What would be louder

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1032100' date='Nov 21 2010, 06:53 PM']And regarding tone, if loudness weren't an issue most designers wouldn't even use porting.[/quote]Not any designers I know.
There's nothing the least bit magical about sealed cabs. Most cabs in the 60s were sealed not because they sounded better but because most of the drivers available didn't work any better in vented alignments. Designers/manufacturers who still create sealed cabs don't do so because they're better, they do so because they sell, mainly to customers who think there's something inherently better about the tone of a sealed cab. The fact of the matter is that a good designer can precisely duplicate the transfer function of a sealed cab with a vented alignment.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Bill Fitzmaurice

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1032706' date='Nov 22 2010, 03:00 PM']Not any designers I know.
There's nothing the least bit magical about sealed cabs. Most cabs in the 60s were sealed not because they sounded better but because most of the drivers available didn't work any better in vented alignments. Designers/manufacturers who still create sealed cabs don't do so because they're better, they do so because they sell, mainly to customers who think there's something inherently better about the tone of a sealed cab. The fact of the matter is that a good designer can precisely duplicate the transfer function of a sealed cab with a vented alignment.[/quote]

My ears like sealed cabinets and I find it easier to separate out the bass on them. But I guess that doesn't mean much. Hugh Robjohns, who is a useful no-b******t reviewer has this to say on the matter (bear in mind it's from a simple beginners article [url="http://www.performing-musician.com/pm/oct08/articles/technotes.htm"]here[/url] ):

[quote]In general, sealed-cabinet designs provide a very linear frequency response and — arguably of more importance — an excellent time-domain performance, by which I mean that transients are handled cleanly and without time smearing. However, sealed cabinet designs aren't particularly efficient and so it's not easy to make them go very loud. Consequently, this kind of design tends to be restricted to high-quality domestic hi-fi applications and professional near-field monitoring, where high replay volume isn't the primary requirement and relatively small size is an advantage. The BBC's infamous LS3/5A is a sealed-cabinet design that is highly regarded for critical monitoring purposes. The classic Yamaha NS10 is too, and while its overall frequency response isn't quite as refined as that of the LS3/5A, its time domain precision enables it to provide superb clarity and separation of the bass elements in a mix, which is partly why it has been such a popular studio reference for decades.[/quote]

Conservatism is a factor in governing markets but unless you really think those studio and mastering engineers who rate this design type are actually cloth-eared delusionists, then I think using the product limitations of the 1960s as an excuse for dismissing a design out-of-hand is a bit disingenuous. The NS10 is gash as far as response goes, but they do let you hear what's going on low down in a mix incredibly well.

I do wonder though, how many people actually regularly listen to bass on decent sealed systems, monitors, hi-fis or cabs? We're probably more used to adapting to ported cabs. I can't use sealed cabs as an effective solution for compact bass cabs due to the loudness issue, but they are very revealing. Perhaps too much for some people.

[Mr. Foxen]

Using terms like 'time smearing' = BS. Fairly sure your ear ear/brain doesn't perceive much relevant to that in the port tuning sort of frequency band. The term 'transients' also makes me suspicious, but that might be to do with Ampeg's marketing BS. I don't think I've encountered any decent sealed bass cabs.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1033024' date='Nov 22 2010, 01:32 PM']I do wonder though, how many people actually regularly listen to bass on decent sealed systems, monitors, hi-fis or cabs? We're probably more used to adapting to ported cabs. I can't use sealed cabs as an effective solution for compact bass cabs due to the loudness issue, but they are very revealing. Perhaps too much for some people.[/quote]
Is sealed was actually superior then that's what would dominate the market. I agree that poorly designed and built ported speakers sound like crap, but that's because they're poorly designed and built, not because they're ported.
As to the quoted article, not much there to impress. Especially this :[i]"The classic Yamaha NS10 is too, and while its overall frequency response isn't quite as refined as that of the LS3/5A, its time domain precision enables it to provide superb clarity and separation of the bass elements in a mix, which is partly why it has been such a popular studio reference for decades."[/i]

The real reason for the popularity of the NS-10 was its resemblance to the consumer speakers that average listeners would be using. It was always said that if you could get a mix to sound good through NS10s it would sound good through [i]anything[/i].

