Sealed vs ported

[Clownaphobia]

I have owned and currently own several different sealed and ported subs (like most on this forum). I DO agree that a properly executed ported sub can sound just as “tight” as a sealed. However I do find it confusing that almost every reputable brand, Hsu, Svs, Psa, etc. still pushes the “if you’re looking for a sub for music= sealed, sub for theater= ported” instructions. I think it can make things much more confusing, especially to newer users. If the ported counterparts can actually sound just as good with music, albeit with higher output capabilities then their sealed brothers...then wouldn’t it be a better idea to instruct, if at all possible to choose ported, unless you don’t have the space..then settle for sealed?

 

[Auditor55]

There are claims that people can hear differences in amplifiers but refuse to partake in blind listening tests. Until they partake and able to distinguish reliably, then I remain skeptical.

I agree with that.

 

[Auditor55]

I have owned and currently own several different sealed and ported subs (like most on this forum). I DO agree that a properly executed ported sub can sound just as “tight” as a sealed. However I do find it confusing that almost every reputable brand, Hsu, Svs, Psa, etc. still pushes the “if you’re looking for a sub for music= sealed, sub for theater= ported” instructions. I think it can make things much more confusing, especially to newer users. If the ported counterparts can actually sound just as good with music, albeit with higher output capabilities then their sealed brothers...then wouldn’t it be a better idea to instruct, if at all possible to choose ported, unless you don’t have the space..then settle for sealed?

What I got from the below posted debate, as you have said, properly executed ported sub can sound just as tight as a sealed. However, typically, that isn't the case with ported subs. Also port noise or port chuffing was brought up as issue with ported subs.

 

[Pogre]

What I got from the below posted debate, as you have said, properly executed ported sub can sound just as tight as a sealed. However, typically, that isn't the case with ported subs. Also port noise or port chuffing was brought up as issue with ported subs.

"Typically"? No more typical than poorly executed sealed subs. Both styles have good and not so good build quality and engineering. It depends on the designer.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

"Typically"? No more typical than poorly executed sealed subs. Both styles have good and not so good build quality and engineering. It depends on the designer.

Agreed.
And the EOT demo is an outlier of content, and should not be used to judge a subwoofer overall. I hate that Fukk dumms go on YT and post shiit like that(didn’t watch vid). How many other great subs chuff on that...

 

[Auditor55]

"Typically"? No more typical than poorly executed sealed subs. Both styles have good and not so good build quality and engineering. It depends on the designer.

As explained in the discussion and/or debate posted, it appears to me that, the very design of a ported box naturally lead to higher group delay, including such flaws as port chuffing if not properly executed. According the gentlemen in the video, the ported design is bit more complicated than the sealed boxes.

 

[Auditor55]

Agreed.
And the EOT demo is an outlier of content, and should not be used to judge a subwoofer overall. I hate that Fukk dumms go on YT and post shiit like that(didn’t watch vid). How many other great subs chuff on that...

I posted it because Gene had said that SVS ported subs don't port chuff.

 

[Thegenuinearticle]

Can you give an example where a sealed sub would be a better choice than a ported specifically for home theater and vice versa?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My room would be a good example...

My in room response of two 12 inch SEAS lotus subwoofers in sealed enclosures.

I always thought my subwoofer performance was pretty excellent. So much so that I never really bothered or worried about seeing what the result was on a graph. I built the enclosures with in mind of having close to optimum QTC at 0.75 and had theoretically an F3 of around 32 HZ, but I have...

forums.audioholics.com

 

[Pogre]

As explained in the discussion and/or debate posted, it appears to me that, the very design of a ported box naturally lead to higher group delay, including such flaws as port chuffing if not properly executed. According the gentlemen in the video, the ported design is bit more complicated than the sealed boxes.

Huh. I wonder if that's why properly executed ported subs cost more than their sealed counterparts that typically require more eq (introduce group delay) and more power to almost match the LF performance of the former?

 

[Thegenuinearticle]

I don't think it can be broken down to one is superior over another. Everything has compromises with advantages and disadvantages given any application. A great deal of performance is dependent on a specific driver that is utilized for what type of enclosure design its integrated with. I could take a sub driver with a high resonant frequency and medium QTS (let's say 0.4 QTS and 40 HZ-ish resonant frequency) and plop it into a ported enclosure with a tuning of 30 HZ and another driver with a low resonant frequency (17 HZ Scanspeak 30 discovery ) in a sealed box (1.8 cubic feet) QTC 0.707 and the sealed sub may walk all over the ported enclosure with low extension and linear response.

You could conversely put the low resonant frequency driver in a ported enclosure of 3.8 cubic feet with a tuning of 19 HZ but now you obviously are dealing with a larger footprint cabinet even though output would be significantly higher. As I said I think it all comes down to optimization with a given driver/ enclosure and also what the goal is as well as what space constraints happen to be.

