offers extended low‑frequency bandwidth for its size, but also, to my ears, displays a hint of reflex character: a slight softness with a suggestion of overhang. But I think Barefoot have been careful not to be too greedy with the bandwidth extension that reflex loading can provide, and have kept a keen ear on its dynamic, pitch and time‑domain characteristics, so the Footprint03’s bass is eminently usable in a mix context. It offers easily adequate bandwidth extension for nearfield use but does so without adding serious distracting artefacts. The bass perhaps doesn’t quite have the dynamic punch of the best closed‑box monitors, but it’s affordable and is undoubtedly capable of doing a perfectly competent monitoring job.
Moving up the frequency band, the midrange is notably clear and revealing, but tonally it feels mildly recessed at the lower end of the band. Voices in particular seem to lack a little warmth and body, making them sound slightly small and sit further back in the mix. A dB or so lift around 500Hz and a similar cut between 2kHz and 5kHz did the trick for me, and brought the balance more to where I like it. Your mileage may vary, however, and it’s partly due to the Footprint being a fundamentally well engineered monitor that EQ can be applied to shape its sound. The Footprint03 isn’t ‘voiced’ to disguise inherent flaws, as some speakers are, because it doesn’t really have any such flaws.
Even without EQ, the Footprint03 midrange driver’s very low distortion (probably a result of its high‑tech motor system) is explicitly apparent. Its subjective performance is exceptionally clear and revealing, and it had me trawling through numerous old favourite tracks and mix sessions just to see what it made of them. For example, Athena Andreadis’ beautifully recorded voice on her first album, Athena, was an absolute delight on the Footprint03. It explicitly resolved every last detail of the recording and mix, and did so with a wonderfully well‑focused stereo image. The Footprint03 midrange has that rare ability to put everything in the right place and in the right proportion. This is invaluable in a mix context, I think. Another example of music that had me fixed to the spot was Laurie Anderson’s Strange Angels album: the detail of her voice and how it’s woven in and out of the mix was wonderfully revealed by the Footprint 03s.
The Footprint03 looks, feels and sounds like a really well conceived and sorted monitor, one where every element is carefully considered and properly engineered.
Leaving On A High
Traditionally, having described bass and midrange, I’d move on to the Footprint03’s high‑frequency performance, but in this case there’s not much to say other than that the tweeter performs in the manner that I’ve come to expect from the ring‑radiator format. It just gets on with the job, offering great levels of detail and resolution, but without drawing attention to itself, and it sounds perfectly integrated with the rest of the Footprint03 system. And that word ‘integrated’ kind of sums up the whole Footprint03 experience for me. The Footprint03 looks, feels and sounds like a really well conceived and sorted monitor, one where every element is carefully considered and properly engineered.
Previous Barefoot monitors have all been significantly more expensive than the Footprint03, and expense, in some respects, tends to make the monitor design job less challenging. This is because expensive monitors are less constrained by engineering compromises than those of a competitive price. If you set out to make an inexpensive monitor, you’d better know exactly where to spend the manufacturing budget, and where you can make savings. My overriding impression of the Footprint03 is that, judged on those terms, it’s an exceptionally capable and attractive monitor.
Alternatives
High performance three‑way monitors in the same price range as the Footprint03 are relatively rare, but the ADAM A8H and Dynaudio LYD48 fall into that category and would be worth considering. If you’re not tied to the three‑way configuration however, two‑way monitors in a similar price bracket such as the Focal Solo 6, Neumann KH120 II (or at a stretch the KH150) and HEDD Type 07 Mk2 are worth a listen.
Pros
- Compact and well conceived overall design.
- Revealing and explicit midrange.
- Well judged reflex‑loaded bass.
- Generally well balanced, high‑performance monitoring.
Cons
- Slight tonal quirks.
Summary
With the Footprint03, Barefoot Sound have in some respects reinvented themselves as manufacturers of compact, affordable monitor speakers, and they’ve done so very successfully. This is a highly capable and competitive monitor that deserves to succeed.
Information
£1995 per pair including VAT.
KMR Audio +44 (0)20 8445 2446.