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1033031' date='Nov 22 2010, 06:40 PM']Using terms like 'time smearing' = BS. Fairly sure your ear ear/brain doesn't perceive much relevant to that in the port tuning sort of frequency band. The term 'transients' also makes me suspicious, but that might be to do with Ampeg's marketing BS. I don't think I've encountered any decent sealed bass cabs.[/quote]

I'm talking about the studio monitor market, not Ampeg. I didn't really want to go down this road because originally I was only making a throwaway point that ported cabs are not without compromises of their own, but I dislike such a didactic and obfuscating response to a point as I originally got (especially when it effective diverted from the main thrust of my argument). The 'time smearing', whatever you want to call it, is perfectly measurable. You can design ported cabs to minimise it, but a sealed cab offers a simple and reliable solution. Whether it's audible is another matter, but the world of mastering engineering is far away from that of exotic hifi fruitloopery. I can definitely hear something, and my ears are OK though not particularly 'golden'. I've never tested it systematically, because life is too short. I've heard speakers that use both and subjectively I've often preferred the sealed ones in terms of clarity. That's not as bass guitar cabs, but as monitors that are reproducing, amongst other things, bass guitar. Of course playback isn't the same (consider mic-ing a cab, then replaying it, both using ported systems, both with a similar delay characteristic) but I like what I hear there and I've heard some excellent live stage sounds using sealed 8x10s. Two popular explanations are offered for the ubiquity of the NS10s, one is mine, one is Bill's - but the problem with Bill's is that it doesn't explain WHY it'll sound good translated across to almost any speaker, particularly over using an actual consumer loudspeaker. The lack of port colouring obscuring problems that might become apparent on other, differently ported systems is one possible, I'd say highly plausible explanation.

Bill has again decided to obscure my point entirely by saying that if 'sealed was superior then that's what would dominate the market'. Ignoring the fact that I acknowledged the very real and more problematic compromises such a cab has in the loudness stakes, which is the very reason it doesn't dominate. I'll restate what I'm trying to say [b] If volume was unimportant [/b] and we just wanted a good clear tone, then we wouldn't bother with porting. A shelving EQ matching the gentle rolloff of a sealed cab does very nicely to give an excellent linear response, and porting introduces potential pitfalls of its own. These can be minimised, but then your design is a three-way compromise between the best reflexing for overall volume, even frequency response and acceptable time-domain characteristics. KISS principle applies.

Edited November 22, 2010 by LawrenceH

[LawrenceH]

Oh yes and the Hugh Robjohns quote was taken from an introductory article - not meant to be highly technical, I included it because over here he is very well-respected as an ex-broadcast engineer with a solid electronics and audio background, and his views aren't known for straying into the crazy realms of hifi that I mentioned in my last post. His ears and opinions carry rather more weight than my own...

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1033098' date='Nov 22 2010, 02:35 PM']Bill has again decided to obscure my point entirely by saying that if 'sealed was superior then that's what would dominate the market'.[/quote]
By the market I meant speakers in general, not just electric bass. In home use output isn't the concern that it is with pro-sound, and yet ported still dominates every segment of the hi-fi market save one, HT subwoofers. There sealed is well represented for two reasons: cabin gain and high driver Qts.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1033123' date='Nov 22 2010, 07:57 PM']By the market I meant speakers in general, not just electric bass. In home use output isn't the concern that it is with pro-sound, and yet ported still dominates every segment of the hi-fi market save one, HT subwoofers. There sealed is well represented for two reasons: cabin gain and high driver Qts.[/quote]

Again, a slippery, almost eel-like point! What relevance is the home audio market? In any case it absolutely loves big bass, and it matters more at very low levels, hence the 'loudness function' which boosts the low-end precisely in the areas small reflexed boxes will also bump it up. A studio monitor handling typically, say 100W RMS deosn't really compare to a crappy 10 to 20W hi-fi. (The NS-10s are actually unusually low input by today's standards but that's by the by - it's a 30-year-old design).

