MM35 / S3XV / Focal Twin / K&H O300 Shootout & Thoughts

[Tube World]

Originally Posted by lakeshorephatty

Here's the first song I recorded/produced/mixed using the barefoots.
One technical aspect I could not even attempt before these monitors was the addition of quite a bit of energy very low down (sub 50hz). I'm much bolder down in that area now and I'm enjoying it.

Russell

How well a song is mixed is based on the engineers skill first and foremost. Second is to know the character of your monitors and understand their sound so what you mix will translate well in other sources. You could of used Tannoy Precision 8's and obtained a similar results if you have the 2 things stated above.

What freq's are going on below 50hz besides bass drum, bass guitar, or keyboard? How much freq's do you want below 40 when most speakers don't go below 80?


The distortion was coming from some plug ins on the original mix. I was able to hear it, track it down, and reduce it substantially on the 2nd mix. I could not hear it clearly on the dynaudio's so did not know how to make the mix smoother.

I agree you do benifit from better monitors on hearing things like this. But even when I had the Focal Solo's on a song that had 36 tracks, I could hear the little hum noise that I was able to trace quickly to a Waves plug in on a track. The stupid analog button was on at 100% which caused the problem.

[Tube World]

Originally Posted by lakeshorephatty

Hey All,

Focal Twins

- I was assured these had a decent break in time, which I know is a factor for these monitors.
- the 500-2000 range on these monitors (approximately) feels absent relative to the detail on the barefoots. I feel these were the weakest monitors in this range. This gave them what I felt was a "scooped" quality.
- The highs felt siblant and hyped even compared to my BM5a's
- Low's felt too restrained for my tastes. More even and less detailed than the barefoots. Clinical..
- Low mids felt too cohesive and even across all music sources.
- relative to the barefoots, the dynamics of the speakers felt "compressed".
- All mixes felt overly dry, and this would result in wetter mixes, which I do not prefer.
- Something about the lack of mid clarity made most mixes feel seperated in their elements compared to the barefoots. These were top notch mixes i aspire to. I wouldn't want to be striving for too much "glue" between elements in my mixes but would find myself doing so with these monitors.


Russell

Did you work with the controls in the back? I know some have put the tweeter to -1 or -2. That allows the forward top end to be reduced which may help matters. You can also dial in a little more bass as well on the back. This is the reason when you have monitors with built in amps the EQ in the back can be quite helpful.

I don't understand you statement about lack of mid clarity on the Twins. This is one of the stong points of them. You don't need something like a Yamaha NS10 because the mid detail on the Twins is outstanding. Berhpas you like the mids better on the Barefoots, and that is fine. No one can tell you your wrong in not liking a mointor as this is a personal preference. But I just wanted to point out the EQ in the back which could improve things for your taste.

[lakeshorephatty]

Originally Posted by Tube World

Did you work with the controls in the back? I know some have put the tweeter to -1 or -2. That allows the forward top end to be reduced which may help matters. You can also dial in a little more bass as well on the back. This is the reason when you have monitors with built in amps the EQ in the back can be quite helpful.

I don't understand you statement about lack of mid clarity on the Twins. This is one of the stong points of them. You don't need something like a Yamaha NS10 because the mid detail on the Twins is outstanding. Berhpas you like the mids better on the Barefoots, and that is fine. No one can tell you your wrong in not liking a mointor as this is a personal preference. But I just wanted to point out the EQ in the back which could improve things for your taste.

Yes I would certainly agree this is probably more of a perspective and preference thing. More about what tickles my tympanics. I know that everything I tried was world class. The main thing I got out of the comparison was how dramatically different the options were and how aggressively one of them spoke to me more clearly.

EDIT: I did ensure all the eq was flat on all monitors but I did not find the urge to play with it during the test.

Russell

[Glenn Bucci]

Originally Posted by Tube World

Did you work with the controls in the back? I know some have put the tweeter to -1 or -2. That allows the forward top end to be reduced which may help matters. You can also dial in a little more bass as well on the back. This is the reason when you have monitors with built in amps the EQ in the back can be quite helpful.

