2. speakers
  3. 157274-87559

Ported versus sealed speakers: is one type better?

Have two systems of wildly different scale and cost.  My main rig features Wilson Watt/Puppy 7's, while at my vacation cabin the system features Totem Rainmakers.

Got me thinking recently that both are ported designs.  And many box speakers are indeed ported designs.

However some of the best and most costly speakers are sealed - not ported.  Examples include Magico and YG Acoustics among others.

 I realize ports are just one aspect of the overall design but I'm seeking opinions on whether one is inherently worse than the other (ported versus non ported)?

Thus would a Magico or YG have an inherent advantage over a Wilson, Rockport,  Von Schweikert or other top ported design?

Any thoughts?
bobbydd
roxy54's avatar
roxy54
8,202 posts
 
Transmission line speakers can be really effective. I owned TDL Monitors (twice), and while not obviously "bassy", if there was very low bass on a song like for instance one song on Enya's first disc, it felt like a physical rumble beneath the floor. I think that speaker was rated to have usable response down to 17hz.
ohlala
1,251 posts
 
I agree that that plugging a port does not make the speaker sound like it is a sealed type. It is an easy extrapolation, which is to be expected in forums, but I find it wrong. Bass "type" is a  compromised choice made by builders and not in realm of retail purchasers. While I generally prefer sealed, I: a) do not through the baby out with the bathwater and b) realize implementation quality varies a lot. 
erik_squires
16,838 posts
 
An ideal (maximally flat) sealed vs. ported cabinet results in a larger cabinet for the ported speaker, so sealing an ideal ported cabinet should result in a speaker with a higher -3dB point, as well as an earlier roll-off frequency.

Basically, you end up with an over-damped sealed cabinet.

If we are dealing with a sub that you are going to EQ anyway, this is a pretty good direction to try, given how much a room can affect the output.
steve59's avatar
steve59
1,863 posts
 
Probably depends on the room. My room offered no extension from the ported speakers so deep bass was mia until I went with sealed speakers. I would think active speakers would have the benefit of sealed without the downside.
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
10,249 posts
 

Putting a woofer into a sealed enclosure raises the resonant frequency of the driver. The acoustic output of the woofer thus starts rolling off at a higher frequency than does the same woofer in a ported enclosure. However, it’s slope is (as Erik properly corrected me on ;-) the shallower 2nd-order, so that as frequency descends, the output of the sealed woofer eventually crosses the more-steeply-falling 4th-order slope of the ported woofer, thereby providing more output at the lowest frequencies both woofers are capable of. I.E., the woofer plays lower in a sealed enclosure than in a ported.

I have a pair of 1/4-wave transmission line enclosures, each with the famous KEF B139 woofer (used in pairs by David Wilson in his WAMM loudspeaker) at it’s front end (together creating a fundamental resonant Q at 15Hz), and while very good for it’s time (early-70’s) is no match for the Rythmik F15HP, let alone the Rythmik/GR Research OB/Dipole Sub. Jim Salk installs a Rythmik subwoofer and associated plate amp in his upmarket speaker models. 

More to discover