Deqx vs. Behringer or Dbx Digital Crossovers?

is it worth the extra dollars to spring for the Deqx?

As we're talking of a +10x price differential over the Behringer, that's a tough question to answer...

The Deqx does sound better in all respects; however, I listened to a unit that's not mine, so I couldn't open it up & sneek preview its belly:). I remember the s/ware is more complicated than the standard 2496 one, too.
Also, I heard it in a system using Lowther EX4, Supravox 400 bass & a professional Murata supertweet -- i.e. $~8k worth for the drivers alone -- so the deqx's cost wasn't overwhelming by comparison.

I can tell you what I did: nothing. I didn't buy one. Suppose I'm dreaming that the price for good (sounding) dsp's will become more reasonable, while the spkr system I'll be using one in (i.e. mine) will grow up to become equivalent to this friend's system:).
Cheers

Are there any direct comparisons in the same speaker system

Uh, yes, see my post above! I'll add that the guy upgraded fm the Behringer to the Deqx. But, again, given the total cost of the spkr system, the Deqx was judged an acceptable outlay.

Finally I'll add my own comment: AFA crossovers go, a passive line-level could do the job well. It's the extra features (delays, phase, versatility) that prompted this friend to get the Deqx NOT the xover function alone. (He's triamped, too)

Coe -- I have a feeling the Accuphase offers more of an equaliser functionality rather than a "xover" one (as in the dexq or the Behringer).

Controlling volume is indeed a tricky issue. In my case, we fed an analogue signal to the dexq via a passive control... I suppose what you'd like, ideally, is to feed the digital signal direct from a transport to the deqx dsp xover function: the dsp would then split frequencies, convert to analogue and send to output from where you then feed the amps.

But why not use the deqx's attenuator??