Barefoot’s latest compact three‑way represents a significant step up from its predecessor.

The intention behind Barefoot Sound’s Footprint active monitor range, from which I have previously reviewed the 01 and 03 models, is to integrate many of the electro‑acoustic philosophies and principles found in the company’s high‑end models within more compact and cost‑effective offerings. It’s a strategy that has taken Barefoot from being a relatively niche aspirational brand to a prominent position in the more ‘mass market’ monitoring sector. Where once Barefoot were up against the likes of PMC and ATC, for example, the Footprint range competes head‑on with models from ADAM Audio, Neumann, Dynaudio, HEDD and Focal.

The recently launched Footprint 02 Gen2 is an improved and upgraded version of the original Footprint 02. The list of improvements and upgrades is so extensive, though, that I’d be very tempted to put it in the ‘new product’ category. The Footprint 02 Gen2 comprises a closed‑box, active three‑way nearfield system, carrying horizontally opposed 6.5‑inch (165mm) bass drivers in the side panels. The softened edge and gently radiused front panel is home to a nominally five‑inch (127mm) midrange driver and one‑inch (25mm) tweeter.

Motor Skills

The bass and midrange drivers incorporate pressed‑aluminium diaphragms, while the tweeter diaphragm is a fabric component configured in a ‘ring radiator’ format (like a dome but with its apex fixed). All three drivers incorporate elements within their motor systems aimed at enhancing linearity and reducing distortion. These elements generally take the form of shorting rings and copper caps on the pole pieces to reduce the flux and inductance‑modulation phenomena that are inherent to a moving‑coil driver architecture. Such things are, I think, fast becoming obligatory in any speaker that aspires to genuinely high performance. The cabinet feels extremely rigid and is far heavier than its compact dimensions would suggest. I was not a fan of lifting the Footprint 02 Gen2 onto the monitor shelf.

Barefoot’s specs claim ‑3dB bandwidth limits of 38Hz and 40kHz for the lows and highs, respectively; response linearity of ±1dB between 42Hz and 30kHz; and maximum sound pressure level (SPL) of ‘≥111dB’. The SPL spec doesn’t define a measuring distance or space (half or quarter), so it’s somewhat meaningless. In contrast, the low‑frequency bandwidth spec includes some interesting further information; the system Q is 0.56, which means the low‑frequency resonance is slightly overdamped (as the bass driver’s voice coil warms in use the Q will increase and the system will become less damped), and the high‑pass slope is 18dB/octave. Now, the inherent high‑pass slope of a closed‑box system is 12dB/octave, so clearly the Footprint 02 Gen2 includes a 6dB/octave high‑pass filter in its signal chain. This is almost certainly included to offer some reduction of the bass drivers’ diaphragm excursion at very low frequencies. It will increase low‑frequency group delay somewhat, but probably not very significantly.

Ins & Outs

Around the back of the Footprint 02 can be found a mains input socket and switch, a balanced analogue input socket, a stepped input sensitivity knob, and 3.5mm jack sockets for Barefoot Sound’s proprietary MEME (Multi Emphasis Monitor Emulation) technology. Downstream of the input socket and digital signal processing (more on that later), Footprint 02 amplification comprises low‑, mid‑ and high‑frequency Class‑D amplifiers rated respectively at 200, 150 and 60 Watts. The LF/MF and MF/HF crossover frequencies are 180Hz and 3700Hz respectively.

One of the consequences of employing opposed side‑mounted bass drivers is that doing so demands a relatively low LF/MF crossover frequency, in order that midrange output isn’t radiated sideways where it could potentially cause all sorts of havoc with dispersion and integration with studio acoustics. The 180Hz crossover frequency of the Footprint 02 is low, but I might have expected it to be even lower, say nearer 150Hz. The trade‑off here, however, is that the lower the crossover frequency, the harder the midrange driver has to work, and the more its engineering must take on some of the characteristics of a bass driver (larger excursion, longer voice coil, more generous surround...). And if there is one advantage of a three‑way scheme over the two‑way, it’s that midrange drivers can be optimised for that role rather than also having to play bass. Now, while the opposed side‑mounted LF driver principle does introduce a crossover frequency conundrum, it also, as Barefoot make much of in their marketing, offers the advantage of driving minimal low‑frequency mechanical energy into the structure the monitor is standing on or...