K+h o300 vs barefoot

[dbjp]

Originally Posted by Shaman

barefoots should arrive this week

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

[The MPCist]

Originally Posted by Shaman

barefoots should arrive this week

Shaman, make sure you really do a thorough A/B test with them with yourself and some other test subjects and post it up here!

I'd like to see how it fares against the K+H over there in Germany.

[Tube World]

Once you get to this level on monitors, it really comes down to personal preference. Not to mention how well your room is treated. I am surprised that many have not downloaded those free software tests where you can see what freq's in your studio are being hidden. Then treat your room with GIK Acoustic or Real Traps to improve the room. That would be a lot more helpful in your studio compared to A/B all these monitors. Some love Adams, some love K&H, some love Barefoot. The question is how well are you mixing in your studio and what can you do to improve your mixes. Usually once you know the characteristics of your monitors, you can usually mix pretty well with them. Heck I have Tannoy Precision 8's in my studio which are not considered high end. But you know what, at the end of the day when I put my mixes through all the different CD players, the mixes come out great. And yes I invested in a couple grand on acoustic treatment.

[GYang]

After 4 weeks in US, finally I had opportunity to listen Barefoots.
They are indeed great monitors, with lot of resolution and clarity within whole sonical spectrum. They are bigger and louder than K+H, it's easy to understand why so many users praise them so much. No question.
I would accept opinion that they are step up in some segments over K+H 300.
As I use and know K+H 300 quite extensivelly my main question was is Barefoot real step up for me?
Due to fact that I use them with pair of subs (what is the best way actually), I've found that Barefoot interpretation is slightly different, but both are equally informative. I don't see difference in work I can do on K+H or Barefoots nor I enjoyed listening on Barefoots more.
From the scratch Barefoot offers more power and great quality on par with 300s.
300 can compete with Barefoots in loud low end only with added subs.
So, in case of 300+sub, I don't see lot of sense in replacing K+H with Barefoots.
I would put K+H plus sub in same class with Barefoot, so final choice depends chiefly on listener's preference.

[Tube World]

Another option is to buy the K&H 0400 monitors for more bass.

[unit7]

Originally Posted by Tube World

I am surprised that many have not downloaded those free software tests where you can see what freq's in your studio are being hidden.

Actually exactly what I'm doing right now!
Listened to the Barefoots the other week in a very good studio (!!!). In a month I'll test the O300s for a whole week for a mix. So these are the ones I'm looking at too. But before deciding I thought it would be a good idea to check my room. It was formerly a mastering studio so a lot of things are made already. Had an acoustic guy here who listened, did some measurements and gave thorough instructions on how to design a bass trap for this room (approx 8 metres long/had a 25dB fall from 125 to 40Hz...). A really fat one covering my whole back wall, with diffusing panels.
After that I guess it'll be much easier to choose the speaker that I like the best. Barefoots and O300 currently on the top of the list so I'm monitoring this thread closely. Nice!

[Russell Dawkins]

I would have thought that, given European prices, the appropriate comparison would be between the Barefoot and the K+H 0410, not the 0300. Even in North America, the MM27 is closer to the 0410 than the 0300 in price and spec.

[barefoot]

Probably most of you know this. But just a general note, it's important try to maintain the same spacing between monitors when doing direct A/B comparisons:



Otherwise, the listening results can be pretty skewed, especially with respect to relative stereo width.

[blaugruen7]

post some mp3s, shaman...

[unit7]

Originally Posted by Russell Dawkins

I would have thought that, given European prices, the appropriate comparison would be between the Barefoot and the K+H 0410, not the 0300. Even in North America, the MM27 is closer to the 0410 than the 0300 in price and spec.

Hmm, yes, if you're after comparing speakers of same price level. Re the specs (which I don't have the knowledge to fully understand), the K&H guys over here told me the 410's was built for listening from around 2 meters (midfield). Don't know if they're 100% right, but as long as someone doesn't highly recommend them as nearfields I wouldn't consider them an option for me.

