• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Gimmick or real audio improvement??

#41
Kashofa said:
Justifying this expense with the explanation that some studios have a lot of money sort of reinforces the idea that there's more marketing than substance. I would be more interested in the opinions of people who have used the products and can compare/contrast with other options.
Click to expand...
That’s quite a leap. Studios don’t buy things like this because they have lots of money. They buy it because they can incur the expense as part of their business. It’s very different for home users. That’s the difference.

As for actual experience with them, I agree and I did a ton of research on then last year when I was considering a purchase. First for the 01s and then when the low frequency content comments on Gearspace and a variety of other review sites cropped up I started looking at the 02s instead. My control room is a little large for the 02s and I rarely mix the kind of music that most reviewers felt the 01s were optimized for so I went a different direction. As a studio owner I’d still like to hear a pair of these in my room even if they’re not an ideal fit. I’ve heard other Barefoot monitors, such as their MicroMain at a few other studios here in Seattle and they’re all exceptionally high quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop
#42
This is a serious question:

Why?

Why would someone in a studio rig a stereo pair of monitors for 50+ grand?
You could spend something like 6 grand on a pair of Neumann KH310A and a KH810 sub
and you'd have a clarity that makes most audiophile listeners shut up.
I'd wager that in the sub 10k spectrum you can have a lot of monitor setups that do a fantastic job.

So what makes the difference between a sub 10k setup and a 50k+ one, and in what way can you use that?
What particular job do you do on a sound system like that - that you cannot do on a cheaper one?
What kind of customer will you attract because you have a kit like that?
 
#43
Why are valuations so important to everyone in this thread? High end products exist for those that can justify the cost either through personal income or acceptable business expenses. I have a Dingwall that if ordered today would cost just north of $6K. I could do the same gigs I use it for with a Squier P-Bass or virtually anything in between. Why should that be viewed any differently?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GlassToMouth, DJ Bebop and Dominic D
#44
silky smoove said:
Why are valuations so important to everyone in this thread? High end products exist for those that can justify the cost either through personal income or acceptable business expenses. I have a Dingwall that if ordered today would cost just north of $6K. I could do the same gigs I use it for with a Squier P-Bass or virtually anything in between. Why should that be viewed any differently?
Click to expand...
Exactly right! Why buy a BMW when a Hyundai will work just fine? Why buy a house for $750k when one for $250K is fine? These questions are pointless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Passinwind, DJ Bebop and Dominic D
#45
monkeyfinger said:
Exactly right! Why buy a BMW when a Hyundai will work just fine? Why buy a house for $750k when one for $250K is fine? These questions are pointless.
Click to expand...
Yep, and what’s more is that the monitors listed in the OP are nowhere near the prices others are obsessing over. The Footprint series is pretty affordable for a professional-tier monitor. If it’s too much for someone to stomach they can buy prosumer or consumer tier products for less money without needing to admonish the tools used by others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop
#46
silky smoove said:
The article says 9.1.6 but also includes a picture of four subs, so… 9.4.6?
Click to expand...

Thread Drift: I encounter this question with a lot of the ATMOS rooms I'm involved in designing, and to date I have not yet been able to find a definitive answer from an authoritative source

- When defining a surround system via the n.n.n numbering convention, is the # for subwoofers determined by the quantity of subwoofer speakers in the room, or is it determined by the quantity of independent subwoofer output channels on the surround processor?

Personally I'm inclined to go with the latter. If you have four subs in a room but you can't independently adjust level, delay, phase, and equalization for each one, it seems disingenuous to call it an n.4.n system, you just have an n.1.n system with a single widely distributed -- and problem-prone -- subwoofer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JKos
#47
Bob_Ross said:
Thread Drift: I encounter this question with a lot of the ATMOS rooms I'm involved in designing, and to date I have not yet been able to find a definitive answer from an authoritative source

- When defining a surround system via the n.n.n numbering convention, is the # for subwoofers determined by the quantity of subwoofer speakers in the room, or is it determined by the quantity of independent subwoofer output channels on the surround processor?

Personally I'm inclined to go with the latter. If you have four subs in a room but you can't independently adjust level, delay, phase, and equalization for each one, it seems disingenuous to call it an n.4.n system, you just have an n.1.n system with a single widely distributed -- and problem-prone -- subwoofer.
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting point. My initial thought was quantity of subs, but you’re right in thinking that without independent control they are more or less one monitor. Since subs are commonly localized, mono, and controlled uniformly I’m inclined to use the former rather than the latter but I can certainly understand your argument for the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Ross
#48
silky smoove said:
High end products exist for those that can justify the cost either through personal income or acceptable business expenses.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand what I meant earlier or what the OP is asking. This rationale says that there are studios that have a lot of money therefore it's fine for them to spend this much. But that's backwards. You want tools that can generate money not that cost a lot of money. A studio is a business. Ignoring the cost of doing business makes absolutely no sense.

So yes the price is the whole point of this discussion. Trying to say that's not the point is completely missing the point. The comparison to make is not based on how much a studio can afford but on how much revenue these can generate compared to alternatives that cost less.
 
#49
silky smoove said:
Since subs are commonly localized, mono, and controlled uniformly I’m inclined to use the former rather than the latter but I can certainly understand your argument for the latter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't even thinking about whether the individual subs are receiving different program material...that's definitely a rarity, and a whole 'nother can-o-worms when it comes to calibrating and controlling...but even if they're all just getting the LFE channel, the difference between having independent level, delay, phase/polarity etc. for each sub and just feeding the exact same signal equally to four subs deployed around the room is night and day.

=====
Back to (or slightly closer to) the thread topic: for all the folks saying ~$50,000 is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on a pair of speakers, a few years ago I had the incredible pleasure of hosting a custom 2-channel system on loan from the manufacturer for several weeks in my studio...two speakers, two subwoofers, and the proprietary electronics required to drive them...total selling price, $250,000. A cool quarter million bucks just for 2-channel stereo...and that didn't even include a source, no turntable or disc player or DAW or hi-rez music server.

And you know what? It honestly did reveal stuff on recordings I thought I knew that no system I'd heard prior could resolve.

I mean, sure, $250,000 is 5x more ridiculous than $50,000 if you don't have that kind of money to spend. But for the folks who measure value in different ways than the average consumer, there are products that meet their needs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fokof and DJ Bebop
#51
Kashofa said:
A studio is a business. Ignoring the cost of doing business makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...
I own and operate a professional studio. I know this more than the vast majority of users here.

The OP asked, vaguely, if the Barefoot Footprint series of monitors were a gimmick. They are not. People have spun it out to make value judgements on how other people and businesses spend their money. That’s a pointless conversation as the needs, wants, means and logistics of those purchases are so individually specific that such judgements have zero usefulness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back