lol. I don't think I'll let my wife see this post. Yes, I'll file this away so she isn't upset that she could have a 5" deep tower instead of the 2641 in its full-blown and overbuilt glory. 
Anyway. This is a great idea Kevin.
Have you seen this thread at diyaudio?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63078
Some sort of soundcard + software + hypex amps package might be neat and more flexible than a solid state solution. Just an idea ... possibly a competitive ...
Ha.... I wouldn't loose any sleep. The 2641s are great and there is something to be said for keeping things simple.
I'd say in response to that thread that I have a hard enough time getting people to build a simple cabinet and simple crossover network correctly! Having something as complex as the PC controlled crossover, room correction and PC based system control sounds about as attractive to me as kidney stones.
The main problem I have with these systems is that you really need to have a background in acoustics to use them. You know that monkey and the gun saying?
A couple specific issues I have with the entire computer based super DSP systems:
#1. The issue with the audibility of phase is not supported by research. In my opinion, you should start with trying to solve the problems that have shown to have the highest correlation with perceived sound quality. As an engineer you try and conquer the largest problems first. Why place such a high priority on correcting something that is only audible with certain test signals?
#2. So-called room correction has a number of problems. A measured in-room response has all kinds of data, some of which may be easily correctable and other which isn't. Also... I believe in optimizing the system for wide even response. I don't believe in optimizing for one axis, which is what the room correction is doing if you just apply the inverse of the uncorrected response. Much of the low frequency data is going to vary a great deal from point to point in the room. You also have modal ringing which cannot be EQed out either with analog or digital filters. You need absorption in the room to damp it. Room correction will not deal with early diffraction effects; it's not the panacea that many people are claiming. It is a way to throw a lot of money at a problem that isn't completely controllable via electronics. It's another toy that companies want to sell. It could have some beneficial use if used correctly but most companies selling them are overstating their usefulness.
#3. You are going to need multiple channels of amplification for each speaker. This drives the cost WAY up so it’s only a solution that will appeal to the very rich. Good five channel amps are expensive by most people's standards. For a multichannel setup you would be looking at a minimum of ten channels of amplification (two-ways) or more likely fifteen to twenty channels to do the entire surround system in more than two-way configurations. At the very minimum double your amplifier budget. More likely you will at least triple your amplifier budget.
#4. I'd say the system is too complex for 99.999% of the public. Hell... my wife doesn't know how to use the TV remote. How many people can set up a multi-PC system and integrate all that technology? How many people have a background in physics or acoustics that can actually understand how to design the system? Having the tool doesn't remove the need to understand how to use it.
For people who want to make the most of their money a traditional passive crossover is the way to go. If he had spent more time optimizing his passive solution and the room I bet he could get results VERY close to his digitally corrected one. The resulting system would only need one amplifier, would cost a fraction of the PC based one and would be easy to operate and integrate with more mainstream sources and other equipment.
Leave the bleeding edge of technology to those who have a desire to bleed. Some day... the parts that make sense (much of their functionality doesn't) will filter down to those of us with workingman budgets.
