Ported versus sealed speakers: is one type better?


Have two systems of wildly different scale and cost.  My main rig features Wilson Watt/Puppy 7's, while at my vacation cabin the system features Totem Rainmakers.

Got me thinking recently that both are ported designs.  And many box speakers are indeed ported designs.

However some of the best and most costly speakers are sealed - not ported.  Examples include Magico and YG Acoustics among others.

 I realize ports are just one aspect of the overall design but I'm seeking opinions on whether one is inherently worse than the other (ported versus non ported)?

Thus would a Magico or YG have an inherent advantage over a Wilson, Rockport,  Von Schweikert or other top ported design?

Any thoughts?
bobbydd
 
if you think you can just throw a sock in the port and have a sealed (IB) enclosure to suit the same driver, your nutz.
no, it can work. You are wrong. 


Post removed 
My experience with transmission line cabs is that they sacrifice midbass dynamics for bass extension. 

And no, efficiency is not solely dependent on the drivers. 
Transmission line enclosures are darn hard to design. Roger Sanders makes the best one I've ever heard.
I personally do not like deep base coming from my satellites. But, I use ESLs and cross to sealed subs at 125 Hz. 
I am not sure about this but I do believe it is harder to make a ported design operate below it's resonance frequency than a sealed design.
This might allow the sealed design to work better with room control. I have not used room control that way. I would always use subwoofers which might make the seal/port argument mute.  
It's all in the implementation
+1 End of story. Beware of the ‘expert’ who recommends any component over another based purely on genre.