Ported nearfield monitors basically junk?

I'm on firefox, so for the sake of clarity, I'd just add that when I was shopping for monitors (around the $500-700 range) I don't think there were any that weren't ported designs. I got the M-Audio DSM2's and thought they were decent monitors. I still think they are. I guess I'm just curious if anyone else thinks this is like a show stopper for mixing.

What did he suggest as an alternative?

A nice pair of 30" x 40" x 25" sealed boxes sitting on top of a Mackie meter bridge?

mike_mccue


What did he suggest as an alternative?

A nice pair of 30" x 40" x 25" sealed boxes sitting on top of a Mackie meter bridge?

I'd be interested in an actual suggestion from you.

I'm curious too.

If you could also tailor your answer to suit an average English speaker as well that would be even more useful.

Save your allowance ;-) I say go big or go home! You'll never regret getting the really nice stuff. It may take longer? But in the end? In the long run? If this is your passion, then be impressed with, and impress others with your gear. You should see my guitars and basses... I hope my son learns to play? But if he doesn't, he can sell them for a pretty penny. Life is too short not to have the good stuff if you are passionate. Sorry, JMO. Just put it off for a while and get something "really nice." That's my advice, and again in the long run? You won't be dissapointed...

I wouldn't necessarily assume that just because it's easier to get low end response for a low price point using a port that using a port is necessarily a fatal compromise. I would say it's clearly not given that many speakers that don't need to compromise due to their price point still use them. but probably anything you get in that $500 range is going to have pretty significant limitations whatever the design.

Focal Twin6 Be monitors are non-ported nearfields and are very widely used, though pretty pricey. They use a pair of 6" drivers with both handling the lows and only one handling the lower mids, to get a good low end response without a port or larger cones, but also not muddying up the lower mids supposedly without having to go with a three way design.

Speakers I think will always remain pricey for the good stuff, because they are mechanical devices so they don't keep getting twice as good for half the price like electronics. I imagine that computer based simulation and such has made a big difference in the last decade or so, but fundamentally they still have the same issues and dealing with them really well will probably continue to be pretty costly.

Anyhoo, I wouldn't want to give up the ability to hear the low end over worries about the port making it less than uber-perfect. If you can't hear them, it's hard to really judge the balance because you are hearing all the highs but not all of the lows.

The Mackie HR824mkII speakers are not ported, and they use an 8" woofer plus a sort of passive radiator on the back (though still sealed I think?) to get the low end response. They are about $700 apiece. I had a pair of these, and though the high enders will probably turn their noses up at them, they have pretty good performance and are large for nearfields as well which helps.

Everyone has an opinion, usually backed up by some facts.

But more importantly, everyone has a budget.

I don't care if it is ported or not, Barefoots are the best I've spent time with.  But they're not in my budget.  :-(

Sort of like Klipsch corner speakers then?   


I do have access to some....

Hi Matt I am not sure about the 5's. I am teaching a guy at his studio and he has got the 8's and they sound very good to me. Not hyped but rather well balanced.

Mackie HR824's are excellent speakers also. Mine are on concrete stands. That made a huge difference to how the bottom end sounds. The bass can be a little coloured on the Mackies but not so on the concrete stands though. Completely different.

If you use great reference tracks while you mix and master the need for the speakers and the room take on much less importance. No speakers are perfect and neither is anyone's room and that is why the reference concept is so simple and effective and cheap!

Jonbouy

mike_mccue


What did he suggest as an alternative?

A nice pair of 30" x 40" x 25" sealed boxes sitting on top of a Mackie meter bridge?

I'd be interested in an actual suggestion from you.

I'm curious too.

If you could also tailor your answer to suit an average English speaker as well that would be even more useful.

I rarely suggest gear.

But I do have a few suggestions to consider.

The traditional way to avoid the downsides of port is to design a rather huge box.

Maybe something about 30" x 40" x 25".

Jon, I'm guessing you are old enough to remember when in the late 1970's, that's what a full range sealed cabinet speaker looked like. The small ones didn't have even bass response and the use of subwoofers hadn't become ubiquitous.

Port design math has been available since the early 1970's.

The only reason to use a port is to enable the speaker design to maintain performance while shrinking the size of the speaker cabinet enclosure.

If you don't want a huge pair of speakers sitting on top of you mixer you should probably choose to ignore anyone that brings up "port hsyteria" as a topic.

Yes, there are facts to consider. Yes, most of what he says is true.

But after considering all that you have choices:

Big Boxes.
Small sealed boxes for mediocre sound
Small ported boxes tweaked to best performance for as good as possible sound in a small box.
Small sealed boxes, and a subwoofer for just better than mediocre sound
Medium ported boxes and a good room and setup for good sound.
Small ported boxes, a subwoofer, and a good room and setup for ok sound.
Medium ported boxes a subwoofer, and a good room and setup for fairly good sound.
Medium ported boxes, two subwoofers, and a good room and setup for sound like you get out of the Big Boxes.



