They vehemently claim that their Waveforming system is "not a DBA". To back up this dubious claim, they show a block diagram of their processing, illustrating that it's capable of controlling each subwoofer driver of the front and rear arrays independently.
For such systems, best performance is obtained by achieving the best possible plane wave, and ensuring its propagation is "straight front-to-back" without being redirected in any way. When identical drivers are used for the front and rear arrays, the best approximation of a plane wave is achieved by supplying the same signal to all drivers of a given array. With identical drivers, it's not possible to produce a "better plane wave" by providing different signals to each driver. One cannot compensate for the presence of unavoidable obstructions of the wave such as the seating and audience by providing unequal signals to the drivers either. Under certain conditions, such as non-identical drivers, unequal drive signals could be justified, but figuring out the different drive signals would require near-field measurements, not the far-field ones they specify. Even if they were able to do this properly, one might rightly wonder who the target users are that are willing to rebuild their rooms to accommodate the sub arrays, but not willing to use identical drivers within a given array.
Their approach seems to be using a DBA to minimize software complexity and cost, claiming that their system is not a DBA, then claiming that the performance improvement that's due to the DBA should be attributed it to their proprietary processing instead. It's a remarkably deceptive approach.