It does depend on the drivers, but I'm talking about frequency response.
I do not follow you here. F response is very dependent on the driver (the primary factor actually, with the cab design being secondary to that).
It's true that a sealed cab will go lower without cutting off like a bass reflex cabinet. But there's a dropoff in volume as the frequency decreases.
Yes, but this rolloff is a very slow and gradual taper which is natural to the ear (vs the quick fall off the cliff of ported). It is a bit of a matter of taste, and I tried to express that (though granted in my anti-ported cab biased way - it's been a while I guess but I've always been honest about that slant). The industry's obsession with flat F response graphs has led to a massive groupthink I have found. Remmeber 3 db is the smallest change in volume that the human ear can detect, and if the rolloff of a sealed cab is only 6 db per octave, that means you can actually hear deeper bass than the same driver in a ported cab; it is useful response despite not being flat. Flat is a gimmik (and in fact many manufacturers, this goes double for hifi, design cabs to meet that spec vs just sounding good and the graph be damned). This, to me, is preferable because you don't get such a huge difference between fundamental response of open E vs A ( most instrument drivers' resonance is well above 40Hz; ported cabs have no response worth talking about below that point, but sealed cabs do. From there you can get a better balance with some judicious tone control/EQ use.
Anyway, this illustrates what I mean (I didn't make this graph, and would be the first to admit that the scale used is somewhat biased in favour of sealed, but it still shows that there isn't necessarily that much to be gained from ported cabs aside from size reduction). Not shown is how (depending on port tuning) there can be a response bump before it takes the characteristic nose dive. Though technically this isn't a problem unless it's a reference application, depending on where that bump is it can create an annoying loud note (or 2) as you move along the fretboard.
That said, the only time I think a ported cab is an acceptable option (again, IMHO) is with larger drivers (or at least ones with very low resonance). For example, bookshelf hifi's with 5" woofers in ported cabs are stupid, but 15" Tannoy Gold studio monitors (ported cab) are amazing (though much of that is also due to some other factors which are irrelevant here, the point is I don't see bass reflex as a handicap in that situation, though it's still not my preference).
Plus there's the problem that a sealed cab designed for optimum bass response with a driver that can deliver the specs and handle the power is likely to be much larger than a bass reflex cabinet.
Bass reflex cabinets will stay popular with bassists.
Yes, I alluded to the size issue above and I know bass reflex ain't going nowhere (whether it'sd hifi or instrument applications we're talking about). But if size was the only issue, we'd all be rocking single 1 x 10 or 12 isobaric cabs exclusively (isobaric cabs being even smaller than ported, given the same driver... the drawback is cost and efficiency), and that's just not the case (see; 8x10, 2x15 etc or the very clear example staring us in the face in this thread: extension or secondary cabs).
Anyway, my point wasn't to say you need to do this, just explaining what factors result in the stated desired result (and to correct a few categorical statements). Not all points need to be heeded to get a satisfactory result for the OP, and the pros / cons were stated or obvious so that people can make their own decisions. ... but if you want to go all the way, there's the checklist.
