Barefoot 3

Ask the company Dan, everyone knows Barefoot makes shit !

I think Barefoot sorted the noise issue, just needed a firmware update (but they have to be shipped back). Apparently it was a few early serial numbers and they've pulled all of them. Looks like they're gearing up for Atmos world as well.

^^This^^, completely agree as these are also a brand new design, $1,000 above the Kali 3 way, $400 below Dyn 48.

The new Kali SM-5-C is out of stock everywhere, is 1000 a speaker, and requires a paired LEA amplifier that costs another thousand or more.

Hmmm. Tell me more about these Kali 3 ways

I've got the Kali 3 Way In-5. It's reliable and accurate enough. Not super transparent, but well balanced., pretty good imaging.

So glad you're back, man. Don't fade out on us from the energy overload though! Coming out hot.

I respect Dan’s concerns, but the truth is in the listening.I thought the tape op review well considerd.

He made it clear that for him they are just tools, he needed to learn them as he was used to his 2 way monitors , then, use, critique his mix and validate, which he also did .

I know we will debate gear quality, till the cows come home and that there are peeps here with deep knowledge and expertise and my but is, sure, but it all comes down to the awareness and skill of the engineer.

A bad one’s mixes will suck on good gear, a good one, will always make good mixes, on good or not so good gear.

But, this is my anecdotal awareness of Barefoots, peeps either talk them up or down: I don’t know , never tried them: still interested in the 3’s.

Of course, I know a ton of people with 01's who work on all types of genres. I don't think they were actually *made* for club music, I just think the crossovers are weird and even though it's technically a 3-way, things can get pretty hazy in the low mids. Yet, amazing bass/sub response though, which is what those genres are all about. 

I actually know a mastering engineer who uses 01's as his only monitor in a tiny little room, and does amazing work. Sometimes things just don't really make sense logically, but it's all about the specific person and how they hear the music, how well they know their monitors/room.

At under $2000, it’s an interesting design price point, of course, the proof is in the listening pudding!

While they do punch a bit above their price point and I do recommend them for the $, in your room with your taste maybe as a second set but not as your only monitors.
First of all an inexpensive 3 way is always going to have a lot of compromises. Your splitting your driver budget 3 ways rather than in 2 and if you tramp you need another ch of amplification and DSP.
I really find them fun for home theater, so so for music. The $90 Scanspeak mid in my Questeds kick the Kali mid up and down the block, yes the DSP and driver. Choice in the Kali results in a flatter response, but I can’t critically listen to the Kali’s nearly as long.

Every time I spend time with the Kali after 5 minutes I find myself thinking if they had spent more everywhere and doubled the price they could have a very cool speaker, I want better drivers amps etc. The other thing is for real pin point imaging they could have made the design decision to mount the tweeter on the same axis as the woofer / mid. Mount the tweet in a enclosure shaped like a phase plug for the mid, used a really ridged mount and delay to time align the 3 drivers, the mid is aligned via DSP so why not the HF.
Not bad but a speaker that really leaves you wondering what could have been.
One thing on 3 ways vs 2 ways, one of the biggest advantages of a 3way is that you can pretty much cover the entire vocal range with one driver and no crossover mucking things up, always remember that you still have to intergrate 3 drivers together so while you don’t have an x over in the vocal range, you still have 2 crossovers rather than 1 mucking things up.
Overall neither technique is superior just different.