I don't understand you statement about lack of mid clarity on the Twins. This is one of the stong points of them. You don't need something like a Yamaha NS10 because the mid detail on the Twins is outstanding. Berhpas you like the mids better on the Barefoots, and that is fine. No one can tell you your wrong in not liking a mointor as this is a personal preference. But I just wanted to point out the EQ in the back which could improve things for your taste.

I have found to really get a perspective on monitors, it is best to A/B against at least one other company's monitors. When I upgraded to the Focal Twins I left them flat and thought they were fine. When I compared them later to the Genelec 8050's, I found the top end on the Twins a little too forward compared to the Gen's. By reducing the EQ on the tweeters, I got the Twins to sound easier on my ears. Regarding the bass, I found the Twins to have enough bass in my studio at the flat setting. (I have GIK bass traps and panels in my studio.) However for my taste I did increase the low end to give a little more umph.

There are pro and cons to monitors but for me, my final mixes that were done on the Focal Twins have come out great. I have received many thanks from clients on how happy they were with the final product. In addition, I asked people who I trust to listen to my own CD and I obtained positive responses from them as well. Ok Mike Senior from Sound on Sound taught me how to improve my drum mixes but it was not the monitors, it was my skill that needed to be fine tuned.

I decided that if the monitors I am mixing with gives the results we are all happy with, that's all that matters. Yes the Gen's and PCM' s offer great depth than the Twins, but the Twins excell in other areas above the other two so .....if the mixes on the CD player, car stereo or Ipod sounds good, then that's all that matters.

[spencerc]

To the OP...

Are you still loving the MM35s? I'm gonna be jumping on the Barefoot bandwagon soon (MM27s) coming from S2As...very exciting!

I noticed you liked the mid detail 500Hz-3KHz of the barefoots a lot. Even more so than the Adams you tried?

[aarvin2]

Originally Posted by lakeshorephatty

Here's the first song I recorded/produced/mixed using the barefoots. All sounds were recorded live in my room even if they were later looped and sampled. The bass is a real bass but processed to sound "synthy" There are no synths in this track. The client is super happy with it so far. I think the production and mixing are more or less done. There may be a few small mastering style tweaks to do, but it seems to be translating quite well after about an hour of tweaking based on feedback from other systems. This is so much better than the "mix being totally skewed and wrong" result i would get when taking my dyn mixes away from the space. There is still a bit of tweaking to do but the mix starts 90% there when i start my psudo mastering.

Beautiful mix , beautiful song my friend, this track is soaked in feelings!! wow

[lakeshorephatty]

Originally Posted by spencerc

To the OP...

Are you still loving the MM35s? I'm gonna be jumping on the Barefoot bandwagon soon (MM27s) coming from S2As...very exciting!

I noticed you liked the mid detail 500Hz-3KHz of the barefoots a lot. Even more so than the Adams you tried?

Sorry I haven't checked back on this recently! I love these monitors. I love love love them.. I've figured out how to get them to translate out of the room first try all the time. I used to spend tons of time on translation to make sure the master was going to be to my tastes. Also, as I work with them more I'm getting more and more stunning work out of myself. For me they are epic. I can't see myself needing another monitor and you would have to pry them from my cold dead hands to get them out of my studio.

Russell

[lakeshorephatty]

Originally Posted by aarvin2

Beautiful mix , beautiful song my friend, this track is soaked in feelings!! wow

Thanks so much! I'm still very happy with it. I can't remember if it was tweaked after this or not. I think it was tweaked a little to go on the final ep. I've had lots of positive comments on the track. Glad you dig it!

Russell

[syncussion]

Originally Posted by lakeshorephatty

The MM35's:

- seemed completely free of self distortion across the frequency band, allowing me to hear the intimate details of the distortion I love so much in the music I like. As an example, i for the first time heard a wonderful but extremely subtle soft tape breakup on the harmonized vocals of the Wailers "midnight ravers".

- had what I heard to be at least one extra octave below the range of all other speakers tested. This range sounded wonderful and tight. Walking around the room testing all speakers confirmed that any of my comments regarding the low end translation of the various speakers had little if anything to do with room placement or acoustics.

- had an incredibly natural presence in the 500-3k range that all other tested speakers seemed to lack. Incredible detail in this area.

- had natural extension and open-ness past the upper range of my hearing frequency wise

- instruments seemed to take on a three dimensional quality when recorded brilliantly but lacked this quality with lesser mixes.

