Is DEQX a game changer?

Thanks for the correction Al. A stupid waste of time on my part -- I checked WIKI and right you are.

Btw, Cerrot, I checked your system ... absolutely gorgeous room and STATs. Are the ESL elements full range or is there a conventional sub to fill in the bottom?? If the latter, at what frequency do the ESLs cross over?

Bifwynne,

I totally agree with you. The problem is passive crossovers. This is why I went with hybrid stats and an active crossover. I do believe the way to eliminate the time allignment issue (not talking about the sloped baffle issue, which I am familiar and have been discussing for 30 years...) is an active crossover (or single driver, obviously). In any event, I do feel the DEQX is just an attempt of a solution for an already flawed system. Remember, time allignment is not the only problem. Impedence is the issue as well. Your amp sees your speakers crossover, not your speaker.

Bifwynne, just read your 2nd post and reponding. Thank you for the compliment. The speakers are hybrid electrostatics, with 10 inch aluminum drivers in a transmisssion line enclosure on the botton of the stat panel. I crossover at 172 Hz, with a 48 dB/octave slopes, Linkwitz-Riley filter. Each (both panels and both woofers) are fed by a pair of Magtehs. There was minor fusing with the bass signal to line it up with panel to get a purely seamless 3 demensional sound.

Cerrot -- double agree with your next to last post. Fortunately, my amp can handle my speaker's wacko impedance and phase angle curves, especially since I am crossing over the sub and woofers at 120 Hz. A lot of watts are saved because a good part of the load is handled by the self powered sub. Also, my amp, an ARC Ref 150, has quite a bit of muscle in its own right.

And while some might quibble over whether their system is "flawed," I think a better way to see the picture is that design compromises have been made and time coherence is just one of the compromises. This is especially so when one considers that the "cost" of time coherence may involve ugly sloped speakers, some of which look like insects, and drivers that are being asked to make sound over a wider pass band. Plus, speaker placement can be finicky and I don't like listening to music with my head in a vice.

And my fix, the DEQX, while having its benefits has its costs, the least of which is NOT pecuniary, as well as adding another artifact to the signal path. Having said that, I think, but am not totally sure, that the added artifact factor may be minimal.

As I've alluded to earlier, on the one hand I worry that "after the fact corrections" might make difficult demands on drivers, etc., for which they weren't originally intended.
On the other hand, I wonder if these very same "after the fact corrections" were instead original design implementations they might be superior to the original way in which speakers were designed to achieve some of these performance parameters.
What ultimately arrives at our ears, regardless of how it got there, is really what counts.