Ported vs. Unported speakers

[cheekyboy]

2 hours ago, POV said:

I do wonder if musical preferences contribute to preferred speaker cabinets, or if there is any correlation between the two.

 

Hello Drew, I think your preferred music genres will play a huge part in what loudspeaker design you ultimately prefer and subsequently live with. The transmission line loudspeakers I have here that I mentioned in my earlier post are my CH1s and they have a very small single full range driver in a TL/tapered horn design and they sound superb when playing male and female vocal and light acoustic music, but they are limited in their bass response [not poor, but limited], so I'm not going to play metal or heavy rock for example on them or any music with extremely deep bass or that requires above average SPLs.

 

Although, if I were to play music that sounds very good on the CH1s, I'm sure I would enjoy that same music just as much played through my bass reflex floorstanders or my sealed 2 way standmounts. This thread is concentrating on ported vs non ported [sealed] loudspeakers and it would be wrong to assume that all large ported floorstanding loudspeakers will produce prodigious amounts of bass, as it would be just as wrong to assume that all non ported [sealed] loudspeakers will produce bass on the somewhat lean side only..........neither assumption is true.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

[Satanica]

13 minutes ago, Grizaudio said:

Its an opinion and generalisation.

 

I agree with this statement.
 

13 minutes ago, Grizaudio said:

In any event, using software or hardware to equalise the delta (sealed v's ported) is not a concern. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Satanica

[Grizaudio]

You wrote: 

2 hours ago, Satanica said:

With it (the room) adding too much overall bass on top of ported speakers, causing more dreaded slow-thumping sound than if they were sealed.

So, my current opinion is that ported speakers, especially larger more bass capable ones probably need more bass rectification in room i.e equalisation and possibly treatment where possible.

 

I was just saying, the difference or delta in DSP to correct either alignment is not a point of concern. 

I.e. either can be corrected.

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Grizaudio

[Satanica]

Just now, Grizaudio said:

I was just saying, the difference or delta in DSP to correct either alignment is not a point of concern. 

 

That sounds like an opinion and a generalisation.

[Grizaudio]

2 minutes ago, Satanica said:

 

That sounds like an opinion and a generalisation.

 

Having the digital headroom available to correct either alignment is not an opinion.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Grizaudio

[Satanica]

3 minutes ago, Grizaudio said:

Having the digital headroom available to correct either alignment is not an opinion.

 

OK

[andyr]

1 hour ago, Grizaudio said:

You wrote: 

 

I was just saying, the difference or delta in DSP to correct either alignment is not a point of concern. 

I.e. either can be corrected.

 

1 hour ago, Satanica said:

That sounds like an opinion and a generalisation.

 

I agree with your comment, Paul.  

 

It seems to me Griz is talking about how easy it is to use DSP to improve the lack of bass extension of a sealed box; what he seems to be ignoring is  ... how do you turn flabby bass (from a ported box) into tight bass (which a sealed box typically delivers)?

 

[playdough]

1 hour ago, Grizaudio said:

 uniform directivity is probably far more important

Have to agree completely with this, there is so much more in a speaker design and directivity is a massive part of the equation indeed.

other than tight clean bass extension, which could be sealed or ported. 

 

EDIT I don't see speakers as beating one another, in a race to be best I see them as some are less blameless than others. 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by playdough

[Grizaudio]

29 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

 

I agree with your comment, Paul.  

 

It seems to me Griz is talking about how easy it is to use DSP to improve the lack of bass extension of a sealed box; what he seems to be ignoring is  ... how do you turn flabby bass (from a ported box) into tight bass (which a sealed box typically delivers)?

 

Not ignoring Andy. 
 

I don’t agree with the statement Ported = Flabby

and Sealed = tight… 

 

This has not always been my experience. 

 

So many factors influence bass quality.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Grizaudio

[Satanica]

31 minutes ago, andyr said:

It seems to me Griz is talking about how easy it is to use DSP to improve the lack of bass extension of a sealed box; what he seems to be ignoring is  ... how do you turn flabby bass (from a ported box) into tight bass (which a sealed box typically delivers)?

 

 

Yes, thanks, I eventually worked out what Griz's angle was.

 

I think the answer to your question Andy has been answered if not here than other threads and that is to equalise the response of the ported version of the speaker to the sealed version of the speaker and they will sound the same. I know this probably goes against common audiophile wisdom.