Unfortunately I won't be able to A/B the 300's and the MM's over here so I have to trust the memory of the wow factor I felt when comparing my old 1030s and the MMs a while ago. If I feel more or less the same with the 300's during my mix week I'd guess it'll have to be the 300's. My avatar will be replaced either way

[Shaman]

Finally I had the chance to compare the barefoot MM 27s to KH 410 at my place.
First of all a big thank you to cml studio for letting me have both at the same time !

Both monitors play on a very high level and like two excellent red wines offer a different interpretation of the same theme.

KH 410s have a very nice 3D image with full bodied low mids and very deep low end which you would expect from the size of this monitor. The lower mids are stronger than on the barefoots and the high end is a bit softer. Orchestral music and jazz sounded spectacular on the K & H.

MM27s have equally strong low end which is quite something if you look at the different size. They seem to focus more on the upper mids. They reminded me somehow to NS 10s in this area and yes the commercial is right - it´s a nearfield with extended lows.
The transient response is fantastic and much better than the K & H which all in all sounded softer. The bass response is one of the nicest which I heard until now including much bigger pmcs - dry and controlled - nice !

All in all I would say the K&H was more pleasing to listen to but the barefoots to me seem to be the better mixing tool with more "analytical" mids, fantastic transient response and huge, controlled low end.

BTW most of the other gs present agreed with me.

Originally Posted by blaugruen7

post some mp3s, shaman...

You´re kidding right ?

[sensorium]

Originally Posted by blaugruen7

post some mp3s, shaman...

I love it....

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by Shaman

Finally I had the chance to compare the barefoot MM 27s to KH 410 at my place...

Nice review Shaman. Thanks for the compliments!

I'm sure some people think I'm just trying to blow smoke up their rear ends when I say the MM27s are really $10k+ speakers. But when folks finally get a chance to hear them, it becomes clear that we truly are selling these things at a bargain price. I'm certainly not getting rich. I know this because my wife reminds me EVERY day!

[dhiltonlittle]

Originally Posted by barefoot

Nice review Shaman. Thanks for the compliments!

I'm sure some people think I'm just trying to blow smoke up their rear ends when I say the MM27s are really $10k+ speakers. But when folks finally get a chance to hear them, it becomes clear that we truly are selling these things at a bargain price. I'm certainly not getting rich. I know this because my wife reminds me EVERY day!

i've had mine for about a month and 1/2 now. i am still sitting back with a huge smile on my face. best i've heard hands down. good work my friend.

[Tetness]

Originally Posted by Shaman

Finally I had the chance to compare the barefoot MM 27s to KH 410 at my place.
First of all a big thank you to cml studio for letting me have both at the same time !

Both monitors play on a very high level and like two excellent red wines offer a different interpretation of the same theme.

KH 410s have a very nice 3D image with full bodied low mids and very deep low end which you would expect from the size of this monitor. The lower mids are stronger than on the barefoots and the high end is a bit softer. Orchestral music and jazz sounded spectacular on the K & H.

MM27s have equally strong low end which is quite something if you look at the different size. They seem to focus more on the upper mids. They reminded me somehow to NS 10s in this area and yes the commercial is right - it´s a nearfield with extended lows.
The transient response is fantastic and much better than the K & H which all in all sounded softer. The bass response is one of the nicest which I heard until now including much bigger pmcs - dry and controlled - nice !

All in all I would say the K&H was more pleasing to listen to but the barefoots to me seem to be the better mixing tool with more "analytical" mids, fantastic transient response and huge, controlled low end.

BTW most of the other gs present agreed with me.

Nice review

[Russell Dawkins]

Thanks for posting this, Shaman. This is the first direct comparison between these two worthy monitors that I am aware of. Living on an island on the "frontier" makes it hard to get a listen to either one of these, and a direct comparison is pretty much out of the question. I think I would have a better chance of this in Slovenia from the sound of it, eh, Jantex?


The February 2009 issue of the British magazine Sound On Sound has a review of the K+H 0410.
Costs $2 to read the whole thing though.

Article Preview - Klein+Hummel O410

Russell, on Vancouver Island

[The MPCist]

Great post Shaman.

