Do Ported Speakers Sound Bad (AP Mastering Video)

[ksulliva01]

Well, there's been a bit of discussion about this guy already and some of the previous videos he's done. This latest one is interesting, in which he essentially claims that port resonance causes "Time Domain" issues that are more detrimental to playback than frequency domain issues. I'm not entirely sure what "Time Domain" he's referring to, but I think his point is the port resonance causes a "looser" low end with a bit of ringing or sustain on kicks etc. If his tests are fair, than it is clear that his DIY 3-ways seem to more accurately produce sound than the Kali LP-8s, which I believe are known to have a pretty flat response. That being said, the LP-8's are cheap, entry level monitors not "industry standards" as he states. Any thoughts on this? Are all ported designs really that much more inaccurate than sealed designs? Video link below.

 

[kyuu]

This latest one is interesting, in which he essentially claims that port resonance causes "Time Domain" issues that are more detrimental to playback than frequency domain issues. I'm not entirely sure what "Time Domain" he's referring to, but I think his point is the port resonance causes a "looser" low end with a bit of ringing or sustain on kicks etc.

The "frequency domain" includes the "time domain". I've always found this whole rigamorole about the "time domain" rather silly, particularly where people are staring at impulse responses with ringing that's certainly inaudible due if you actually look at the X and Y axis.

If his tests are fair, than it is clear that his DIY 3-ways seem to more accurately produce sound than the Kali LP-8s, which I believe are known to have a pretty flat response.

Comparing a 3-way design to a 2-way design is already throwing additional variables into the mix that negates the entire comparison, even if there is an audible difference. I'm not going to bother trying to hear one through a Youtube video.

Are all ported designs really that much more inaccurate than sealed designs?

No. Although my preference is for sealed bed layer speakers mated to a ported subwoofer, strictly because it makes integrating the mains with the sub easier (the port tuning on a sub is way too low to be a problem there). If you don't have a sub, then I would go with a ported design for the additional extension/headroom unless you really have some monster mains (so not bookshelves).

 

[Curvature]

That guy on AP is not worth anyone's time.

 

[dasdoing]

Very revealing track. you should have posted in the other active thread about ported speakers

 

[Oboreal]

There are too many issues in this comparison to draw any meaningful conclusions. One thing is certain: the resonance linked to a bass reflex will inevitably affect the time domain response of a speaker. However, in this case—beyond the fact that we’re comparing a 3-way design to a 2-way design—we’re mostly dealing with two pairs of speakers that don’t reach nearly as low. And even if the recording is made close to the speakers, room effects start to play a role in the capture, and it only takes the room to resonate around 40 to 50 Hz, for instance, to cause much more smearing on the speaker that goes deepest, regardless of its own time-domain characteristics.

 

[dasdoing]

I have created perfect comparisons before using a phase filter created in Rephase, which were basically ignored. I feel like people are too biased towards the idea that it is not audible. However, I liked this track, and I will create a new one with it in the next few days.

 

[voodooless]

I already made a response:

Post in thread 'Sealed versus Ported Bass, can the difference be measured?'

Jul 11, 2025

Here is a video I just came across today that discusses ported vs sealed woofers:

Yeah, well... let's see what we have here: Luckily, the "geeks" requested pink noise, so we can actually see the frequency response of the 2 speakers:

Here is the reference:

Here is the Kali:

And the 3-way:

Here, both are overlaid (Kali in pink):

Clearly, there are major differences in frequency response. The large 3-way falls off earlier and slower, which makes sense, given that it's a closed box. So the Kali is actually...

• voodooless

• 

 

[Oboreal]

I wasn't too far off — a room resonance at 35 Hz and its octave (70 Hz) was probably highlighted more by the Kali speakers, which have more energy in that range. It's a good example of how crucial proper methodology is when aiming to produce scientific results. Trying to demonstrate differences between two speakers in an untreated room without specialized tools like klippel nfs is flawed.

