Anthony, I have really nothing to say on this as I do not have this unit. The gentleman who made this video sound quite reasonable, and it is highly possible that everything that he says is accurate. Methodologically however, I feel that direct a/b comparing between two or more devices is very demonstrable but not necessary a very objective way to observe the differences. Again, no criticism what he is saying. 

Another interesting point. As much as I hate digital processing. I need to admit that when Bill's system sounded in his best. I did not detect issues that I would attribute to bad digital sound. Could it be better with different DACs? Only God knows as it will be completely different system. I do not know what version you have but since you going to be running only your surround channels from Ternov I do not think that you need to lose your sleep.

With all honesty yesterday I did not detect in Bill's sound any deficiencies that I would feel a " better" Vitavox 15-in drivers would address. This whole concept of battle driver is complicated. Russians have saying: if two people do the same things. Jane, they are not the same things. The very same tru in yhe most audio applications. We made his base horn run down to 45 cycles and it was very beneficial to listen his playback without any lower frequency channels. His horns did beautifully and I do not think that if we have " better" driver in horns if it would make any difference. From what I feel vitavox 15 in driver not necessarily like to be squeezed in a horn. I personally very much like it as a direct radiator or in very lightly loaded horn. I would not use it for any hyperbolic or any other slow opening horns. 

Whatever was very remarkable yesterday is that Ternov become very substantially screw up sound when we changed main volume control. It happens that we listening his play back at 0db and it provided fight fine result. Then Bill to demonstrate me somthing and flipped The volume at -1 DB. I swear to God that sound instantaneously got collapsed. It's immediately got compressed and it was very editable. So if you plan to use this type of the processor for anything more than surround channels then I would run anything as much as possible at unity gain.

I know exactly how people feel after visits to "someexpensive audio installations". However, the reason because I become so verbal on the subject because I would like you to estimate yourself the accuracy of your fillings. You are running home a playback system which is significantly more advanced topologically than most of "visits to some expensive audio installations".

Now, he is a homework to everybody. How methodologically accurate somebody like Anthony could make a judgment about presumable advance his system over other, if Anthony willing to single point vitavox products. I have no doubt that his system has a lot of advancements over others but how he, or anybody else can make a judgment that it is vitavox but not the significant number of other topological investment that his playback has?

It is not so simple question as you think. I personally feel that the Vitavox probably the reason number four or five. In addition to the homework above, feel free to propose what might be considered reason one, two and three...

I visited Bill 2 days ago and was listening to his playback after another 37563 changes he made. After small tuning an adjustment I cut myself with interesting perspective. 

We frequently, included me, looking for various playbacks over internet, are trying to make predictions how's this playback might perform, using some reasons, topologist, etc. usually it's allowed to filter out explicitly stupid installations, which is majority of them, but it is not always permits us to be accurate.  Look at the Bills installation. Digital crossovers of the fourth order across the whole system. The overall curve equalization at digital level, for people like me it sounds laughable. Still, his playback demonstrate unexpectedly good result. 

Yes, if to dig deeper, and go for my nude not known publicly properties then tons might be dug out, which would be true for any installation. However, overall, in my view, his playback present extremely potent and capable presentation which doesn't create any immediate each for any further improvement. He's play back at the level where enough is enough snd ride is very enjoyable and thoughts provoking.

Another interesting aspect is that he did something with his electricity recently, which made quite good improvement in term of calming down his entire playbacks with so many electronics in play. He has half of the room of amplifiers everywhere and he has some minor looping problems and right now it is absolutely quiet. When I came to his room I was kind of upset that he did not warm up system before me coming. I kind of complained, to which Bill responded the system is up. I was impressed.

The main question remind if Bill would be able to get substantially better result using strictly analog crossovering, and no digital equalization. The answer is certainly  it will be substantially better but... But how we project the amplitude of that "substantially better" to the amount efforts which need to be spent to achieve it? Probably if I wear in my 30s I would tackle this challenge if I were in bills shoes. And frankly speaking person do it once in a lifetime. Still, considering where Bill is and I am I do not think that either of us will have motivation to do it. It is not necessary because we are so lazy, but rather the result that he is getting is good enough to be content. It' has some problems but it does not scream about them, in fact, the overall presentation is very convincing, balanced, and integrated. 

Which brings to another interesting point. He doesn't play CD or analog and he does explicitly streaming. My observation that all streaming services are not really serious high-end audio sources but rather a very basic mediocracy. So I wonder, if people out there use streaming as a sources then do people need anything better than digital crossovers and simple solutions for playback?

Perhaps $1,000 streaming device with integrated crossovers and amplification is all that you need? Let's agree we do not have a lot of sensible men who use little digital fart machines to drive very serious vintage acoustic systems, properly made. I just never seen it. From a certain perspective, Bills playback is unique. He has very serious acoustic system in exceptionally serious listening group and he drives all of it from something that might be considered compromised front end. Pay attention, as a result he has good sound. From another side we have zillions of the people out there who drive exceptionally sophisticated front ends into less capable acoustic systems and we know the results. So, would it send some kind of message to us?