The number of terrible reflexed 'one-note-bass' plastic boxes for sale in the 80s and 90s and probably today, or the ipod docking station equivalent, are testament to how well bass sold home audio systems.

[stevie]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1032706' date='Nov 22 2010, 03:00 PM']There's nothing the least bit magical about sealed cabs. Most cabs in the 60s were sealed not because they sounded better but because most of the drivers available didn't work any better in vented alignments. Designers/manufacturers who still create sealed cabs don't do so because they're better, they do so because they sell, mainly to customers who think there's something inherently better about the tone of a sealed cab.[/quote]
I'm not sure what cabs in the 60s has got to do with anything, but here's one of those customers who thinks there's something inherently better about the tone of a sealed cab.

"[i]What are your thoughts on closed box vs ported for mastering in a properly treated room, especially with bass heavy music?[/i]
This is a real sore point with me. As far as I'm concerned, every ported speaker I've ever heard, even the ones purportedly optimized for perfect Thiel/Small performance, has "looser bass" and usually some kind of hidden or obvious resonance and often compromised dynamics. …… And since mastering should employ an absolute reference speaker, then ported has to be out, unless someone out there can name an exception to the rule that I have not yet auditioned.

People come from miles around to listen to and marvel at my system, which has been quoted as having the "tightest, flattest bass around". My Reference 3As are ported, (which I used before I moved to the Lipinski plus JL sub), and demonstrate to me time and again that the 3As definitely were an interim mastering solution. They now sit in the alternate listening room to prove to one and all that you can easily manufacture artificial bass with a port!

Bob Katz

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1033133' date='Nov 22 2010, 03:06 PM']hence the 'loudness function'[/quote]
That is intended to address the issue of equal loudness. To do so it boosts both the lower and upper end of the spectrum when the volume pot is set at low levels, with the effect diminished as volume is increased.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1033405' date='Nov 22 2010, 11:42 PM']That is intended to address the issue of equal loudness. To do so it boosts both the lower and upper end of the spectrum when the volume pot is set at low levels, with the effect diminished as volume is increased.[/quote]

I know. That's doesn't negate what I was saying in any way. I was just pointing out that small crap speakers are often sold by virtue of being bassy, and at the low volumes of such systems it matters, if anything, more than with bigger (partly because of the requirement for equal loudness contouring). Plus, on plenty of cheap stereos it doesn't disappear as you turn the volume up at all, you can switch it in and out and clearly hear it. There're also 'hyper bass boost' buttons and a hundred other similarly-named things which EQ small stereos around the porting frequency. But you know this, I really can't understand what you're arguing against if anything.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1033689' date='Nov 23 2010, 11:14 AM']I know. That's doesn't negate what I was saying in any way. I was just pointing out that small crap speakers are often sold by virtue of being bassy, and at the low volumes of such systems it matters, if anything, more than with bigger (partly because of the requirement for equal loudness contouring). Plus, on plenty of cheap stereos it doesn't disappear as you turn the volume up at all, you can switch it in and out and clearly hear it. There're also 'hyper bass boost' buttons and a hundred other similarly-named things which EQ small stereos around the porting frequency. But you know this, I really can't understand what you're arguing against if anything.[/quote]

Point is, you are constantly referencing cheap crappy ported systems, and those are crap because of the cheap crapness, not the being ported. What I have noticed in studios is that whilst they are equipped with NS10s, they also have other speakers in the room, and they are ported. The NS10s being there as representative of home stereo speakers (since that is what they were designed for) and the other speakers used for the actual production.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1033808' date='Nov 23 2010, 12:55 PM']Point is, you are constantly referencing cheap crappy ported systems, and those are crap because of the cheap crapness, not the being ported. What I have noticed in studios is that whilst they are equipped with NS10s, they also have other speakers in the room, and they are ported. The NS10s being there as representative of home stereo speakers (since that is what they were designed for) and the other speakers used for the actual production.[/quote]

