No worries, I just felt it important to highlight the fact that I've investigated virtually every crossover avenue from serial and parallel passive right through to digital and each had many iterations of refinement, measurement and evaluation. I hate to think how many hours were spent on all that, easily thousands though.

I'm confused as to why you'd say its more like listening to the sound rather than the performance/music, well actually not confused but its counter to what I'm hearing. With my own implementation music certainly flows with plenty of detail, dynamics and everything one would associate with a monitor type of sound but there's also an uncanny sense of realism, space, correct proportion and rightness about the sound. I listen to other setups and they're clearly coloured, they lack that absolute level of realism. I can sit back and enjoy the music for what it is, the rest of the kit doesn't get in the way and you never realise its there. All this is something I've never really experienced with such completeness on anything else regardless of price, spec or setup. So I built my own that did do that.

I guess much is down to setup, the DEQX takes things rather more seriously than the DACT which is primarily for room correction and contains no XO or speaker correction functions, the DACT is also very inferior in terms of its scope for measurement and overall flexibility. Its also a case of heavily auditioning amplifiers for a good match, like I said, I've been through 5 different models to tri-amp these, actually more if you consider the commercial designs I've used rather than the stuff I built.

Thanks for the kind words on the speakers.