The article may have been advocating for mini systems with a subwoofer. That's the Blue Sky stuff and the Bose model solution.

I hope the author gets in to the nitty gritty about subwoofers and doesn't perpetuate the myth that "a subwoofer can go anywhere because bass is not directional". I say this because I feel that I encounter badly placed subwoofers more frequently than I see badly designed ports and I am aware that bass is indeed directional and you need a nice pair of speakers and a ok listening environment to experience that.


So, I'd suggest that a nice pair of speakers, with ports, that fit some current budget is probably the most practical choice.


all the best,
mike



edited spelling and grammar for clarity

I am testing a pair of Equator D5's I recently purchased.  Very small, ported, coaxial, good frequency range down to 53hz.  Here's a link.  There have been some good reviews on these too.
http://www.equatoraudio.com/D5_Studio_Monitor_with_DSP_Single_Unit_p/d5-s.htm

I could not afford anything more than these and was looking to replace my very old NS10's.  So far, I mixed my latest song on these and think they did pretty well.
Here's my song link (trying not to be a shameless plug!)
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2546850

These speakers have a port and are recommended for very near-field monitoring.  I have also hooked up an old subwoofer to them in case I want to A/B for super lows.  These are too small for main studio monitors but they make a great addition as A/B speakers.

Rimshot

Does anyone else here think that the KRK Rockits really just sound like consumer speakers and don't really deserve the label of 'monitors'?

I would not disagree with that assessment. At least at the low end of the product line. One test I read (SoS? Don't remember) showed a problem with frequency response shifting as the voice coil heated, suggesting that it really doesn't qualify as a studio reference monitor because it's not consistent over long periods of use.


Aside from any technical specs, I just didn't like the sound of them. Especially the 5-inch model, but then I've never heard a speaker with a 5" woofer that I felt was adequate.


In fairness to the brand, we should note that the Rokit products are meant to be entry-level and represent the extreme low end of a very broad product line (that includes full-range monitors that cost as much as a car). 

If correctness was ever done in the speaker (transducers) department than long ago I would have bought the electro-voice 30" woofer because low frequencies actually only depend on speaker cone size and really nothing else. But I think there may be a 24" speaker and well there are 18" speakers as long as you feed your gorilla to carry it around or move it around for ya with the cabinet and all.

bitflipper

Does anyone else here think that the KRK Rockits really just sound like consumer speakers and don't really deserve the label of 'monitors'?

I would not disagree with that assessment. At least at the low end of the product line. One test I read (SoS? Don't remember) showed a problem with frequency response shifting as the voice coil heated, suggesting that it really doesn't qualify as a studio reference monitor because it's not consistent over long periods of use.


Aside from any technical specs, I just didn't like the sound of them. Especially the 5-inch model, but then I've never heard a speaker with a 5" woofer that I felt was adequate.


In fairness to the brand, we should note that the Rokit products are meant to be entry-level and represent the extreme low end of a very broad product line (that includes full-range monitors that cost as much as a car). 

Entry level, yes. I have only heard the VXT4's in action and my god those were amazing. KRK can definitely make good monitors. But damn they do get expensive. I'd be interested to hear the EXPOSE vs the VXT8s, but have not had the opportunity.




And like you say, all speaker designs in the average person's budget will have drawbacks. You can't get around it. So just get as good a monitor you can afford, have a listen to a few in the pricerange, and be happy! It's going to have flaws, but learn your speakers and your environment, forget the maths and make some good mixes!!!

...It's going to have flaws, but learn your speakers and your environment, forget the maths and make some good mixes!!!

Well said Matt! I totally agree. I think people are getting way too technical and scientific about the whole process. As I have said before use great sounding reference material and the importance of the speakers and the room diminish.

I have just recently mastered an album by Dan Lethbridge that was mixed by Shane Omara. Shane uses a pretty ordinary set of Fostex monitors as far as I know in what is probably a very ordinary room yet the mixes are very very very good. Excellent in fact. World class. There you go. It's all about the mix engineer not the room, not the speakers. Sure we don't want to mix in a terrible room but I think most of us are in reasonable situations already good enough to get on with the job of mixing well.

Matt I must catch up with you sometime. I might be able to catch up with you at SoundCorp or something, maybe we can have a coffee! I am not that far away from there either. (Kensington) Or I could come over and visit. It's pretty rare to meet someone on the forum who lives in Melbourne.

In fact, the only reason everyone got technical is that someone introduced an idea that some author somewhere said that ported speakers are basically junk or something like that.

I recently heard someone say that about ARC too...when in fact it supports this idea very well.

"I think people are getting way too technical and scientific about the whole process. As I have said before use great sounding reference material and the importance of the speakers and the room diminish."

I found it a shame that guy couldn't apologize to the other guy who claimed that very product was actually helping him toward that exact same end...