Deqx vs. Behringer or Dbx Digital Crossovers?

I am not so thrilled with the "room correction" ability of DEQX. I haven't heard DEQX; but I heard Accuphase room correction digital EQ, which struck me as a very very expensive toy. The only way a "digital x-over" makes sense to me is if I keep digital source signal unconverted up to x-over and do D/A conversion only once. The big issue is volume control. The only descent true-digital preamp that sends out unconverted signal I know is made by Goldmund and Accuphase. DEQX says it has volume control after D/A conversion, which somehow sounds not so audiophile. I would appreciate a real verdict form someone who has played wih DEQX.

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??

I have been thinking about going to an active crossover myself and have been doing a little homework and asking questions. A friend of mine is a sound man (studio) and I asked him about the Behringer and his comments egoed the earlier post. NO! NO! NO! NO! But he was very keen on the new Ashly digital X/O Protea 3.24CL as a friend of his just picked one up and is very happy with it. Check it out. http://www.ashly.com/

I went from the Behringer to an audio smiles modded Behringer (very good) to a DBX 360 and the 360 (I use room correction for the bass) is incredible. The key is to achieve linear bass.  Its the unlinear bass response which smudges your images.  You don't even realize it until you clean it up.