I Stuffed My Ported Speakers: The Results Pleasantly Surprised Me

[nqikz]

I do mixing for those that are curious and I have relatively open mind when it comes to things in audio, so I decided to stuff my ported HS5s with napkins. The results were quite interesting .

Before stuffing them, I could hear more kick drum out of a song and just overall more bass down in the 60hz region. When stuffed, the bass was there but it was faint and not as audible.

This Makes sense since the HS5s don’t actually have a lot of bass. They are small speakers. Their port allows them to go lower and gives you this false bass that shouldn’t really exist.

In the REW measurements, I found that my low mids 115-400hz evened out and the decay for them is now more stable with the rest of the mids and high-mids. Where as before I had this weird low-mid dip in the 200-300hz area and the decay times were much drier and faster than the mids and highs, overall it was uneven.

My theory is that now that the port is stuffed, the woofer can finally focus on reproducing accurate low mids instead of trying to pump out fake 60hz.

Honestly this was a really pleasant surprise to me. Wish I would’ve done it earlier. I guess it goes to show that ported systems are sold and catered to a target market for people that want more bass in the exchange of accuracy. My next speakers will very likely end up being a sealed cab no doubt.

 

[mhardy6647]

The old aperiodic damping trick...

borrowed image from Reverb of a pair of Dynaco A-25.

 

[nqikz]

The old aperiodic damping trick...

View attachment 509918

borrowed image from Reverb of a pair of Dynaco A-25.

I wish most pro audio gear was sealed cab. I think that’s why the KH310 is probably the best speakers on the market at their price point. Doesn’t get any better than that.

 

[Jiraya369]

false bass

what does this even mean

 

[kyuu]

what does this even mean

Nothing, really. There's nothing "false" or "artificial" about the bass from a port. It's just a means of extracting efficiency from a speaker in the lower frequencies utilizing energy that would otherwise be going to waste.

Usually, the "improvement" one gets from stuffing a port is because of the attenuated bass response sounding subjectively "tighter" as you're not putting as much energy into room modes. The gigantic room mode peaks are almost always what cause a subjective sense of "muddy" bass (and oftentimes even into the mid-range). Better to just use EQ/room correction to get rid of the peaks, but I can see how one might prefer an attenuated bass response if they can't or won't use DSP.

I do actually prefer to use sealed speakers, but only because I think it makes good integration with a subwoofer easier since you don't have the phase issues around the port tuning. Of course not a problem if you aren't using a subwoofer.

 

[Jiraya369]

There's nothing "false" or "artificial" about the bass from a port

yeah lol i find it funny how even with supposed measurements from REW, OP believes in fake bass or something. Like bruh, at which point does bass become real then?


yeah, it seems like all subjectivists have the same thing, no idea of what room modes are, thus low powered speakers/subs or things that cant go deep comfortably are suddenly musical. But honestly, I think it's beyond real effects, it's all just biases and placebo. They'll get massive, expensive sealed subs which would excite the room modes similarly, but because the marketing (and their fav reviewer/audiophile buddies) said the sub is musical, suddenly it's all better than a "******, cheap SVS" or something lmao

integration with a subwoofer easier

is that shown in the wall placement picture from genelec?

Are these only for ported speakers then? And if one has ported speakers, how would they tackle subwoofer integration? Btw what about speakers like the Ascilab stuff with the Passive Radiators, are they not functionally like sealed speakers?

Oh and what should one use for bass integration? It's hard to find non-avr stuff and non-minidsp stuff that has these features. Topping's DACs and amps are great and cheap but they don't have bass management, infuriating.

 

[kyuu]

is that shown in the wall placement picture from genelec?
View attachment 509949
View attachment 509950
Are these only for ported speakers then?

Huh? No, those are about SBIR cancellations, not room modes. Those aren't affected by ported vs. sealed.

And if one has ported speakers, how would they tackle subwoofer integration?

It just makes it more difficult to gett the phase of the main speakers versus the subwoofer lined up well enough so you don't get dips/boosts through the crossover region. It's not impossible, of course, just a bit harder.

Btw what about speakers like the Ascilab stuff with the Passive Radiators, are they not functionally like sealed speakers?

No, passive radiators are still a bass reflex design with the same characteristics as a port. They just prevent port chuffing and don't require a bunch of internal volume for the port tube (and prevent intrusion into the cabinet through the port), at the expensive of needing space for the radiators. Also the passive radiators are more expensive than a simple tube.

Oh and what should one use for bass integration? It's hard to find non-avr stuff and non-minidsp stuff that has these features. Topping's DACs and amps are great and cheap but they don't have bass management, infuriating.

