While Guttenberg's reviews of 8b and 8c are both positive, I feel he did not review the 8c quite as it was intended. He dismissed the DSP function of the speaker, saying it did not sound as good. However, the DSP is an integral part of the 8c. The entire signal chain goes through a A-D and D-A conversion, so that one is able to adjust the low pass level as well as time align the high pass signal. The speaker is preset with a -14.5db on the bass and a 0.6ms delay between the panel and the woofer. Both these functions allow the speakers to integrate better with the listening room, provide a much more coherent soundstage with better image depth and width, and a better integrated bass response.
I know there are those who say they can hear a DSP in the signal chain and dislike it. Just like there are those who claim they can hear a step-up transformer in the vinyl signal chain and dislike it. But with the 8c, it is through the 'digitization' of the signal chain that certain sonic defects could be remedied. I just wished Steve could have made a little more effort in discussing the 8c with and without DSP.
If it were an issue of more and better bass, than @bdp24 's comment on the Rythmik / GR Research open baffle sub-woofer must be a great solution. But even the Sanders system uses an integrated DSP solution to the design. I just wish the DSP design methodology could be discussed more insightfully. I asked Bruce about the use of DSP in an email. And he claimed that DSP technology has advanced so much that he can use it to do things that were just impossible a decade before. And given the advancement, he felt that DSP is the lesser of two evils, the other being a passive crossover design.