While there are many types of speaker design and engineering, one cannot change physics.
I have heard the ORION's and certainly enjoy their sonic qualities.
That said, I also have alot of respect of SL's work and theory.
But, as brilliant as he is, and as good as they sound, the concept of a "reflected" sonic contributing to, or helping recreate accuracy is not something I believe in.
The design can certainly create a possibly more favorable speaker efficiency or accuracy, but if a wave is launched anti-phase, encounters a reflective boundary, and can be perceived by the listener in the listening position, then it is "distortion" to the original signal, since it cannot be time domain relevant, and accurate sound reproduction demands phase coherency.
This is not a slam, nor even a complaint, but simply an observation. It is noted that similar "negatives" and compromises, must be evaluated in "all" designs, and added or subtracted to achieve what the designer feels is the best "sound".
The bane of a speakers ability to reproduce the original event, is the room, the speaker is used in. While the claims of SL are that he limits the "interaction to the least offensive "frequency range" there still is interaction and distortion that, if eliminated, would reduce that distortion.
The further difficulty designers must deal with is that the frequency range from 20-20 is a "mixed bag". That is, the interactive gremlins are on a sliding scale of consistency, and might need to be dealt with differently within each room.
Bass to treble, we have large differences in wave lengths and subsequently methods to deal with their negative effects.
I have a tendency to agree with Frank that reducing the room interaction is the single best way to deal with these gremlins, but Stanely's design certainly displays an elegant and "thinking mans" alternative in a home or "normal" environment.