Yes bass management is lacking on a lot of DACs/amps. If you want good subwoofer integration, I would argue something that not only proper crossover functionality but also DSP is pretty much mandatory, though you can a decent enough result with just a simple crossover if you're lucky.

 

[nqikz]

yeah lol i find it funny how even with supposed measurements from REW, OP believes in fake bass or something. Like bruh, at which point does bass become real then?


yeah, it seems like all subjectivists have the same thing, no idea of what room modes are, thus low powered speakers/subs or things that cant go deep comfortably are suddenly musical. But honestly, I think it's beyond real effects, it's all just biases and placebo. They'll get massive, expensive sealed subs which would excite the room modes similarly, but because the marketing (and their fav reviewer/audiophile buddies) said the sub is musical, suddenly it's all better than a "******, cheap SVS" or something lmao

is that shown in the wall placement picture from genelec?
View attachment 509949
View attachment 509950
Are these only for ported speakers then? And if one has ported speakers, how would they tackle subwoofer integration? Btw what about speakers like the Ascilab stuff with the Passive Radiators, are they not functionally like sealed speakers?

Oh and what should one use for bass integration? It's hard to find non-avr stuff and non-minidsp stuff that has these features. Topping's DACs and amps are great and cheap but they don't have bass management, infuriating.

Enjoy your smeary bass all you want if you’re an audiophile. This thread might not be helpful to you.

Nothing, really. There's nothing "false" or "artificial" about the bass from a port. It's just a means of extracting efficiency from a speaker in the lower frequencies utilizing energy that would otherwise be going to waste.

Usually, the "improvement" one gets from stuffing a port is because of the attenuated bass response sounding subjectively "tighter" as you're not putting as much energy into room modes. The gigantic room mode peaks are almost always what cause a subjective sense of "muddy" bass (and oftentimes even into the mid-range). Better to just use EQ/room correction to get rid of the peaks, but I can see how one might prefer an attenuated bass response if they can't or won't use DSP.

I do actually prefer to use sealed speakers, but only because I think it makes good integration with a subwoofer easier since you don't have the phase issues around the port tuning. Of course not a problem if you aren't using a subwoofer.

you need a lot more bass traps with ported speakers. A sealed cabinet allows you to get away with less bass traps.

 

[Jiraya369]

DSP is pretty much mandatory

thanks for the answers, and by DSP you mean EQ right? idk what else you'd feasibly want to change, perhaps adding delay or something?

and which devices would you suggest?

 

[Jiraya369]

smeary bass

Lmao bro has never heard of eq

My speakers have bass that is as tight and clean as my headphones', just that i have a null around 100 hz that reduces a lot of impact but there are room modes elsewhere which i have turned down.

There's nothing called "fake bass" and there's nothing magical about sealed speakers, it's all about getting your desired FR. By your logic the Genelecs are some of the worst monitors ever Lmaooo

 

[nqikz]

Lmao bro has never heard of eq

My speakers have bass that is as tight and clean as my headphones', just that i have a null around 100 hz that reduces a lot of impact but there are room modes elsewhere which i have turned down.

There's nothing called "fake bass" and there's nothing magical about sealed speakers, it's all about getting your desired FR. By your logic the Genelecs are some of the worst monitors ever Lmaooo

With a sealed cab you would barely notice the null

 

[kyuu]

you need a lot more bass traps with ported speakers. A sealed cabinet allows you to get away with less bass traps.

I mean I suppose. Less bass means less bass energy to need to "trap". But if you want actual bass without the room mode peaks I prefer to just use EQ than to accept an attenuated bass response and mess with bass traps. Effective room treatment for the bass region is extremely non-trivial; it requires measurements, careful consideration, a lot of space, and a pretty large outlay. Just throwing a couple of off-the-shelf bass traps in the corners doesn't cut it.

 

[nqikz]

I mean I suppose. Less bass means less bass energy to need to "trap". But if you want actual bass without the room mode peaks I prefer to just use EQ than to accept an attenuated bass response and mess with bass traps. Effective room treatment for the bass region is extremely non-trivial; it requires measurements, careful consideration, a lot of space, and a pretty large outlay. Just throwing a couple of off-the-shelf bass traps in the corners doesn't cut it.

No it’s not about less bass. Even with the KH310 you would get a much cleaner bass response and you will excite room modes less compared to an 8” speakers that’s ported. With a ported 7 or 8” speaker you will need WAY more bass traps and EQ.