[van Overhalen]

Originally Posted by barefoot

Probably most of you know this. But just a general note, it's important try to maintain the same spacing between monitors when doing direct A/B comparisons:



Otherwise, the listening results can be pretty skewed, especially with respect to relative stereo width.

And pleaeaease I'm just having a little fun here...
Not meant to offend anybody in any way !!!

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by Shaman

KH 410s have a very nice 3D image with full bodied low mids and very deep low end which you would expect from the size of this monitor. The lower mids are stronger than on the barefoots and the high end is a bit softer.

What are lower mids to you....about 200-1000?

When you say the lower mids are stronger on the KH410's, do you have a sense that they might not be accurate? Or the other way around, the Barefoot lower mids too light?

I know this comparison was relative to each other, just wondering of you had a feeling as to which monitor had more accurate lower mids?

[Shaman]

Originally Posted by van Overhalen

[IMG]

And pleaeaease I'm just having a little fun here...

funny enough I read this just after having finished my test.
Anyway I´m aware that the whole A/B procedure is a compromise in many aspects + my room is not very spacey to position many monitors.
Being aware of the different sweetspots I changed my listening position every time I changed the monitor to compensate the dfferent distances - this is sport...

An interesting point was how each speaker affected the room.
The K&H needed a greater distance to the sweet spot than the barefoots which behaved more like nearfields but non the less easily filled the room.

I think the barefoots are much less room dependant than the K&Hs starting with the compact format, closeness between tweeter and mid membranes and the extremly tight bass behaviour. I was a bit unhappy with my old questeds (which were wall mounted) low end which seemed to resonate in a boomy way.
The barefoots - maybe through the different position or just its concept (or both) made me think my room sounded pretty good the way it is.

Having to spend less money for room accoustics is a good thing for small studios like mine

Originally Posted by Fleaman

What are lower mids to you....about 200-1000?

exactly !

Originally Posted by Fleaman

When you say the lower mids are stronger on the KH410's, do you have a sense that they might not be accurate? Or the other way around, the Barefoot lower mids too light?

I know this comparison was relative to each other, just wondering of you had a feeling as to which monitor had more accurate lower mids?

Accurateness is a difficult word since it implies knowing an (absolute) truth which unless someone is god never is the case.
So in the limited and - compared to my dog´s acoustic organ - very poor human interpretation I would say:

The lower mids frequency wise are represented more accurate on the K&Hs, which sound fuller in this area.
I feel this is due to the special mid cone which K&H are using.
Not that the low mids werde missing on the barefoots but they were just not as full as on the K&Hs.

If I was doing mainly classical music and jazz I would mabye prefer the O 410s.
As soon as many rhytmic elements with many transients and strong sound textures like in most modern music come into play
I see the mm27s as the clear winner.

It would be nice though if the mm27s had fuller low mids - maybe the bigger model does...?
maybe lucey can comment on this ?

To sum it up: I see the K&H as the culmination of the more traditional fullrange midfield speaker concept and the barefoots as something refreshingly new which for sure will fnd its ways into the studios of this world.

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

... Or the other way around, the Barefoot lower mids too light?

I can only speak for my monitors. But the MM27's are often described as sounding more restrained in the lower mids and upper bass than many speakers. And I agree. A common feature of many monitors is to have a single driver span the range from the lowest frequencies up into the midrange. Considering the power and excursion required for deep bass response, this is a very difficult task. It necessarily results in a compromise between the woofer's higher and lower frequency performance. This is especially true for 2-ways. Such a driver usually winds up generating a significant amount of harmonic distortion from its lowest range. And the harmonics of these low frequencies land smack in the upper bass and lower midrange. This is the frequency range our ears typically associate with punch or growl (MaxxBass takes advantage of this effect by generating low frequency harmonics). Ports have a tendency to ring pipe organ resonances into the upper bass and low mids as well. So, the speakers essentially generate their own punch rather than telling you exactly what's in the mix itself.