- I was hearing wood, and room surfaces such as glass, concrete etc. Well recorded upright basses sounded downright massive.

- These were the only tested speakers that consistently caught problems I have with commercial mixes I love that only show up in SOME of my listening environments. I had about 10 songs brought to specifically showcase mix problems in songs I love, and the barefoots were the only speakers of the bunch to hit me with all those problems. One example is the shrill and pinched quality of the electric guitars in the beatles song "taxman". All of the other monitors tested made this undesirable quality more tolerable. The barefoots would have made it necessary to improve this mix had it been mine, which is excellent.

- differences between the size and frequency range of mixes was much more emphasized than on other monitors. Mixes with a certain spectral balances could not hide how different they were to other mixes of a differing tone. For instance putting Bill wither's "grandma's hands" next to the black keys gave stark differences in tonal quality and frequency balance as they should be, whereas all contrasting songs sounded more similar in tone on all other tested monitors.

- The barefoots were the only monitors that did not seem to have a unique tonal wash over the source material. In other words, all other monitors to me felt to impart a certain tone of their own over all source material. For me the barefoots sounded more like they were not there at all to me, like the performers were in front of me. Thats how my ears and the barefoots were communicating.

- The barefoots sounded higher in resolution somehow. Unveiled. I felt I could hear the tape hiss more clearly. Reverbs were more natural or unnatural depending on how they were created. Rooms had more of a sense of space to them. Really exceptional vocal tones sounded extremely three dimensional and detailed. This makes me more confidant they can help me fine tune my technique to achieve these things.

- The barefoots were sensitive to distortions in the music in a pleasing way. Songs that I personally felt had over the top and slightly disengaging distortion in say the drum track, revealed this quality on the barefoots. All of the other monitors made this distortion more tolerable. Beautiful rich dimensional distortions such as those on the voice or drums on the black keys was incredibly pleasing on the barefoots. It was only undesirable distortions that the barefoots revealed to be so.

- the only monitors I felt presented siblance "correctly". The focals specifically would have annoyed me siblance wise on material which I feel was acceptable in most stereos with respect to siblance.

In summary, the barefoots were plain exciting. They brought excitement to the music when it was there. I would know if I was creating something with a magical quality and I would truly be able to enjoy it. My wife was certain I had to spend the extra 2k on the barefoots. She is no expert but she made the point that my clients would be dramatically more impressed by their natural beauty. Yet, through all of this I can't call them flattering or hyped. Its just a naturally wonderful presentation with all the detail you can imagine, allowing you to make truly stellar, or truly awful choices. You would hear them with all the clarity that was captured by the recording medium.

Here is my summary of how the other tested monitors fell short of these attributes. I did not spend as much time listening to most of the other monitors because once I had made my final decision, which took about one hour, I found myself switching much less and just trying to learn the "voice" of the barefoots in the room.

Focal Twins

- I was assured these had a decent break in time, which I know is a factor for these monitors.
- the 500-2000 range on these monitors (approximately) feels absent relative to the detail on the barefoots. I feel these were the weakest monitors in this range. This gave them what I felt was a "scooped" quality.
- The highs felt siblant and hyped even compared to my BM5a's
- Low's felt too restrained for my tastes. More even and less detailed than the barefoots. Clinical..
- Low mids felt too cohesive and even across all music sources.
- relative to the barefoots, the dynamics of the speakers felt "compressed".
- All mixes felt overly dry, and this would result in wetter mixes, which I do not prefer.
- Something about the lack of mid clarity made most mixes feel seperated in their elements compared to the barefoots. These were top notch mixes i aspire to. I wouldn't want to be striving for too much "glue" between elements in my mixes but would find myself doing so with these monitors.

K&H O300

- for my tastes, these were a write off. Very veiled sounding to me. Relatively it seemed there was a blanket over these. These monitors felt darker lower in the frequency range than any of the monitors tested. Perhaps they are smeared in their transient response in some way, rather than dark. In any case no need to analyze because the voicing was not good for me.
- improved lows from the focals, but still restrained and weak, or perhaps choked.
- Low mids felt too cohesive and even across all music sources.
- relative to the barefoots, the dynamics of the speakers felt "compressed".
- All mixes felt drier, and this would result in wetter mixes, which I do not prefer. Not as bad as the focals in this respect.
- Something about the lack of mid clarity made most mixes feel seperated in their elements compared to the barefoots. These were top notch mixes i aspire to. I wouldn't want to be striving for too much "glue" between elements in my mixes but would find myself doing so with these monitors.

