Why not horns?

"Perhaps some evidence to support those claims might be appropriate? "

Perhaps.

The OHMs seem to work and sound as claimed as best I can tell. I see no evidence to indicate false advertising or other less than honest business practices.

Also I am sure most OHM customers don't care about technical details. Listening is all the proof that really matters.

Again, if you have questions regarding the technology, best to address them to the man who knows the answers, John Strohbeen. I'm always interested to hear what John says. I find it almost always understated but accurate.

Again, I'm not the one making the claims.

I wonder if John Bau gave this matter any thought when he created the Spica TC-50? When was that, like 1982?

"Again, I'm not the one making the claims"

No, but you are questioning them. All vendors make claims. If you have questions, you should ask and get the answers.

I believe the claims to be true based on what I know of the design and what I hear. But that does not prove anything especially to a skeptic now does it?

Macrojack,
Those TC-50s are notorious for showing up in any discussion of time coherence. They've become practically an iconic item in the discussion.
Because they used a first order filter on the mid/woofer driver and had that distinctive slanted baffle it is often assumed that they were time coherent.
Stereophile measured the speaker before they obtained the MLSSA system so some of the measurements related to time were not available.
However, it has since been shown that they are not time coherent. It is estimated that they sounded so damn good because the primary driver handling the midrange was using a first order filter and therefor had a very nice impulse response, which the old stereophile measurements DO show.

Cheers!