sealed subwoofers better than all ported subs with music?

[haraldo]

The problem is that room gains are all over the map. To me a Qtc of 0.5 sounds like a bass that stops before it gets going. I know some rock enthusiasts like low Qtc, but for classical music it is on the low side where to me 0.7 to 0.75 sounds much better. I have to say I don't like the last octave reproduced by sealed enclosures. The bass strings and especially the bass organ pipes sound quite unnatural to me. A speaker cone is actually not a very efficient acoustic coupler at low frequencies. A well deigned port, especially a large port from a TL is much better.

At least we agree on one thing, Transmission Line !
I'm using Meadowlark Kestrel2 TL loaded speakers

I'd love to have TL subs. but think about the size of those boxes ==:-O

-H

 

[InTheIndustry]

cost of production for either sealed or ported is irrelevant to this thread.
amount of time for production is irrelevant as well.
where the subwoofers are made is irrelevant.
looks of the subwoofer is irrelevant.
where the end user will place the subwoofer is irrelevant.
who will install the subwoofer is irrelevant.

you seem to keep fudging your points: e.g. sealed is better because HSU is ugly. huh?

my argument:
sealed is NOT superior to ported nor is ported superior to sealed.

if you disagree, please provide us with objective proof that this is not so. because I have already provided mine.

i will accept a double blind test result, since this is scientific in approach and not based on sighted biases.

Mike C,

As I was reading through your last response I started to get really fired up. I mean, really mad. I kept thinking, “How dense can this guy be?”. But then I got to this statement:

my argument:
sealed is NOT superior to ported nor is ported superior to sealed.

I realized that, fundamentally at least, we completely agree. Read through my posts and you’ll find that I don’t really argue that point.

However, what I ‘m trying to communicate (and I tried to do this from my first post through this one) is that I DO have a favorite technology, IN MY GENERAL OPINION, and that I chose that favorite based on subjective reasoning because the sound quality can be very similar between the two depending on the manufacturer(s). I have answered your what is relevant statements in an “Agree”/”Disagree” fashion and provided explanations as to my reasoning. If you add these up hopefully it will become clearer as to why I generally feel more confident in a sealed design.

cost of production for either sealed or ported is irrelevant to this thread = Disagree! It’s most certainly relevant: When comparing two different engineering designs, it’s important to recognize why there’s a cost difference, if any, between producing the two. If there is then it’s important to investigate why a manufacturer chose to go one way or the other to better begin understanding differences between the concepts and thus, recognizing possible application issues that may arise.

amount of time for production is irrelevant as well. = Disagree!
I only brought this up because a DIY guy chimed in, as they always do, to try and show a big value in doing it yourself (I will not deny that’s the case for some). But claiming that a $600 DIY design and the $3200 “comparable” sealed design should be compared is a misstatement. They’re silly to compare because of the production model that the $2500 mass market model has to follow. I was only trying to show that it was an incorrect statement showing “perceived value”.

where the subwoofers are made is irrelevant. Agree!

looks of the subwoofer is irrelevant. Wrong/Correct = Push. If you ignore esthetics you’re possibly A: Too Hardcore, B: Have Horrid Taste, C: Single w/ horrid taste, or D: Are hiding the subwoofer in-cabinet/behind wall. Looks do not effect sound, but I consider having to build a subwoofer obnoxiously huge &/or ugly to reach performance goals because a manufacturer chose a cheaper design is a serious design flaw.

where the end user will place the subwoofer is irrelevant. Disagree!
Have you ever tried to place a subwoofer in a built in cabinet? Ports, rear or down firing (front’s are usually alright depending on port design), can do all sorts of weird things in cabinets and therefore require extra work to pull off (but results will still vary based on several variables).

who will install the subwoofer is irrelevant. Correct! Done properly it’s as right as it can be. Done poorly and it’s poor. This is true regardless of design.

you seem to keep fudging your points: e.g. sealed is better because HSU is ugly. huh? That IS my whole point, man! If the HSU’s engineered design (ported) makes it ugly and there’s a comparable model out there that isn’t, I’m going with it instead.


I’m still adamant, and nobody’s disagreed with me yet, that testing results are achieved through less than genuine means. If we know this to be true, why do people put some much, literally, blind & deaf faith in them?

To humor some of you, I went ahead and found some articles that provide food for thought for those fascinated by the science behind things….