In this specific case, it also highlights the YouTuber's lack of knowledge, as he could—or should—have known that his approach couldn't yield meaningful results in that context as any measurement below shroeder frequency will speak more about room than speakers. Using a free-field environment might have been an alternative.

 

[mhardy6647]

Do ported loudspeakers sound bad a priori? no.
Have there been, in century (give or take) of history for ported loudspeakers (Helmholtz resonators), bad sounding ones? yes.

 

[Oddball]

Obviously lots of awesome ported speakers that measure and have been reviewed well. So no, there is no general issue with ported speakers.

I prefer ported to sealed but recently also found love in designs that use passive radiators as ports.

 

[DSJR]

Only thing I can comment is a subjective vibe, but many porty speakers have a kind of added 'oooom' to bass notes which can upset room modes far more than a speaker that doesn't so this! Many 'BBC Derived speakers of old (maybe not current derivatives it must be said) to me, had this kind of 'oooom' quality which may well not be as noticeable on bowed bass/cello but which fared less well on kick drums or synth bass notes (my current ancient Spendors came with just a hole drilled in the plywood front baffle and this model only changed to a proper tuned damped port later on). Whether this audible bass artefact was an underdamped suspension on the cone or the port itself, I have no idea, sorry.

(My big ATCs had none of this, despite being ported, no chuffing at all and the active amps filtered out sub 20Hz anyway).

A speaker designer tried to educate me as regards how ports can be used, either to bolster up bass a little as in most (I suspect) smaller speakers, or to damp out a bass driver's main resonance and no more (as I believe my ATC 100As did).

What seems more concerning to me these days is the port resonances in the upper midrange. Some makers seem able to eliminate it, yet other boxes tested here, show terrible issues which must be audible (wasn't it Erin who played with Kalis to improve the upper mids by plugging the ports?).

 

[Keith_W]

That guy on AP is not worth anyone's time.

Exactly. One of his older videos where he tried to debunk the Nyquist theorem popped up on my feed tonight. I started listening to it during dinner and it was full of so much BS. I headed to the comments section but I was beaten to it by dozens of people tearing him to bits. So nice to see, it makes me feel warm inside! Turns out there is already an ASR thread.

 

[DVDdoug]

Have there been, in century (give or take) of history for ported loudspeakers (Helmholtz resonators), bad sounding ones? yes.

Right... "Bass reflex" go a bad reputation in the 1970's. Maybe a lot of manufactures were simply trying to maximize the bass without regard to the flatness of the bass response? There are still some boomy one-note aftermarket subwoofers in cars.

But since then, the science & technology have improved making it easier to make a good design with less trial-and-error.

The Thiele-Small papers were published in the 1970s, and once inexpensive computers became common it became cheap & easy for anybody to model/predict/optimize ported (or sealed) speaker performance.

 

[ksulliva01]

Hadn't realized this video was already posted in another active thread, sorry about that!

I admit I was briefly taken in by this guy’s confident, trolling “mastering engineer” persona. People can market whatever they want, but presenting misinformation as expert insight is sketchy. Funny to see he already had a rep here. Would love to see him send his 3-way in for Klippel testing.

Seems as though the Kalis are just activating room modes in the lows a little more aggressively, due to greater output in that region.

Being a bass player, I've always wondered about the phenomenon of bass tightness/looseness. Amongst bass players, the same thinking has generally applied to speaker cabinets, in that ported=deeper yet boomier, and sealed=faster/tighter but less low-end overall. I've always suspected that ports just reinforce sub bass and those frequencies will just never sound "fast" when a room is being excited - it's a consequence of room interaction more than port resonance. The famous Ampeg "Fridge" (Sealed 8x10 cab) has a response of 58Hz to 5kHz (-3dB) and is known for it's tight, punchy sound.

Also, the idea of bass “texture” probably has more to do with harmonic content above the fundamental—well into the midrange or even tweeter territory. So speaker midrange clarity might play a bigger role than the woofer itself, depending on crossover point.

 

[G|force]

Would love to see him send his 3-way in for Klippel testing.

I sent him an email asking him to do just that.