 

But as been mentioned stuffing the port of a speaker typically makes it sound "tighter". We'll yeah, but the response just dramatically changed. 0ne didn't just tighten up the sound without not changing the frequency response. 

[playdough]

3 minutes ago, Satanica said:

But as been mentioned stuffing the port of a speaker typically makes it sound "tighter". We'll yeah, but the response just dramatically changed. 0ne didn't just tighten up the sound without not changing the frequency response.

Most of the time the actual room loading becomes the overriding factor here. Stuffing the port will de attenuate the lowest octaves the port (speaker) was making but will in all probability sound tighter, in a highly resonant room. 

 

The speaker design can be blamed for the reverberation the room creates. 

 

 

[Steff]

4 minutes ago, playdough said:

sound tighter,

Could this be defined a little for us novices who read these threads? In a "highly resonant room" I would not expect the ported bass to sound "flabby" or "muddy"...I would expect it to be "boomy" and pitching up. Is that correct?

Are there any reference recordings for a flabby vs. corrected tight bass and in which musical genres and across which instruments?

 

Asking for a friend with a ported speaker in a non-highly resonant room.

[Grizaudio]

Agreed, assuming we are speaking about comparable quality solutions, bass 

‘Tightness’ is more a function of amplitude/response, reflections and reverberation times. 

I think it’s also worth stating, perceived bass definition is highly influenced by frequencies higher in the audible range.
 

ie adding 200-250hz response amplitude creates warmth, while too much will create muddiness/wooliness.

 

Another example might be the 2-4khz region which provides snap/attack for percussion. This might help the perception of ‘tight’ bass. 

[playdough]

20 hours ago, Steff said:

Is that correct?

 

 

Slightly edited for context.

 

Yes it is, depends on the room type and the construction used.

Room gain for low bass is 2nd,3rd,4th order and so on reverberation, which isn't (arguably)  great for reproduction. 

The lowest octaves have the most influence on the room, typically where a lot of amplifier power ends up, Hard solid walls tend to exhibit worst nulls and summation and reverberation.

Light construction just let's it pass. for the most part.  So in theory a speaker, with a lower louder bass may exhibit less reverberation. sound less flabby, or whatever description the bass  distortion exhibited,  in the lightweight construction.. Ever noticed how great a speaker sounds in a tent ?

 

Problems can be  dealt with electronically or the user will can decide to go with another design that better suits the acoustics of the Lounge they reside,

for nothing more than the fact they sound tighter (better) , because of the de attenuation of the bass, best suits the space for application. Note 12dB per octave roll off from a higher bass frequency (sealed)

 

Not everyone is into Hi Tech DSP boxes or room treatments, they just want the best application and the sound they can get, with just a source, amp and speakers. 

 

Speakers are usually designed to a standard. The people that make them love them, normally, each has particulars to be aware of, like frequency range, type of enclosure (P or S) directivity and so on.

 

One could surmise, a sealed bass unit may be preferable in an acoustically challenged room. 

 

It's more the application of the particular type of bass extension (ported or not) that will ultimately be less blameless sonically. Most likely best respond to hi tech DSP electronic boxes as well, as in the speaker is tailor chosen to suit the environment.

Edited October 31, 2023 by playdough

[playdough]

20 hours ago, Steff said:

Are there any reference recordings for a flabby vs. corrected tight bass and in which musical genres and across which instruments?

I don't know, worth a look, but you can use a mobile phone surprisingly enough, the mic is good enough to play back on a good monitor speaker. Do a recording of your system in situ and wander around the space with the phone/mic. The acoustic environment is easy to hear, whether is be echo chamber boombox or not. Post it on Youtube for our listening pleasure or horror.

Edited October 31, 2023 by playdough

[andyr]

4 hours ago, Grizaudio said:

Not ignoring Andy. 
 

I don’t agree with the statement Ported = Flabby

and Sealed = tight… 

 

This has not always been my experience. 

 

So many factors influence bass quality.

 

Appreciate that, Griz.  

 

I can only write what I have experienced.  For several decades I was a 'Maggie' man - I listened to dipoles.  Last year, I tagged along to several hifi establishments with a mate who wanted to buy some new speakers.