 

[Jiraya369]

With a sealed cab you would barely notice the null

sure bud

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Nothing, really. There's nothing "false" or "artificial" about the bass from a port. It's just a means of extracting efficiency from a speaker in the lower frequencies utilizing energy that would otherwise be going to waste.

Usually, the "improvement" one gets from stuffing a port is because of the attenuated bass response sounding subjectively "tighter" as you're not putting as much energy into room modes. The gigantic room mode peaks are almost always what cause a subjective sense of "muddy" bass (and oftentimes even into the mid-range). Better to just use EQ/room correction to get rid of the peaks, but I can see how one might prefer an attenuated bass response if they can't or won't use DSP.

I do actually prefer to use sealed speakers, but only because I think it makes good integration with a subwoofer easier since you don't have the phase issues around the port tuning. Of course not a problem if you aren't using a subwoofer.

I blame the 1980s . That's when "tight tuneful bass" was "invented". Until that time more money often meant bigger cabinets and larger drivers. This resulted in house-shaking bass, but some companies and magazines noticed the bass was all "one note". This led to the development of expensive smaller, but "tuneful" speakers. There was also a lot of poorly understood waffle about "speed".

Of course what was really happening was big, low-extension speakers were driving room nodes which led to resonances, masking and nulls. The "tuneful" speakers did not have a great deal of extension and so did not drive the room nodes so powerfully reducing masking and making it easier to "follow the bass lines".

 

[574stereo]

Ports have a number of issues associated with them, but it all depends on the implementation. When Q = less than ~0.8, ringing is unlikely to be an issue. Anything above that and ring (overhang) starts to become an issue.

Without the port, the woofer + enclosure interaction in a sealed enclosure will produce a certain LF roll off, which in many cases isn’t sufficient, it gets expensive to build (and drive) drivers which can naturally reproduce a decent low end extension in this scenario, so most manufacturers will rely more on the port in a smaller speaker to bring some low end extension back into the design.

Depending on how much they’re relying on the port to lift up the low end, you often find the Q rises and as a result… rings when the frequency should actually stop dead. It’ll also affect on the transient response (onset of information is also affected).


Ports also tend to suffer from midrange resonances and chuffing.

Lastly, they can make the phase behaviour of the speaker a little tricky to work with at low frequencies. Some people (myself being one of them) think this is audible by itself, others don’t. Whichever of those schools of thought you choose to subscribe to, what cannot be argued with is that ported enclosure phase response (depending on the approach of the designer) can make subwoofer integration tricky.

 

[voodooless]

My guess is that the issue is the particular implementation of the port of the speaker. Amir also noted this:

During the sweeps, the port, pardon my language, farted like nobody's business. It didn't seem like port noise but some kind of nasty high rate brrrrrrrrrrr noise. Stuffed some cotton in the port but then I could hear it from the front. This at the start of the sweep which makes me think is responsible for those large peaks below 100 Hz. It would have been worse if the port had been in the front. You sure as heck don't want to experience that "fart" facing you....

 

[Digital_Thor]

I don't know what's wrong with my ears.... but I can almost always hear ports - on most speakers. This is why I always DIY with closed designs. Yes, you lose a lot of output and need more power and bigger woofers, but IMO you get a "cleaner" bass with less chance of hearing an exaggerated "woof" from a port.
Even with good designs like KEF, I sense a "boxy" sound from bass, that slightly colors the sound, which simply disappear when you plug the port.
I use two Satori WO24P per side in my DIY mains, and they hardly reach 65Hz in a closed volume of 70 liters. So yes, ports truly do extend the bass greatly - but not at a price I'm willing to pay. But that's why I use subwoofers

 

[dfuller]

you need a lot more bass traps with ported speakers. A sealed cabinet allows you to get away with less bass traps.

No.

You need more bass trapping because with the ports open the speaker extends further down and activates more room resonances.

No it’s not about less bass. Even with the KH310 you would get a much cleaner bass response and you will excite room modes less compared to an 8” speakers that’s ported. With a ported 7 or 8” speaker you will need WAY more bass traps and EQ.

The KH310 has linear response down below 40hz. It has the same requirements as a ported speaker that extends down that low. Reflex vs Sealed doesn't even play into it.

 

[kharan]

I guess that there is more phase rotation when using a bass-reflex speaker than when using a sealed speaker, but that's a product of the slope of the bass response.

Come to think of it, the KH310 looks like its bass response drops like a rock past 40 Hz, there must be an EQ filter somewhere, with an equally sharp phase rotation as a bass-reflex would add. Maybe?