Ported or sealed box speakers. Which do you prefer?

[GruntPuppy]

I voted No Preference as I’ve heard plenty of good and bad examples of both.

If the question had been purely subwoofers, however, I’d have voted Ported, as I’ve not heard any sealed box subwoofer that I’d give house room to.

That doesn't bode well for me... I've got some sealed subs for my system, still in the box waiting to be dropped into place.

But - on the subject of ported/sealed, design is a significant factor. If the design is sound (mwahahaha), and the componentry is worthy, then either is worthy of consideration.

Open baffle speakers though.... Hmmm.

 

[cooky1257]

Group delay and its effects/mitigation and lack of audibility when shifted low.;

http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neum...ing_knowledge_faqs_general-answers_question13

 

[beammeup]

So later ESLs became even larger to allow for more deep bass in the balance, and then put two of them into a normal sized room and they dominate.


Best wishes from George

Magnepans could be a serious alternative and are far more room friendly in appearance. I would buy them but would worry about service and backup in the UK.

 

[Mike Reed]

ESL's have no box resonance issues and are faster with transients due to not having the inertia of conventional cones as you say - so why then don't all audiophile own the ESL (or similar like a Magnepan) if that's the better design type?

Yes, more transparent and faster, as you say. Guess the answer to your question is because of the size/shape/aesthetics. However, ESLs do require reasonable amplification (hybrids like M.L. more so and Maggies even more so), unless Magnepan have cracked that one recently. Also, bass response is limited (except in respect of hybrids), needing larger ESLs to address that shortcoming.

I do agree about your concern about service etc for imported (esp. American?) stuff, which is partly why I stick to E.A.R. and Quad, although I've been very tempted by M.L.'s big ones.

 

[darrenyeats]

Why haven't they taken over? I think because electrostatics beam at higher frequencies due to the large diaghram. Unless you use rings of diaghrams with delays like Quad (other techniques might exist) but to mind this is going to sacrifice one of their chief advantages i.e. simplicity! Then you have the bass extension/loudness problem too.

When it comes to headphones beaming isn't an issue, so the simplicity stays. Neither is bass SPL a problem. I think electrostatics are the best technology for headphones.

For speakers, all technologies have their compromises.

 

[matt j]

The problem with the LS3/5as (and similar mini-speakers) is that they aren't really suited for serious listening unless supported by subs.

Frankly, a load of bollocks. But you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[sq225917]

One assumes he has a full range requirement for serious listening.

 

[Tony L]

Why haven't they taken over? I think because electrostatics beam at higher frequencies due to the large diaghram. Unless you use rings of diaghrams with delays like Quad (other techniques might exist) but to mind this is going to sacrifice one of their chief advantages i.e. simplicity! Then you have the bass extension/loudness problem too.

I suspect mainly size and cost. Even with the economy of scale that comes from designing the most radical and one of the most successful speakers in the world I don’t think Quad’s profit margin was ever that great. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the amp sales actually subsided the speakers to some degree. Shift that into the current declining audio market and you can see why most manufacturers opt to throw off-the-shelf Seas or Scanspeak drivers into unimaginative and simple to make MDF boxes!

The IAG-owned Quad of today obviously still make electrostatics, as do Martin Logan and maybe some others, but they are clearly at the top-end of the marketplace and aimed at true audiophiles who are prepared to put the effort in with regards to positioning etc. The original Quads remain a benchmark to this day, as do the later ESL63 family. Wonderful speakers.

 

[darrenyeats]

I agree they are great in their own way.

 

[tuga]

Frankly, a load of bollocks. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Indeed, and so are you.

 

[mandryka]

Wonderful speakers.

With the right amp, at least in the case of ESL 63. That's to say, if you don't have the right amp you may be left wondering whether you'd have been better off with a box a quarter of the size and less than half the price, with better bass, easier to position, easier to integrate in your average living room, without all the ongoing maintenance costs and easier to sell on if you ever feel like a change.

The right amp being a hoover. With a hoover all those doubts vanish.

