I was dissapointed with their response without the XO. The basic response is not very flat.

Sounds much better with the DSP and HiRez DAC's after correcting the response.

Just the DSP and HiRez DAC's.

Rich is absolutely right. I am a great fan of what I call is texture, the ability to render small details and correct timing. If that is correct, massed voices have individual characters. Groups of brass show the particular resonances of each instrument. Violins separate and leave the screeching mess behind. I am using the same DSP as Rich and it is a revelation. Having to go through passive crossovers is a signal nightmare. There are huge opportunities to muck up the timing and have stored energy floating around. They also prevent the amplifiers from exerting maximum control over the drivers and prevent a greater challenge as a load to the amps.

I have heard your system Walt and was very impressed, but your way is not the only way. There are lots of ways to get from A to B and there is not only one solution. Just like many of the passive components sucked 100 years ago, also some of the early attempts at DSP had significant problems. However, things have moved forward in both camps and you should not dismiss additional processing in the chain out of hand. The real question is whether or not the additional processing can offset the problems inherent in a minimalist approach to make it worthwhile. In my case, it has. As they say, "Your results may vary". In either scenario, the ability of the person setting up the system to understand the impacts of the different pieces and the ability to chose the best combination will determine how closely the results will satisfy the particular desires of the individual. What I find most intriguing is the degree of control you have to change the characteristics of the sound while actually listening, something not possible with passive approaches.