Subwoofers: Ported or sealed?

@ghdprentice wrote:

I actually had 4 B&W subs. Two for my audio system and two for my home theater. After I got these speakers I got rid of them. First I was very happy with the bass and coherence and I was liking less stuff taking up space.

Well then no need to toss around with subs - not even the Sonus Faber iteration, I gather. I'd always go for a pair of subs, but then again I go about it actively and treat the mains + subs as a single speaker system per channel in different boxes, high-passing the mains as well.

My home office is ~13' x 13'. I've had 3 or 4 subs here:

1. The only ported one was an 8" NHT model. I must say, it perfectly matched the NHT powered mains. Overall, this system didn't go that low or loud, but the manufacturer's design (ported sub + sealed mains) worked perfectly.
2. But when I redirected to a series of passive desktop monitors, I had to get aftermarket subs. The first was the 12" sealed SVS SB-1000. Much bang for the money, but not the last word in resolution or bass note texture.
3. The 2nd sub is the current one, the JLAubio e110, a powerful sealed 10" model. It's the best of the 3, ideally matched to the room.

So I conclude that for larger subs in this room, sealed is the way to go. I've made the same conclusion for passive 2-ways: sealed designs work better, sound better, and excite fewer room notes/sonic anomalies. I also just love the quality of low bass notes from a sealed speaker. There's a punch and truthfullness I just don't hear from ported designs. 

In high-end 2 channel audio, it seems that the highest subwoofer fidelity would measure ruler flat down to 20hz, and below that hearing threshold accuracy is of minimal concern.  Therefore the Perlisten D215s performance here seems phenomenal, am I correct?