General Explanation
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/26/262171.html

More Specific
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf

And Finally…
The last paragraph in the article below echoes my point completely, stating that there are both good and bad designs of both. The article also states that it depends on the manufacturer’s goals and the consumer’s wants, leaving the SHOPING up to the individual. I’m fairly certain that by “shopping” he means to actually identify your needs and then go out and demo the gear.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_5_2/cmilleressayporting.html

As far as accepting only double blind test results, I wonder why you'd be so picky and stringent when you don't adhere to those practices yourself? You're numbers bias. You admitted as much yourself. You peak to see which one performs better first before/rather than going out and listening for yourself or making purchasing decisions. In my eyes that could present just as much or maybe even more of a "sighted bias" than looking at the price tag. I'm not saying this to jab at you, Mike C., but it seems like the real fun of this hobby, which is experiencing the gear, has escaped you.

Best of luck!

 

[mike c]

so was that a long post that pretty much says:

1) sealed is better than ported because ported boxes are ugly and big.
2) since you agree that disregarding all other factors pretty much means sealed=ported, i still dont know why you are taking this thread off track, of which I am the OP btw, and the only question was 'is sealed better than ported regardless of anything else'. so we agree, but you have a funny way of agreeing with disagreeing points.

i pretty much think i've experienced a good number of subwoofers, in fact, it was because of the 'sealed is better than ported for music' argument that I bought a sealed DD18 myself. after 'experiencing' it myself, I have decided that a ported sub when tuned low enough was less susceptible to power compression and still PERFORM equally. and unlike your pre-conceived notion that biases you FOR sealed subs. i have been repeating all over this thread that I have NO BIAS since I have pretty much concluded sealed=ported, I do not need to fool myself on which sub is what I really want, because I keep them all anyway.

 

[Sheep]

Mike! The Dominator!

SheepStar

 

[TLS Guy]

At least we agree on one thing, Transmission Line !
I'm using Meadowlark Kestrel2 TL loaded speakers

I'd love to have TL subs. but think about the size of those boxes ==:-O

-H

I did manage to find a cross section of your Kestrel2 speakers. They are a folded labyrinth type of TL. The start of the line is a little strange, but by all accounts they work, and have the TL attributes in the bottom end.

I think they were designed prior to 1995 and therefore before G.L. Auspuger's mathematical model published in 2000, which I believe to be correct.

I agree about TLs with an extended low end taking up a lot of real estate.

Take a look at these pictures.

http://mdcarter.smugmug.com/Walberswick Studios

 

[Seth=L]

I can't stand reading these massively long posts, I tried to read a bit, but I can't focus on the monitor that long, especially this late.

InTheIndustry, I see you refered to one of Clint's reviews, fair enough. I would simply say that the Yamaha and certainly the Panasonic didn't respond to the impedance fluxuations of the speakers used in the review. The Marantz is very robust and capable of handling lower impedance loads while remaining stable. It makes perfect sense to me that it would because it's bigger, badder, and was designed to work well with that type of speaker. Anytime the amplifier is no longer in control of the signal I would classify it as audible distortion, meaning the amplifier is not working within its design parameters. Regardless or the suggested retail and power ratings supplied by the manufacturer, the Marantz simply has a more robust amplifier that is more toleraunt of impedances sways. I would never argue that all amplifiers sound exactly the same under any circumstances. But to say that one amplifier is overall warm, and another is bright, regardless of what speakers are being used is just plain silly.

 

[annunaki]

I all honesty guys, why is this an argument? A subwoofer either reproduces bass naturally, the way it was intended, or it doesn't. If it does not allow the output one is after, simply add more and properly place them in the room.

One really just needs to select a sub based upon their preferences. As in nearly any facet of audio, there are always compromises. It is simply a matter of what one can and cannot compromise on.

Of all the subs I have played around with and listened to thus far, the JL Audio W6v2, W7, SVS PB-12 Ultra, and Phase Tech's D.A.R.T.S. system subs are some of the best I have heard. In terms of musical accuracy, the W6v2 is probably the best individual driver I have heard. The W7 is about 1% off in terms of accuracy, but adds substantially more output and depth capability. This is a compromise I can live with.

Arguing the enclosure design is silly because most woofers will perform best in one type or the other. Few subs do well in both types. The JL drivers along with the Infinity Kappa perfect VQ are rare types in that they will do both very well. For home subs there is very little option there. It is almost always one or the other. In the home environment, one must view the sub as a complete system (sub, enclosure, amplifier, all as one), like a Gotham vs. an Ultra and such. Comparing the individual drivers in these "systems" means little, because without the rest of the "system", it becomes useless in a way.

Unless one is going DIY and has control over the entire process, arguing the individual points of these "systems" is pointless. Blind testing is essentially the only way to go in that respect.