In my shoebox room I got a pair of KRK5's and the sub KRK10 now...but I still use my melange of speakers. lol!

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.  :-(

Mike Senior does a good job of explaining the problems porting introduces in simple terms, but he overstates and over-generalizes the dangers. Plenty of very good speaker cabinets are ported, while a few not-so-good designs are sealed. Ports are not the primary indicator of fidelity. (Any ADAM users looking to trade them for some Mackies? Me neither.)

(My own speakers are ported, but it's unlikely that'll ever be a problem because I use a sub and the crossover is set well above the tuned port's resonant frequency. The ports are therefore never engaged.)

Now here's where ports really can get you into serious trouble. Two scenarios, actually. First scenario: an extremely compact speaker with a port tuned to, say, 90Hz. Yeh, they exist. I'll say no more lest I offend our hosts. Second scenario: a speaker cabinet that is rear-ported and close to a wall. Very, very bad. And by "close" I mean less than 3 feet.

Buy large speaker enclosures with a naturally low resonant frequency so that if ported the port frequency is going to also be low. Buy front-ported rather than rear-ported enclosures. If you think your ports are causing audible problems, stuff socks into them. Seriously. 

Sort of like Klipsch corner speakers then?   


I do have access to some....

Does anyone else here think that the KRK Rockits really just sound like consumer speakers and don't really deserve the label of 'monitors'? Especially the 5's. VERY hyped low end. Then the bass on all of them sounds really disjointed and not smooth throughout the whole frequency response. A few people have mentioned them and I just really don't think they are a good monitor. The VXT's on the other hand... Wow. I thought the Yamaha's are much flatter and neutral sounding. The bass doesn't sound as 'good', but that's not what you want in a monitor. I just don't get all the hype over these Rockit's..

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!

Yeah the Mackie's aren't too bad. I thought they sounded a bit more suited to dance/hip hop etc music with a powerful low end. At least that's how I would use them if I had a few different monitors available.

As for the KRK's, im probably exaggerating a little. I REALLY don't like the 5's, but the 6's and 8's are considerably better. They also have a pair of 10's now. Have not heard them but I'd be interested to. I'll have to pop down to Soundcorp some time during lunch and have a listen. They are a 5 min walk from my work in Port Melb. The 5's really sound like they have that typical low end peak in an attempt to increase the low end response. Like a high Q eq boost around 80Hz. Think one note bass here. The 6's and 8's have a smooth bass roll-off without the hype. So much better. But I felt there was something missing around 200-300Hz in the 6's and 8's. It just didn't sound connected or working as a whole. I did feel this connection with every other monitor I listened to. I also felt the tweeter was overly directional compared to others. Even just a 1 inch move of your head and it sounds like a -6dB high shelf cut. Other monitors gave you a good foot to move your head in before that happened. But ultimately, that's just what I thought I heard in a shop. Doesn't mean you can't make a great mix off them. And monitors are such a personal thing. Everyone has their own opinions. Except everyone is always going to love a good set of Adams. How can you not? I wish I could just listen to an acoustic guitar through the A7's all day long. That high end is almost orgasmic...

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

Thanks Mike.

That all makes sense to me.

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