I wasn't the one who brought the home market into this. Bill raised it as an example of where sealed cabs don't dominate and claimed this market doesn't care about bass volume, which is evidently not true at all, apparently in a quest to 'prove' that sealed cabinets are inherently inferior in every aspect to ported cabs which seems to me a very bizarre argument.

I honestly can't see what's at all controversial about the idea that porting is used to boost low-end output of speakers but comes with its own set of compromises and complications, and if it wasn't necessary to boost LF volume output we wouldn't use it. With sealed cabs you get a nice gentle drop in frequency response that is much more easily matched with a simple shelving filter than the more complex rapid drop (with small hump or shelf) associated with ported cabs. Plus the phase issues around porting are inherently dealt with rather than having to be designed out.

You may be able to minimise some of these things with ported cabs, but why be complicated when simple does it at least as well? It's because of the other serious benefits of porting which I didn't dispute. That is the only reason I made what was meant to be, as I said, a throwaway comment. It is frustrating to me that we've meandered off in a direction far away from the real point of my post, that it's not necessarily the bottom half-octave that you're looking to maximise power handling for in speaker cabs if it comes at the expense of the region slightly higher up where the strongest harmonics are. I'd be very interested to know where the typical power-bands of different basses lie.

By the way the reason I referred to the NS10s (as monitors, so I should say the NS10Ms) was precisely [b]because[/b] they don't sound that great overall but are nonetheless widely held as an example of where certain aspects of sealed cabinets have advantages over ported. [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf"]Here[/url] is a link to an Institute of Acoustics research paper examining the NS10s in a bit more scientific fashion, conclusions refer to 'very fast low-frequency decay...aided by the 12dB/octave roll-off of the sealed-box cabinet' and a 'better than average step function response, which implies good reproduction of transients'. I feel justified in my statements about them as firstly they match what my ears tell me, second my ears accord with received wisdom based on theory, and third since people like Hugh Robjohns and Bob Katz seem to agree (if you don't know of him, he's worth looking up).

My understanding is, the idea that NS10s are used because they sound like small home speakers started as a bit of a myth, this myth became popular so ended up becoming partly self-fulfilling. Consider that most home speakers are as Bill says ported - an NS10 is hardly representative. Plus no-one much likes their overall sound, which is the opposite of what the home hi-fi market wants, so probably their overall frequency response is not representative either. I only mentioned studio monitors in the first place because it's a market where revealing reproduction is much more important than overall output level - the live bass cab market obviously needs high output. If you listen to pretty much any sub-£600 studio monitors, the bass end has a character of its own that makes it difficult to fully trust in its translatability to another system. NS10s, [b]despite[/b] not being that great overall and not exhibiting anywhere like the volume output low down of ported designs, are (or were) unusual in the market in that a lot of deficiencies are subjectively far more audible on them than on these other cabs. Which is apparently and theoretically very plausibly at least partly attributable to their being sealed. In that sense the ported monitors are actually closer to the home hi-fi market. But, perhaps my pulling out a ubiquitous but relatively cheap example was a mistake, since there are other much more expensive sealed monitors that sound far nicer than NS10s while retaining the clarity at the low end.

Edited November 23, 2010 by LawrenceH

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1034111' date='Nov 23 2010, 12:15 PM']I honestly can't see what's at all controversial about the idea that porting is used to boost low-end output of speakers but comes with its own set of compromises and complications, and if it wasn't necessary to boost LF volume output we wouldn't use it.[/quote]There's nothing controversial about it, it just isn't true. One doesn't properly use a sealed versus ported alignment for any reason other than the specs of the drivers employed and the results desired.
[quote]With sealed cabs you get a nice gentle drop in frequency response that is much more easily matched with a simple shelving filter than the more complex rapid drop (with small hump or shelf) associated with ported cabs[/quote]One can obtain the same results with either topology. And one can obtain totally different results with either topology. One just has to know what one's doing.

