As with anything, there are pros and cons, and good and bad examples of each type. Bass from a ported box often tends to stand out with a bit more punch, which makes for a good first impression during a quick demo to a lot of folks. Not so different than having somewhat forward upper mids/treble. In the long run a lot of us might prefer the more refined approach of an acoustic suspension design, and more neutral upper mids, but that quick hook for a sale is king.
Why not acoustic suspension?
When I was young, late 60's early 70's, the sealed or acoustic suspension speakers were quite commonplace. Now bass reflex, ported speakers seem to be much more common. My understanding is that both speaker designs, assuming competent design will perform very well. Perhaps with the ported getting a slightly lower bass response and higher efficiency gives it the edge. Thinking efficiency though, amplifier watts don't cost that much more today so it doesn't seem like a deal maker. What I don't understand from a pragmatic corporate standpoint is why more acoustic suspension speakers aren't available. My understanding is that the sealed speaker box can be smaller which would be a plus from a cost standpoint, both in less material, lighter cabinet and more speakers could be shipped in a truck reducing shipping cost. Any thoughts as to why the industry has shifted so hard in the bass reflex direction?
- ...
- 58 posts total
Bass reflex (ported) relies on the port resonance to extend bass response. Done optimally, this results in an undamped 3 db boost at the system resonance and 24 db/octave roll-off below. The lack of damping results in the boominess mentioned by others here (and the common addition of "port plugs"). Acoustic suspension can be tuned as desired: critically damped (qT=.5), maximally flat (qT = .707), or other and rolls off below at 12 db/octave. The preferred speaker Q for the 2 alignments is different. I believe most woofers these days are designed for bass reflex, most likely because speaker designers chose that alignment. Like some others here, I prefer the closed box sound myself. |
@winoguy17 Very happy as you should be. :) If I ever upgrade from my old AR9's, it will be with these. The Legacy designs are very similar to old AR's. |
@yogiboy I have also always preferred sealed enclosures. Bass is tighter, seems much more accurate. Takes more power. So be it. |
This is just my subjective opinion, but my sense from listening to speakers is that true acoustic suspension speakers tend to sound a bit congested compared to other configurations be they infinite baffle, which are also totally enclosed, or ported, or speakers using passive radiators, which are sort of in between in a way. When I was in college in the early 1970s I worked at a high end store in the Seattle area. We carried JBL, Altec Lansing, both representing the ported school, AR and KLH, acoustic suspension and electrostatic for KLH, Bozak, infinite baffle, Klipsch, horn loaded. In other words the store had the goods of the day. McIntosh introduced their ML series speakers, which were acoustic suspension. Initially we displayed them in a room along side Bozak and within months the rep informed the owner that our speaker sales were lagging his other Mac dealers. The elephant in the room was Bozak. We moved the two lines into separate rooms and sure enough Mac speaker sales picked up. Customers were getting confused. For me the Bozaks sounded easy, the Macs forced. Before I graduated I bought Bozaks. Another example, love them or hate them was the Bose 901. Originally an acoustic suspension design, but starting with the Series III a ported speaker. I felt and feel that the speaker worked better once it was ported. More open, freer, easier sounding. Later I bought Ditton 66 speakers, a passive radiator design, very easy on the ears, nothing forced about them at all. So that is my take on why acoustic suspension speakers have gone into decline. They simply don’t sound as good as others all else being equal. |
- 58 posts total