S3XV

- These were closer to the barefoots than the other choices. For me this was a plus.
- The highs above 13k or so felt quite strongly rolled off. The tone controls were flat.
- Still missing any punch in the lowest octaves all the way up to 150hz. The information was all there, but very restrained. Too even (not enough detail) Best of the bunch but the MM35's were in another league.
- All mixes felt drier, and this would result in wetter mixes, which I do not prefer. Not as bad as the focals in this respect.
- relative to the barefoots, the dynamics of the speakers felt "compressed".
- the low mids on these felt more intelligable than the K&H's or the Focals, but still could not cut it for me.

Hi Russell.
Thanks for your great review of these speakers!

Since you named the room where you demoed I had a look at a few pictures of this room (available at https://www.facebook.com/studioeconomik/photos ).
I can see the room has large windows both left and right. They are angled slightly down but not enough to remove reflections from them.
The 4 speakers you tested have very different radiation behavior of the highs.
The O300 have waveguides for the tweeter set up in such a way to radiate strongly to the left and right, and the Focal Twins have an inverted dome tweeter which gives broad radiation.
The Adam S3XV has a ribbon tweeter which has an extremely narrow radiation of the highs, and the Barefoot MM35 has a soft dome tweeter without waveguide which gives a somewhat narrow radiation.
So in the specific room conditions you demoed the speakers they can easily be grouped into 2 groups, and the later group of the S3XV and MM35 were greatly advantaged under those specific conditions.
Had you listened to the speakers in your own room, where you state you have absorption on all walls including the side walls, the comparison between all 4 speakers would sound very different.
Btw I'm not suggesting this is the reason for all differences you heard, I'm sure the MM35 have better bass and dynamics than the other speakers, they should have they are in a different price class (a more fair comparison would be MM35 vs Focal SM9 instead of Twin, then perhaps the SM9 would win on dynamics and bass etc).

[maxy]

Thanks for the great review Russel! Your insight was instrumental in me demoing the m35s. I've been a very happy owner for the last year!

[lakeshorephatty]

Thanks for the insight into some of the differences syncussion. I'm still very happy with the barefoots. The mids are only fatiguing when the material is. I find I do a lot less eqing then I used to. I've gotten into the habbit though of getting my upper mids right immediately after tracking as a first step. If I leave them the barefoots will fatigue my ears a bit in this region. The most important thing though is that they're telling me what to do to get the sound right, and mixes are always translating now, with very very minimal tweaking after taking outside the room. I see myself being very happy with this monitoring set up for a looong time.

Russell

[gutr2]

Hey Russell - great review!

I haven't had the chance to hear the Barefoot (I think that's a good thing on the finances). But I do own and love the Twins. I disagree with some of your observations, and I also upgraded from BM5's.

I found the TWINS to be a HUUUGE step up from the Dyn's. Not even comparable. I wonder if your experience was possibly room dependent.

I don't find the TWINS sibilant at all, in fact the high end of the Dyn's was quite unbearable for mixing. The low end and low mids on my TWINS is just tight and wonderful. The sound overall is very dry I agree and it took me a while getting used to that. It never made me want to make my mixes wetter, but it made me want to add more instruments.
My antidote is to constantly check mixes on my HD600.

Now my strongest disagreement was your experience with the mids. The focals are if anything mid forward and I get incredible detail and clarity in the mids. Having said that, maybe not so compared to Barefoot..

Anyway thanks man and good luck with the barefoot(feet) and I wish one day I could afford some :o)

[lakeshorephatty]

gutr2 just goes to show you all of our ears are unique and want different things. Monitoring i'm sure is one of the most personal gear choices there is. I'm glad you are enjoying your focals.

[gutr2]

Indeed! Although everything may change when I hear some Barefooters :o)

[Johnkenn]

Interesting review...Daddy wants some Barefoot MM35's...(Daddy has to wait on a royalty check)