The one situation where the high end audio test would relate is whether you would run a very high quality mix through it in a recording situation. (mastering) The higher quailty the mix the less and less you want to put it through anything at all.
 
This is something similar (a processor used for live situations) but way more expensive.
 
http://www.neutralaudio.com/en/xdreipro.htm
 
There is a review in Sound on Sound but the full article is not free to downloead yet. But the basic thing mentioned in the review is that it is more effective when the live PA is of lesser quality. In very high end situations it did not seem to do much.
 
What may be emerging from this discussion is that perhaps time alignment processors maybe more effective in a live situation where things are perhaps less than ideal but not so effective on mixes that are already sounding stellar.

Time alignment is not a good term for it I agree. Here is one explaination I found about it:
 
It is a "state variable filter"or psuedo state-variable filter, whatever those are. It basically boosts the treble, the amount of boost is dynamically adjusted depending on the amount on midrange energy present in the signal. There's an input buffer, one tap off of that is sent to a level detector, the other taps split the signal into low, mid and high bands. The gain on the high band is controlled by the overall level of the input signal. The "process" level is the treble, and the "lo contour" is the bass level, all three signals are then mixed in a summing amplifier and sent to the output.
 
Explains why I may not like it so much on a mastered mix. It is altering the EQ of your signal in a fairly significant way. 

mike_mccue
What time alignment?
 
Did any one besides Bitflipper look at the data sheet and its included application sheet?
 
:-)
 
 

  Answer-The 2 ms time alignment.
 
 I looked briefly at the chip schematic last evening. For some reason I can't look at it today on Google Chrome. It looks pretty simple. Is this the most recent chip? Is this the entire circuit? From what I recall it looks like a series of OP amps on the chip. Since I can't see it here today I can't see what they have done with it or even if this is the whole diagram. You can do a lot with an op amp chip depending on what the external electronics are.
 
  Here is a review from a less than optimistic person in regards to the BBE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LosL-gdHLpk I picked up on a few inconsistencies in his explanation. For one thing  he spent precious little time on measuring actual phase relationships and signal timing. He spent most of his time trying to prove that the BBE is nothing more than an EQ. DUH...yes the BBE IS an EQ but it is also a signal alignment device. So Bit is 100% correct that it is an EQ or filter.The BBE has intertwined modes of operation. If you turn the low and high knobs up you will get *gasp* a smiley face. I'm not sure if the EQ is pre or post on the 882i. I'm guessing post since it might work a lot like a selective EQ in choice of range to be treated by the process. 
 
 As Jeff stated the unit is not true bypass. It can do things to your signal if it's off and you leave it in the chain. On the unit in the video there was a bass roll off and some loss of Db. These units have pots in them and a different unit might have yielded a different result. Less expensive production electronics aren't always consistent from unit to unit.The discrepancy in bass rolloff can probably be adjusted inside the unit. When he powered it up he got about a 3db drop and of course his smiley face because he decided to turn the low and high pots.I think the review should have concentrated more on  the phase relationships. In looking at this I tried to find out what others had found out about the BBE and not what BBE says about BBE.
 
 I hear comments like this," I liked it when I first got it but I started not to like it later" or something similar. Ear fatigue figures into any mixing project. It can be easy to add too much of any kind of ear candy. This is why we listen later on when we are rested. This sounds more like a bad mixing choice than an honest evaluation. I also figure in the fickle element. There's a lot of fickle people out there. " I like it, oh no, I thought I liked it but I don't ".
 
 Here is what I think at least some of the problem is: A. The BBE doesn't know the characteristics of your speaker. It uses a pre-set recipe and you only adjust the amount. Different speakers have different characteristics. B. The material being fed into the BBE might not lend itself very well to the process. Depending on how you EQ the mix, mix construction and the type of sound that it is. I know there have been revisions to the basic formula over the years. The old coke ain't the new coke. I think they have made improvements since the first BBE came out.
 
  If you test a BBE Sonic Maximizer with an excellent sound system and wonderful source material your results might be less than stellar, why? Because a top rated system may have already tried and succeeded in minimizing the obstructions that the BBE attempts to correct.
 You might, in fact, be overcompensating in some areas and as a result the sound might not be very good. On something like a cheap PA system or a distorted guitar with a basic amp the effect is much more apparent in compensating for low and mid freq muddiness.

Jeff Evans
 
There is a review in Sound on Sound but the full article is not free to downloead yet. But the basic thing mentioned in the review is that it is more effective when the live PA is of lesser quality. In very high end situations it did not seem to do much.
 
What may be emerging from this discussion is that perhaps time alignment processors maybe more effective in a live situation where things are perhaps less than ideal but not so effective on mixes that are already sounding stellar.

Pretty much my point which is why blanket statements that one should not use a BBE are not accurate.