Does Time alignment and Phase coherency make for a better loudspeaker?

@audition__audio , That different time correct loudspeakers have different tonal balances suggest that your complaint might be the result of something other than time correctness.

Other than the Thiel CS 5 and 5i, I don’t think the other Thiel models cross-overs are that much more extrodinarily complex than some others.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion and indeed many other’s share it too, the Thiel’s have also been reviewed by others as having something of the opposite impresson. They tend to measure relatively flat.

The human ear brain processing can differentiate between the initial primary sound and the reflected sounds so long as there is enough time between those sounds. Something that microphones are challenged to do. Which is not to say that microphones and the measurements they gather are not important. Just the opposite. The vast majority of manufacturers of time coherent loudspeakers recommend pulling their loudspeakers out from nearby walls for this very reason. Those time coherent loudspeakers that are meant to be placed in, on or near the wall are designed with an understanding of the unique predictability of the affects of this proximity that would not otherwise be available with all the differing variables of users placement and variables of users rooms, and  compensation is built in accordingly.

^The subject of DSP is perhaps for another thread. But, as pertains to the subject at hand; DSP can be make available time and phase coherence to those that wouldn't otherwise have the considerable chop's necessary to accomplish it, and make it much less time consuming to develop and considerably reduce the labor costs to implement it.

^It might be imprudent to overgeneralize conclusions from this research. A loudspeaker that is phase coherent might not be time coherent, though a loudspeaker that is time coherent will be phase coherent. That there was some evidence reported (though deemed staticaly irrelevant)  of discernment of phase coherent recognition, then asks an unanswered question; were the correct responses consistently from consistent respondents?

From years on this forum, if there’s anything that I’ve learned, is that it would appear that while we all hear somewhat similarly,  many of us seem to listen differently. For what ever reasons whether consciously or subconsciously we often times prioritize different things when listening, and are more sensitive to different aspects of sound. I believe that some are more sensitive to time and phase coherence (perhaps at the expense of other attributes) than others. For those that are, I suspect that time coherence allows for a greater appreciation of transient detail, and a quicker neurological processing of soundstage and imaging cues as they are presented in real time.

A proper step response (in an appropriate space, at an appropriate distance) is perhaps the best indication of a time correct loudspeaker. John Dunlavy had said that once a a proper step response is achieved, everything else starts to fall in place. This suggests to me that time coherence could have advantages beyond the specific goal at hand.

Some have argued that time coherence only works for given listeners in specific locations. Adherents would argue that they work just as well as non- time coherent loudspeakers for listeners in less than ideal locations, but non- time coherent loudspeakers can never really work for any listeners at any locations.

In the past, making time coherent loudspeakers was a daunting project, that not many were capable of and/or were not deemed worth the effort. I suspect that as DSP and more integrated loudspeakers become more prevalent, so will time correct loudspeakers become more prevalent.

Every other component in the chain can maintain time cohernence without corruption, why not loudspeakers?