Why not horns?

Herman, your machine is doing 64bit calculations but the DSP signal is only 24 bit, if that. DSPs can be harnessed to a lot of tasks; one thing you learn really quick in dealing with them is they suck the life right out of the music.

The master tapes in the studio are as close as you will ever get to the real thing. If they can't do it there, they are not going to do it in the home either.

We used a DSP-style crossover at a recent show (T.H.E Show). We were recording live and comparing the live vs the recording. It did sound pretty good, with 24-bit master files, but I am left wondering, how much better would it have been if we had an analog recorder for the recording task, and a passive crossover that allowed a single amp to do the whole speaker rather than a DSP with two very dis-similar amps to do top and bottom?

My experience with electronic crossovers of any type is that they act just like detail filters. In some ways I think the DSP units really do take the analog electronic crossovers to task, but I have yet to see any kind of bi-amped system beat one that is full range.

IOW I am not dismissing DSPs just out of my studio experience, it just seemed like the easiest quick explanation.

they suck the life right out of the music

I sit here tapping my toe, rocking back and forth with a big grin. The life has not been sucked out of the music. I get the same response from seasoned audiophiles as well as complete newbees who sit slacked jawed never having heard a high end system.

I think this is one of those situations where we can't discuss it with words. You need to hear what is going on over here.

.

Now we're getting into things I really don't understand - computers.
The first question I have to ask is, "Are all DSPs the same soundwise?"

Since we're talking digital, is the cheapo as good as the upper end pro stuff. I chose to believe not when I bought the XTA DP 224. However, I found that it was more difficult to set up than my DBX. So I have arranged for a guy to come by with his computer and his XTA software and set it up for me. Apparently he can just put it on a PC card for me to slip in the front of the unit or he can plug into the back through the RS 232 port, whatever that is. I can see it has 9 pins.
There is also a MIDI connector and an RS 485 in/out set.
Here is a spec sheet:
http://www.fmsystems.net/pdf/cutsheet/dp226.pdf

So I have to ask if the XTA is better than the DBX Drive Rack PA? If so, how so?
Does the quality of the DSP come into play or is the problem universal? Is there a problem at all?
The pros don't seem to think so. Is that just because it makes their job easier?
I don't hear any problem now other than the faint rushing sound in the horn when the system is muted. I bought the XTA to get rid of that noise because it is much more flexible than my Drive Rack. It has been suggested that the noise is due to a problem with gain level matching. Or impedance.
I'm hoping everything will be resolved next Tuesday morning.

I would not say that digital filtering/processing can't sound good, because it can sound very good. I could probably be happy with that solution if I weren't so involved with analog.

Yes, the pro-audio guys are definitely not concerned with our silly audiophool-ishness. :-)

I can't argue with Atmosphere with regards to actives being a detail filter. There is definitely some loss there when compared to the sound using a passive xover at the speakers. However, there are also some benefits that may out weight this. I find that the increased control of the drivers when doing the active/biamp solution has increased the level of other details. I assume this is due to reduced IMD. This seems to be true for the mid-bass in my system where I do think the active has increased the detail in this range. The sound is much tighter, which sounds faster and better defined.

I agree about the benefits I find in active bi-amping. There's more there there.
And in my system things are pretty simple. All frequencies above 400 hz. are emitted by a single driver with no crossover whatsoever. So where is the digital problem introduced. Is it at the XO point? Or through EQing? Or just by being in the signal path? Is it digital conversion that you find corruptive?

Could it be that with audio ignorance is bliss? Maybe we are better off just trying to be satisfied rather than dissatisfied? That argument sounds good but the other side will say that it is from dissatisfaction that discovery and progress spring. And who can argue with that?

Curiosity drives me a little but vanity might be the real motivator. I want to get as much as I reasonably can. I guess the anguish part of all this comes into play when I start trying to rationalize what is reasonable. And that unspoken disagreement among us may be why we feud. Everybody has a different value system telling him what is reasonable.