Front Ported or Rear Ported Speakers

[PeteVid]

What are the Pros and Cons of both?

What do folk prefer?

I noticed that Castle Richmond 3s used to be front ported but the 3i incarnation is rear ported, why did they change?

[Testure]

Generally the rule of thumb is that rear ported speakers need to be further away from walls that front firing. But it really boils down to individual speakers.

Testy

[istari knight]

I prefer rear ported but in a small room i would go for front ported as they are less boomy in the bass region........If i was given the choice of any design i'd go for sealed box speakers with big drivers but thats something best left for another thread !

[earl of sodbury]

My experience is that preferability depends on the room; for my micro-habitations front-ported is always better.

[Davewhityetagain]

why have a port ? some speakers don't

[kennyk]

My Arts are rear ported and managed not to embarrass themselves in your room though...

[earl of sodbury]

kennyk wrote:

My Arts are rear ported and managed not to embarrass themselves in your room though...

And they were damned good; the Neats were both rear and base ported and worked well as well, but I keep preferring front-ported - sound faster and don't tend to smear.

[kennyk]

a return trip becons... ;)

[Umberto]

My Arts are rear ported as are the Stilettos and Stiletto 6's but seem to work well close to a rear wall. The Stilettos especially suit close to wall siting.

[earl of sodbury]

kennyk wrote:

a return trip becons... ;)

Always welcome

[Sheva]

I heard a couple of front ported speakers last week and found them sluggish and inconsistent.

Currently have closed design - are these in theory better at timing ?

What is general minimum distance for placing rear ported speakers at rear wall, or is it really so variable?

[hifinut]

Davewhityetagain wrote:

why have a port ? some speakers don't

The port if tuned correctly will double the bass available fron a given enclosure size but suppose it's all upto driver quality and cabinet damping too look at the small Proac's for example they are renouned to produce bass that belies the phisical dimentions along with many other monitors out there.

Ps I use and love front ported speakers

[nsherin]

Not owned any rear-ported speakers myself. I'd be inclined to go for front-ported, in the sense that they are less fussy about positioning, plus annoying any neighbours or people in rooms adjacent with bass boom against walls.

[harv]

nsherin wrote:

Not owned any rear-ported speakers myself. I'd be inclined to go for front-ported, in the sense that they are less fussy about positioning, plus annoying any neighbours or people in rooms adjacent with bass boom against walls.

On a bit of a tangent, if you had your rear speakers say at a 45degree angle to the wall would that effect still happen:Not Sure:

[nixon_fiend]

my speakers are front ported.. but not port loaded .. pseudo TL design - the port is mainly to increase sensitivity I believe.

Bass is quick and light .. and I'll take anyone on for timing :dude: :force:

[Borats Baby]

My old conways are front ported and produce plenty of rich bass. I have to say though, I have no preference because I have owned rear ported and side ported speakers and all have been nice... just in different sorts of ways.

Standmounts are better rear ported I reckon, and floorstanders are better front ported. IMO

Each to his own !!

I prefer the idea of bass being fired at you (the listener) as apose to a wall (who isnt listening).

[cjr]

PeteVid wrote:

I noticed that Castle Richmond 3s used to be front ported but the 3i incarnation is rear ported, why did they change?

Pros and cons ? Well they both sound good to me, I have rear ported Castle Cliftons about the same size as the Richmond 3is and they have more bass than my Richmond 2s which are bigger and front ported. Same with the Diapason's I have rear ported and a lot of welly when sited against a wall.