Hi Clyde -
I knew someone who did that exact thing. Jim Austin, who owned "Pro-Sonics" which made what was at the time one of the best sounding electronic crossovers you could buy. He was highly motivated because he wanted to design an electronic crossover for the DQ-10, and dump the passives. He failed in making them sound better, although simple bi-amping did improve them. His conclusion, IIRC was that the DQ-10 was designed from in front of the speaker, not behind. A series topology was selected,for the bass and lower midrange, then modified until it was right.
The the second series leg was designed and modified until it too was right. Finally both legs were combined in parallel, then tweaked some more.
Personally, I think both brilliance and luck were involved in the success of the final product.
I'd ask Jim for his notes, but he passed away long ago now.
In short though and pertinent to your question, being designed the way this was, you are not going to find a definitive explanation. I'm quite certain that if a top flight speaker designer today were given those exact parts to design a system around, you'd have something very different as a result. Would it be better? You'd have to conclude it would have to be with today's design tools.However, no designer would wish to start with those drivers, so the DQ-10 which we know and love would not even exist. That would certainly have been a shame since the darn things continue to pump out some great sounds all of these years later, flawed by today's standards as they are.
Good luck in your quest!