The MM27 subs have a lot of surface area and a lot of excursion capability - both qualities that are great for lows, but tend to work against good midrange performance. But they don't care because, after all, they are dedicated to the lows. So they have excellent linearity within their range and don't bleed as much harmonic distortion into the upper frequencies. Sealed boxes also don't generate pipe organ resonances. Furthermore, the midbass drivers are relived from low frequency duties. So they can be optimized and perform better within their range. To make a long story short, the MM27s don't punch or growl unless the mix punches or growls.

[darkwater]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I'm enjoying the bejeezus out of my Barefoots. They have the widest sweet spot of any monitor I've every heard. You can practically be anywhere in the room and here everything loud and clear. This really nice for me, as I'm the recording artist most of the time in my space, and I'm moving around the room from instrument to instrument. Loving, loving them. Thanks, Thomas!thumbsup

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by dhiltonlittle

.. good work my friend.

Originally Posted by darkwater

Thanks, Thomas!thumbsup

Thanks guys!

[wildpark]

so now i ordered the mm27 too compare them too a friends k+h 500

the mm27 s shold arrive next 2 weeks (found a dealer with a pair in stock so no wait time )

lets see if i find the same conclusion as shaman.

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by wildpark

the mm27 s shold arrive next 2 weeks (found a dealer with a pair in stock so no wait time )

Wow, you are a lucky man! If it's the distributor I think, that is their very first pair and they literally just got them in the door.

[tomdarude]

german dealer/distributor ?? WTF? WHO?.....me wanna

need money fast

[edham]

Originally Posted by Shaman

The lower mids frequency wise are represented more accurate on the K&Hs, which sound fuller in this area.

It would be nice though if the mm27s had fuller low mids - maybe the bigger model does...?

Shaman - if I could make a suggestion for you to try in this regard ......

when I was demoing barefoots vs lipinski vs focal twins vs S3A's (yeah I had them all at the same time) - I sort of had the same opinion that you do in regards to the low mids on barefoots. I had them set up ABCD - ABCD as suggested in this thread and later found that this is not ideal for barefoots.

Something special happens when there is nothing in between a pair. Once there are no obstructions between their inner subs the low mids congeal in a way that is really excellent. The subs start taking over at 150hz and once they are unobstructed the low punch area 150-250 falls perfectly in line.

If you get the chance - try setting them up as the inner pair with nothing in between and see if you get the same results.

[Shaman]

Thanks edham,

Unfortunatelly the demo pair allready is out of my room into another studio so I can not try anymore -
I will place an order for the mm27s anyway soon.

Do you own a pair and are you happy with the low mids now ?
Which distance do you have between the speakers ?

One of my biggest surprises was how controlled the low end of this box sounded in my room, which I was ready to modify heavily before I heard the barefoots.
The bass from the barefoots double subwoofer seems to behave different than any other monitor - resulting in a modification of room nodes or whatever...hm...tight bass will save big bucks for expensive bass traps...

[Russell Dawkins]

Originally Posted by Shaman

Thanks edham,
One of my biggest surprises was how controlled the low end of this box sounded in my room, which I was ready to modify heavily before I heard the barefoots.
The bass from the barefoots double subwoofer seems to behave different than any other monitor - resulting in a modification of room nodes or whatever...hm...tight bass will save big bucks for expensive bass traps...

Hmmmm.... I wonder why! Could it be the symmetrical back-to-back configuration of the woofers cancelling internal resonances - hmmmm!

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by Shaman

The bass from the barefoots double subwoofer seems to behave different than any other monitor - resulting in a modification of room nodes or whatever...hm...tight bass will save big bucks for expensive bass traps...

Originally Posted by Russell Dawkins

Hmmmm.... I wonder why! Could it be the symmetrical back-to-back configuration of the woofers cancelling internal resonances - hmmmm!

Here are a few reasons that come to mind:

• As you suggest, the force cancellation scheme tightens things up tremendously.
  
• Most full range monitors are ported. The MM27's low Q sealed box design has superior transient response, further tightening the low end.
  
• The subs are lifted up off the floor. This results in much less coupling to room modes than subs that sit on the floor.

Thomas