 

[Thegenuinearticle]

Not commercially sold ones. But someone might try to use a tube amp with a passive sub and be disappointed with the results.

Well maybe not entirely true I understand where you are coming from. A monoblock McIntosh tube amp [300 watts] could make a real efficient sub (92 DB +) dance on a jig and rattle a room plenty....Possible yes but damn expensive...

 

[Pogre]

I don't think it can be broken down to one is superior over another. Everything has compromises with advantages and disadvantages given any application. A great deal of performance is dependent on a specific driver that is utilized for what type of enclosure design its integrated with. I could take a sub driver with a high resonant frequency and medium QTS (let's say 0.4 QTS and 40 HZ-ish resonant frequency) and plop it into a ported enclosure with a tuning of 30 HZ and another driver with a low resonant frequency (17 HZ Scanspeak 30 discovery ) in a sealed box (1.8 cubic feet) QTC 0.707 and the sealed sub may walk all over the ported enclosure with low extension and linear response.

You could conversely put the low resonant frequency driver in a ported enclosure of 3.8 cubic feet with a tuning of 19 HZ but now you obviously are dealing with a larger footprint cabinet even though output would be significantly higher. As I said I think it all comes down to optimization with a given driver/ enclosure and also what the goal is as well as what space constraints happen to be.

Well yes. If you factor in size constraints then the compromise would be a sealed enclosure. In a small room you could benefit from some room gain. I think size is the only reason to go with a sealed sub tho.

 

[Verdinut]

As explained in the discussion and/or debate posted, it appears to me that, the very design of a ported box naturally lead to higher group delay, including such flaws as port chuffing if not properly executed. According the gentlemen in the video, the ported design is bit more complicated than the sealed boxes.

I have been building ported enclosures for over 50 years. The question of port chuffing is mostly irrelevant for all practical purposes. I don't know who started to bring that sort of problem with bass reflex enclosures, but someone would have to drive a woofer or a sub to a very high SPL to start hearing port noise. As a matter of fact, the port area would have to be small compared to the total cone area for the chuffing starting to be audible.
You have to keep in mind that with the sound produced by a sub or a woofer playing at a high SPL, that sound would easily mask any chuffing noise. In my experience, I've never heard port noise and I built boxes with 15 inch woofers and subwoofers.

Also, the question of hearing group delay is doubtful as well. There is a recent thread in which someone commented on the audibility of group delay. In any case, well designed ported enclosures have as good a transient response as any sealed box.

 

[Verdinut]

Well maybe not entirely true I understand where you are coming from. A monoblock McIntosh tube amp [300 watts] could make a real efficient sub (92 DB +) dance on a jig and rattle a room plenty....Possible yes but damn expensive...

Yeah, the McIntosh would rattle a room plenty as you say, but it wouldn't be able control the motion of a ported sub for an excellent transient response because of its high output impedance.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Well yes. If you factor in size constraints then the compromise would be a sealed enclosure. In a small room you could benefit from some room gain. I think size is the only reason to go with a sealed sub tho.

I’m reminded of Hoffman’s iron law.

Josef Anton Hofmann - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Auditor55]

In any case, well designed ported enclosures have as good a transient response as any sealed box.

When it comes to "well designed" would you say that is the standard for most ported subs?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

When it comes to "well designed" would you say that is the standard for most ported subs?

I would say definitely not. Either one can be designed well, or poorly.

 

[Pogre]

When it comes to "well designed" would you say that is the standard for most ported subs?

When you say "well designed" do you think it only applies to sealed subs? What is even the relevance of the question? If you buy a well designed sub, whether ported or sealed, you're buying a well designed sub. I don't think anyone has "poor design" on their list of desired features.

What's your point?

 

[Auditor55]

Would you say "well designed" only applies to sealed subs? What is even the relevance of the question? If you buy a well designed sub, whether ported or sealed, you're buying a well designed sub. I don't think anyone has "poor design" on their list of desired features.

What's your point?

Just reflecting back on what I came out the so-called debate between Matthew and ShadyJ on this very topic. ShadyJ kind of talked about how ported boxes got the reputation of being boomy, slow and non-musical from poorly designed ported boxes, mostly from the home theater in the type box packages. Personally I suspect that there were many type of poorly designed ported boxes that goes beyond just the "home theater in the box" and were ubiquitous in the market for a certain period until the SVS, HSU, etc. came along and started the trend of well designed ported boxes.

 

[Auditor55]

I would say definitely not. Either one can be designed well, or poorly.

May ask then, if money was no object and assuming you was end the market for a sub, what kind of subwoofer would you most likely end up owning? I ask because it seems that most of the money no object, high-end subwoofers are sealed and not ported.