Elsewhere, I've raised this issue before, but I'm still not really convinced I have a good answer.
Loudspeakers come in all shapes and sizes and in an ideal world, for the regular box type design, there is a commonly listed ideal combining:
1. Low bass extension
2. High efficiency
3. Small enclosure
But, reality intervenes and we can only choose any two out of the above three criteria at the expense of the remaining one shifting in the opposite direction.
Bass loading techniques come in several guises, but apart from the more unusual types (horn, transmission, isobaric, aperiodic...) the vast majority fall into two categories, namely reflex ported or sealed box.
For a long time it has seemed that reflex tuning rules the roost. Yet, despite their ability to better optimise the above three criteria, from a purist point of view there is a good argument that the closed box approach provides a better solution, or at least offers a valid alternative which is on a par. Closed box designs have a slower bass roll-off rate with a potentially better transient performance which avoids the resonance tail, eliminates port "chuffing" and provides a larger margin for error. It seems to be a case of quantity versus quality, in the crudest sense.
So, whilst I was waiting for the paint to dry, I explored a list of 100 contemporary designs. I'm sure it wasn't a perfect sample and I purposely ignored anything that wasn't reflex or closed box. Anyway, I was still surprised that 92% of the ones on this list opted for reflex ports of some description.
It seems to me to be bewilderingly skewed?
Loudspeakers come in all shapes and sizes and in an ideal world, for the regular box type design, there is a commonly listed ideal combining:
1. Low bass extension
2. High efficiency
3. Small enclosure
But, reality intervenes and we can only choose any two out of the above three criteria at the expense of the remaining one shifting in the opposite direction.
Bass loading techniques come in several guises, but apart from the more unusual types (horn, transmission, isobaric, aperiodic...) the vast majority fall into two categories, namely reflex ported or sealed box.
For a long time it has seemed that reflex tuning rules the roost. Yet, despite their ability to better optimise the above three criteria, from a purist point of view there is a good argument that the closed box approach provides a better solution, or at least offers a valid alternative which is on a par. Closed box designs have a slower bass roll-off rate with a potentially better transient performance which avoids the resonance tail, eliminates port "chuffing" and provides a larger margin for error. It seems to be a case of quantity versus quality, in the crudest sense.
So, whilst I was waiting for the paint to dry, I explored a list of 100 contemporary designs. I'm sure it wasn't a perfect sample and I purposely ignored anything that wasn't reflex or closed box. Anyway, I was still surprised that 92% of the ones on this list opted for reflex ports of some description.
It seems to me to be bewilderingly skewed?