Sloped baffle

Bifwynne, yes, I think you have the list.
Single-driver speakers are also time coherent (since they dont have a x-over to begin with) but they might not have the freq range extension you are looking for.

Some of the latest generation Martin-Logans might also be time-coherent (they claim to have made big strides in integrating their woofer with their ESL panel) & the full-range CLX.

Quad speakers are also time-coherent such as the ESL-2085 & they might other models (ESL-989?)

Another brand is Eminent Technology LFT 8. They might have a latter rev of this model, not sure.

Yet another brand would be Sanders Sound Systems 10C & 11 ESLs. You'll find measurements of the Innersound Kaya & Eros Mk3 speakers on Stereophile if you search. Innersound speakers were basically made by the same person who owns Sanders Sound Systems today. I realize that I'm extrapolating since Innersound Kayas were time-coherent that Sanders Sound Systems 10C/11 will also be. This is based on a reasonable assumption that the same designer has not changed his philosophy when he started his new company. Atleast I did not get this impression when I spoke to him in Dec 2013/Jan 2014.

I'm almost willing to say that SoundLab ESLs are also time-coherent but I might be wrong here. Not sure.

That's all I can think of right now. If I think of more brands/models I shall post. Thanks.

Bombaywanker, the Vandersteen 2 are time and phase conherent.

And that surely does not make it a state of the art speaker, like it makes no speaker state of the art.

Yes, I do doubt your experience and you sure sound like a guy with no technical education and little technical aptitude. Anyone who is fixated on one aspect of design and thinks it guarantees something is usually one who has little technical experience or knowledge. Someone who has experience and physics and engineering in his background always knows designs never hinge on one parameter or feature.

Usermanual and some others have it right, they recognize that this thread is only talking about one aspect of speaker design.

Just saw this thread. Wonderful to have so many knowledgeable folks chime in, plus the links to very good past discussions.

I'm certainly not up to par with my two cents here, but Psag might find it useful. Uli Brueggemann, the man behind Acourate DSP/DRC software, wrote this article on crossovers you are likely to find enlightening. It is in layman's terms: http://files.computeraudiophile.com/2013/1202/XOWhitePaper.pdf

Not sure what your system configuration is. Mine is based 100% on a computer server as source, which allows a neat approach - in my view, of course:

One way to achieve time and phase alignment is to use a multi-amped system (someone already said this above), having one amp directly driving a driver (no passive crossover used), and having a multichannel DAC and DSP software such as Acourate. Acourate allows to set digital crossovers and set time delays. So you can achieve time alignment without a sloped baffle.
Here's a great setup article http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/556-advanced-acourate-digital-xo-time-alignment-driver-linearization-walkthrough/

I'm starting to go down this route, although I'm still coming to terms with the notion of the benefits of a time and phase aligned system where the amps are driven directly by a DAC (with the drawbacks of the latter) outdoing the benefits of my Lamm preamp driving the amp.

BTW, would like to ask a side question taking the advantage of so many knowledgeable guys reading this thread: following the above, my thoughts are of eventually replacing my speakers with DIY speakers using premium drivers, without passive XO, and enclosed in a DIY cabinet (I'm rather skilled at that). It seems premium driver (top Raal, Accuton, scanspeak, etc) can be had for relative low prices (compared to speakers that carry them). Does this sound like a good plan, or am I missing a significant issue??

Great thread!

Lewinskih01, your plan is great. There is so much info about making speakers in real texts, you will be surprised that it is not magic. First thing, yes, use the best drivers you can. Check out Audio Technology, they are some of the absolute best.

And sure, the prices are low compared to finished speakers.

Cabinets are time consuming, finishing is time consuming, this labor has to be accounted for to the tune of $100 per hour or so, all parts have to have markups, there is dealer markup. Without any gouging, prices escalate quickly.

You will learn so much in a diy endeavor, and you will end up with a good set of speakers if you research and execute well.

Start reading the DIY forum. You will find a number of folks who really know what they are talking about. Fewer "know it alls", But lots of guys who really do things.

07-05-14: Kiddman
Yes, I do doubt your experience and you sure sound like a guy with no technical education and little technical aptitude. Anyone who is fixated on one aspect of design and thinks it guarantees something is usually one who has little technical experience or knowledge. Someone who has experience and physics and engineering in his background always knows designs never hinge on one parameter or feature.

listen, Kidboy, if you think that I have no technical education or background then you are deeply negative in that area! I had a good laugh when I read the above...
the more you write, the more you put your foot into your mouth. At this point you've swallowed your 1st foot & your 2nd foot is well on its way down. Like I wrote before, you are totally clueless on this subject matter.
Time-coherence is not a "parameter or feature" of speaker design; it's a speaker design philiosophy. The designer 1st decides if his/her speaker is going to be time-coherent or not. Based on this decision, he/she selects drivers, x-over topology & then determines to solve all the other issues in designing that speaker under the umbrella of time-coherence.
You are far from getting that this concept. I suggest that you change your moniker to 'more_than_clueless' (BTW, you are the one who started insulting various Audiogon members & I'm just returning the favour as I wont sit back & take your sh$$. you are a most unsavoury fellow who doesn't know how to debate a topic without insulting people. That's why I wrote - if you are going to uncivil, go find another place to waste your time. Other Audiogon members do have disagreements but we all try our best to remain civil).

the Vandersteen 2 are time and phase conherent.

And that surely does not make it a state of the art speaker, like it makes no speaker state of the art.

And, look at your depth of knowledge on display here to the rest of the A'gon community! Your writings repeatedly say that just because the Vandersteen 2 model sounds bad that selecting time-cohrerent as a design "parameter" will not make any speaker sound its best. Wow! diffident mentality here. The Vandy 2 is a really old model speaker & it's very possible that Vandersteen was limited by the driver technology available back then. It's only recently that he started drivers made to his spec - maybe he realized the limitations of what was available to him commercially? I know that a lot of the manuf who make very good drivers have stopped selling them to the public. I had a friend who owned a pair of Vandy 2 which I heard for a short period of time & long ago & not enough to make a judgement on their sound.
Once again, time-coherence is design philosophy & not a design parameter. have you heard any other time-coherent speaker? Or, are you basing all this on the Vandy 2 speaker?

Time coherent speakers are not easy to make esp. with cone drivers that's why you have very few manuf in this arena. Your pee-wee brain has informed you that it's because time-coherent speakers don't sound good so manuf have dropped the idea. Wow! Perhaps it could be these speaker manuf incompetence in understanding time-coherence & translating that to a product that can be sold that has prevented them from manuf a time-coherence speaker?? Nah, that possibly cannot be the case, right??