In Reply to: What was the great answer on the question: "why nobody makes sealed enclosure speakers anymore....?" posted by Eldragon@gmx.com on August 4, 2012 at 11:21:30:
and sound very good indeed. Typically they'll be quazi-butterworth 3rd order (QB3) alignments. Positioned at unequal path-lengths these can use room-gain in the bass at least as effectively (musically) as a sealed enclosure.
And Rb's don't all boom. IME boom is as much a room and positioning issue as is the enclosure type. Higher q alignments that are not well damped will boom, so a high q sealed enclosure will also boom.
JA seems to have forgotten the Marantz LD50 stand mount which gave really good deep bass by having a room-gain matched reflex alignment.
The one truly serious problem of Rb's as a genre - in my opinion - is signal below the pass-band of the high-pass slope. Causing cone bounce.
CD's do have quite deep bass well below the cone-bounce point of many Rb stand-mounts.
IME Rb's filtered actively at 2nd order or steeper below the unloaded cone point don't have any serious problems. Most of these have been assisted to up to an octave more bass. Even KEF's big (Rb / bandpass bass cabs) speakers traditionally had a big passive first-order bass blocking capacitor.
Either approach deals effectively with cone excursion / system linearity, and IMD issues.
Sealed boxes when driven hard in their high-pass stop-band will go into power limiting. This can be / is audible, no?
In summary I think this 'issue' just isn't simple, not a yes/no, good/bad ... as usual 'it depends'.
:-)!
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- A critically dmaped reflex alignment can have low-enough q at resonance and still have better ext - Timbo in Oz 08:42:39 08/05/12 (2)
- No fair using science in a religious belief thread. - Edp 12:07:12 08/06/12 (1)
- Single-issue-itis gives me the shits / pisses me off - Timbo in Oz 15:44:46 08/06/12 (0)