 

The top of the line Sonus Faber we auditioned had what I call 'flabby bass'.  Hard to define - in words - but, to paraphrase Lord Longford ... you know exactly what it is when you hear it!  

 

And, yes ... the spkr was ported.  The problem could've been solved by:

• adding a pair of subs
• and using an active XO to cause the SFs to hand over to the subs at a frequency, an octave or so above their lowest frequencies - but then why would you pay $250k for some spkrs ... if you have to 'cure them' by doing this?

 

[stereo coffee]

21 hours ago, Satanica said:

 

No.

The proof though is in the range of speakers and measurements , showing acoustic suspension to use smaller cabinets and have outstanding reproduction. like these, following being restored   :    @Wimbo might wish to reply.  

 

[Satanica]

14 hours ago, andyr said:

The top of the line Sonus Faber we auditioned had what I call 'flabby bass'.  Hard to define - in words - but, to paraphrase Lord Longford ... you know exactly what it is when you hear it!  

 

And, yes ... the spkr was ported.  The problem could've been solved by:

• adding a pair of subs
• and using an active XO to cause the SFs to hand over to the subs at a frequency, an octave or so above their lowest frequencies - but then why would you pay $250k for some spkrs ... if you have to 'cure them' by doing this?

 

Every speaker in small rooms, not matter how much they cost, needs correction in bass (less than about 200-300Hz) for improved quality.

250k? 2mil? Practically irrelevant as the room dominates what one hears at the lower frequencies.

Some designs are probably going to give a better in room response without correction, but still.

[stereo coffee]

4 minutes ago, Satanica said:

 

Every speaker in small rooms, not matter how much they cost, needs correction in bass (less than about 200-300Hz) for improved quality.

250k? 2mil? Practically irrelevant as the room dominates what one hears at the lower frequencies.

Some designs are probably going to give a better in room response without correction, but still.

Yes in your opinion, 

[Wimbo]

On 31/10/2023 at 10:24 AM, stereo coffee said:

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Wimbo
Not needed.

[POV]

2 hours ago, stereo coffee said:

Yes in your opinion, 

Do you disagree?  I’m yet to see a room and speaker combo anywhere at any price that hasn’t benefited from  DSP based correction in the sub and mid bass ranges.  Every system is enhanced by the addition of quality subs, well integrated, and effectively eq’d.

[stereo coffee]

1 hour ago, POV said:

Do you disagree?  I’m yet to see a room and speaker combo anywhere at any price that hasn’t benefited from  DSP based correction in the sub and mid bass ranges.  

Yes 

1 hour ago, POV said:

1 hour ago, POV said:

Every system is enhanced

 

Sure its lots of fun, but , IMO is not looking properly into how awesomely  accurate audio can be.  Its the accuracy that is possible to achieve,   that should be taking your breath away, not trying to add or change what is , or should be , already accurate.  

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by stereo coffee

[POV]

31 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

Yes 

Sure its lots of fun, but , IMO is not looking properly into how awesomely  accurate audio can be.  Its the accuracy that is possible to achieve,   that should be taking your breath away, not trying to add or change what is , or should be , already accurate.  

 

 

 

 

I think perhaps you misunderstand.   It’s by adding in subwoofers and DSP for sub bass that you are able to achieve more accurate reproduction of sound.  It’s not about adding or taking away, it’s about dealing with room modes, and creating linear, integrated bass and sub bass at the listening position.

[stereo coffee]

7 minutes ago, POV said:

I think perhaps you misunderstand.   It’s by adding in subwoofers and DSP for sub bass that you are able to achieve more accurate reproduction of sound.  It’s not about adding or taking away, it’s about dealing with room modes, and creating linear, integrated bass and sub bass at the listening position.

No , quite the opposite. What you attribute to creating, is already available, but not at all where you might think it is, and does not require dealing with room modes,  where loudspeakers are already sensibly positioned, which is exampled in the image @Wimbo kindly provided.         

[POV]

Just now, stereo coffee said:

No , quite the opposite. What you attribute to creating, is already available, but not at all where you might think it is, and does not require dealing with room modes,  where loudspeakers are already sensibly positioned, which is exampled in the image @Wimbo kindly provided.         

Ok…I think I fallen into the trap of another one of your vortexes of nonsense.  My fault.