[stevie]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1033098' date='Nov 22 2010, 07:35 PM']I didn't really want to go down this road because originally I was only making a throwaway point that ported cabs are not without compromises of their own, but I dislike such a didactic and obfuscating response to a point as I originally got (especially when it effective diverted from the main thrust of my argument).[/quote]
[u]Description of Red Herring[/u]

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

[pete.young]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' post='1014312' date='Nov 6 2010, 02:41 PM']Most of the people who have the right (i.e. big enough) transport to move cabs as tall as a vertical 4x10 would probably be using 8x10s or 2 ("normal") 4x10s anyway, given the choice. [/quote]

Back in the '70's we all had WEM PA column speakers, roughly the same size and weight as a vertical 4x10. I used to transport a pair in my minivan, no problemo. Even had room for the double bass in there too.

[xgsjx]

I had a pair of those in the 80s. Stood about 4 1/2 foot tall with 4 10" drivers in em. Cost about £70 s/h the pair I think.

[ShergoldSnickers]

[b]So, in summary:
[/b]
Loudspeaker cabinet design is not simple. It is the blending of many and often tightly interrelated attributes to achieve a desired goal. Isolating just one attribute will lead to confusion, as on it's own, and without context, that attribute can sometimes be made to appear to be any one of a large number of things, some of which may give the appearance of being diametrically opposed.

Then there's personal preference to throw in to the equation....

[Noisyjon]

Blimey, my heads spinning from this thread!

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='jonthebass' post='1035087' date='Nov 24 2010, 09:02 AM']Blimey, my heads spinning from this thread![/quote]
Science does have a tendency to win out over dogma, though sometimes it takes a while. Ask Galileo.
[i]'In 1979 Pope John Paul II asked that the 1633 conviction be annulled. However, since teaching the Copernican theory had been banned in 1616, it was technically possible that a new trial could find Galileo guilty; thus it was suggested that the 1616 prohibition be reversed, and this happened in 1992. The pope concluded that while 17th-century theologians based their decision on the knowledge available to them at the time, they had wronged Galileo by [b]not recognizing the difference between a question relating to scientific investigation and one falling into the realm of doctrine of the faith[/b].'[/i]

[Noisyjon]

If it helps I'm well happy with my 2 Barefaced Compacts and they do a most excellent job!
I recommend Alex's gear highly...

[stevie]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1035183' date='Nov 24 2010, 03:28 PM']Science does have a tendency to win out over dogma, though sometimes it takes a while. Ask Galileo.[/quote]
Yeah, Bill. You and Galileo are one of a kind.

[stevie]

[quote name='jonthebass' post='1035185' date='Nov 24 2010, 03:32 PM']If it helps I'm well happy with my 2 Barefaced Compacts and they do a most excellent job!
I recommend Alex's gear highly...[/quote]
There's a man who'll give you a straight answer to a straight question.

[thinman]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1035183' date='Nov 24 2010, 03:28 PM']Science does have a tendency to win out over dogma, though sometimes it takes a while. Ask Galileo.
[i]'In 1979 Pope John Paul II asked that the 1633 conviction be annulled. However, since teaching the Copernican theory had been banned in 1616, it was technically possible that a new trial could find Galileo guilty; thus it was suggested that the 1616 prohibition be reversed, and this happened in 1992. The pope concluded that while 17th-century theologians based their decision on the knowledge available to them at the time, they had wronged Galileo by [b]not recognizing the difference between a question relating to scientific investigation and one falling into the realm of doctrine of the faith[/b].'[/i][/quote]

So is it OK to use condoms or not?

[stevie]

Only if your willy is vertically aligned!

Edited November 24, 2010 by stevie