Sealed vs. Ported Speakers


.
Are ported speakers inherently inferior to sealed speakers? If so, why?

It seems the higher up you go on the speaker pecking order, the ports disappear. Same with subwoofers, ports disappear as the price goes up.
.
128x128mitch4t
4 of 5 pair of speakers I run are ported.

In order (largest to smallest):

OHM Walshes: bottom port
Dynaudio monitors: rear port
Triangle monitors: front port
Realistic Minimus 7s: no port

They are all very good, within their specific limits. Performance levels achievable happen to correspond directly to the relative size.
The Sonus Faber Stradivari is WAY more than $20k, and it is ported. The $200k Wilson Alexandria speakers are ported, as are Audionote speakers, Classica Audio, and a host of others. There are plenty of sealed box speakers under $100 a pair.

It is not hard to design and build speakers that are either ported or sealed, so cost is irrelevant.
The only thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that as woofers are used over time, their spec do change. Getting port tuning correct is more critical than the spec's straying a bit for a sealed box. So Sealed boxes tend to stay sounding as designed longer than a ported box.
Tim
IMHO, in the simplest terms:

Ports can offer better value.
Sealed speakers can offer better performance.
I read an article a few years back that said ported speakers have more bass output but roll off quickly where a sealed enclosure goes down a bit lower (with a smoother rolloff) but has a bit less output.

Based on this information I wonder why more companies do not make sealed enclosure speakers (even if they are a bit less efficient) as it seems sealed enclosures would work in more rooms as well.