 

[Tony L]

With the right amp, at least in the case of ESL 63. That's to say, if you don't have the right amp you may be left wondering whether you'd have been better off with a box a quarter of the size and half the price, with better bass, and without all the maintenance costs.

Though given their quality/position in the market (still state of the art or close to IMO) the price of admission is actually very affordable given the original ESL sounds wonderful with a 303 and any Quad current dumper sounds decent with 63s and above! £500 buys a tidy 909 which would work a treat with any of the later point-source ESLs.

PS I accept the maintenance is an issue and is one reason I don’t have a pair of 57s!

 

[mandryka]

The ESL 63 sounds excellent with current dumpers, no doubt about it. So do Spendor PC1s and Mission 770s and Rogers JR 149s and no doubt a whole lot of other cheap boxes.Whether the ESL 63 by itself sounds finer than those speakers is not at all obvious to me. Certainly they don't sound finer unless they're a good few feet away from the back wall.

Set up properly, and with a very expensive solid state amplifier, then I think that the 63 is more than a wonderful sounding speaker, probably more impressive than those sealed and ported speakers I have just mentioned with same very expensive amp.

Your ears are more sensitive to the positive implications of point source than mine.

And don't forget the maintenance issues with ESLs. I have my boxes waiting for the day mine start to arc and spark, and some money, a lot of money, set aside for the job.

 

[Marchbanks]

Why haven't they taken over?

I accept the maintenance is an issue and is one reason I don’t have a pair of 57s!

The maintenance can be budgeted, though - £2/week in your piggy bank will keep you well on top of it! The reason I sold mine was the room-unfriendliness. I thought they sounded pretty good if not spectacular one metre from the back wall and half a metre in from the sides. That was the best I could do in a non-dedicated room. When I heard a pair situated half-way up a room the penny dropped.

 

[ToTo Man]

The right amp being a hoover. With a hoover all those doubts vanish.

I must be having a slow brain day... 'Hoover'?

 

[mandryka]

The maintenance can be budgeted, though - £2/week in your piggy bank will keep you well on top of it! The reason I sold mine was the room-unfriendliness. I thought they sounded pretty good if not spectacular one metre from the back wall and half a metre in from the sides. That was the best I could do in a non-dedicated room. When I heard a pair situated half-way up a room the penny dropped.

Ah well, you didn't have a Krell KSA50. The amp really makes a huge difference to all the things which we care about -- attack, overtones, stability and size of image. That's what you get with the hoover that you don't get with the current dumpers.

 

[mandryka]

I must be having a slow brain day... 'Hoover'?

My nick name for the KSA50, because it has a fan which though silent, still sucks air in (or does it blow it out? I can't remember), and that's not silent. And it's a bugger for mains hum when it's first switched on in the evenings.

 

[Cesare]

You don't realise that instruments produce sound whilst speakers (systems) reproduce recorded sound.
Perhaps a tweeter should be a whistle?

Are you rude to people in everyday life, or only on the web?

 

[tuga]

Are you rude to people in everyday life, or only on the web?

Sorry, I may have been replying to a "rude" post...

 

[h.g.]

I will not contest the wide imagination of many audiophiles but some sources (i.e. John Atkinson, Jussi Laako) defend that tweeter resonance will produce sympathetic harmonic distortion which may creep into the audible range like the fold-back aliasing in digital audio.

The mechanism of nonlinearities transferring energy from inaudible frequencies to audible frequencies is a real one but the magnitudes are too small not unlike a lot of other audiophile nonsense concerning DACs, cables, amplifiers, and the like. Resonance is primarily a linear motion although perhaps a tad less so near a peak (inertia and stiffness are strongly linear but they cancel at a peak leaving the weak damping force to control the motion and this can be more nonlinear although not greatly so). In order for a part of the small nonlinear part of the motion to alias and become audible the resonance needs to be strongly driven. There may be plenty of energy in a frequency response test signal but there is little energy in music at ultrasonic frequencies particularly on CDs. The numbers are too small. This shouldn't be a surprise given how many smart people design and use metal tweeters. And if it was a real problem then the first thing people would do to reduce the effect is low pass the signal. Is this standard advice when using speakers with metal tweeters?