Some of his opinions on interfaces and DAW plugins are compelling but his take on these 3-ways and his self built TL "mastering speakers" vs. KH-310's... I dunno.

 

[ksulliva01]

Agreed, his look at compressor curves and EQ seemed pretty revealing of the marketing that goes into modern plugins.

 

[mhardy6647]

LF extension and roll-off (i.e., rate of SPL decrease as a function of frequency) is a little more complicated (maybe even nuanced) than "sealed vs. ported".
If nothing else, there's always the ultimate "sealed" enclosure vis-a-vis dealing with the back wave. -- the infinite baffle.


In the old days, people would take LF drivers (sometimes, though not exclusively, with very low Qts), and put them in closet doors.
The closet became the baffle.
Closet doors were probably more substantial in those days.

 

[gnarly]

I already made a response:

Post in thread 'Sealed versus Ported Bass, can the difference be measured?'

Jul 11, 2025

Here is a video I just came across today that discusses ported vs sealed woofers:

Yeah, well... let's see what we have here: Luckily, the "geeks" requested pink noise, so we can actually see the frequency response of the 2 speakers:

Here is the reference:

Here is the Kali:

And the 3-way:

Here, both are overlaid (Kali in pink):

Clearly, there are major differences in frequency response. The large 3-way falls off earlier and slower, which makes sense, given that it's a closed box. So the Kali is actually...

• voodooless

• 

Nice work. I barely listened to his test, as it was immediately clear the frequency magnitude responses were not matched. A non-starter.

The "frequency domain" includes the "time domain". I've always found this whole rigamorole about the "time domain" rather silly, particularly where people are staring at impulse responses with ringing that's certainly inaudible due if you actually look at the X and Y axis.

My take is that the frequency domain is best thought of via a dual transfer function that includes both magnitude and phase vs Frequency.
That the time domain is best thought of as an impulse response.
And I know that we can go back and forth between transfer and impulse as equivalencies.
(snip from Smaart manual)

So in the sense that a transfer function includes phase and can be translated to an impulse response via IFT, I can loosely agree with idea that the "time domain" is included in the frequency domain.

I say loosely agree though, because this relationship of the time domain derived from the frequency domain, is dependent of the same key condition necessary for a transfer function....which is, Fourier math assumes the span in time it analyzes to be steady state. Which it ain't.
Hence the inevitable tradeoff between precision in the time domain vs precision in the frequency domain.

This isn't just academic for me.... exploring the time domain performance of sealed vs ported using tone bursts has been an ongoing project for a few years.
I've measured single sealed vs single ported using the same driver, and fully matching the sealed's FR to the ported (without putting any high-pass on the ported).
It's still hard to get an exact match in group delay despite no hp on ported, but seems close enough. I do hear a little difference dammit, and don't know why.

To make myself live with getting to the bottom of this and see it through, I converted my three double 18" ported subs which each sat underneath a MEH horn in LCR,
to six single 18's, with a pair now sitting under each of the MEHs.
Making myself live with the sound after best equivalent tuning...on all kinds of music, through all kinds of trials etc...

Subs sure get smaller going sealed !! New to old..

...

 

[Curvature]

I already made a response:

Post in thread 'Sealed versus Ported Bass, can the difference be measured?'

Jul 11, 2025

Here is a video I just came across today that discusses ported vs sealed woofers:

Yeah, well... let's see what we have here: Luckily, the "geeks" requested pink noise, so we can actually see the frequency response of the 2 speakers:

Here is the reference:

Here is the Kali:

And the 3-way:

Here, both are overlaid (Kali in pink):

Clearly, there are major differences in frequency response. The large 3-way falls off earlier and slower, which makes sense, given that it's a closed box. So the Kali is actually...

• voodooless

• 

I was going to do this myself by importing clips into REW.

Completely agree with your analysis. I'm not sure how you are supposed infer timing difference with pink noise, that being a pseudo-random signal...

 

[georgeT]

So let me get this straight, plugging the ports will not get rid of port bleed, group delay, room modes and over excursion?