Why HiFi manufacturers don't make active crossovers anymore?

miniDSP will get you there.

The thing most amateurs don't get about crossover design is that active or passive, it's more complicated than you think.

Active saves you a lot of part buying, but there are usually some trade offs, like 3x more amplifier channels, and a lot more parts that go between the singal and the driver.

I'm not against active crossovers at all, but the main advantage pro's like them for, better power efficiency and dynamic range, are not really issues the same way for home enthusiasts. 

Here's an article that describes a lot of what a crossover must do, to give you an idea.
https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/12/crossover-basics-driver-response.html
This only covers a few points. What's still missing is phase matching and baffle step equalization. All doable in an active setup, just saying, there's a lot to do.

@cosmicjazz Bryston and JL Audio make active crossovers. But as @erik_squires mentioned things can get pretty complicated if you really want to do it right, and I also strongly recommend (and offer) miniDSP in large part because of that. Inclusion of Dirac Live is also a big plus.

I imagine that active crossovers have become less popular at the high-end in favor of "full-range" speakers, inclusion of a subwoofer without a crossover, or more advanced solutions. Also, the vast majority of people with 2 or 2.1 setups are still purchasing home theater receivers which have built-in bass management.

The thing most amateurs don't get about crossover design is that active or passive, it's more complicated than you think.

why would it be complicated to make an active crossover work? All you would do is set the crossover slope and point and then adjust the response using EQ to suit your ears. 

Passive is much harder to do because theres no way to adjust the slope or point quickly. 

Its false that active and passive are comparable in difficulty of use. 

Interesting guys, thanks for the thoughts, will check it out the article that you shared..

Let me know what do you guys think about the Accuphase option that I posted above?

Take a look at the brochure, and their option of use the PX-600 amp with the analog active crossover with 3 way speakers (the one with horns)

I was thinking that example, would be a very straight forward and easy to configure, If compared for example: to build the exactly loudspeakers showed on the picture with passive crossovers...

What you guys think would be more easy to configure?

To build the passive cross over for a loudspeaker like that, or to cross over the drivers frequencies using the F-25 and amplify with the multi channel PX-600?

http://www.accuphase.com/cat/f-25en.pdf

I'm planning to build the loudspeakers with the same configuration of the one showed on the brochure of the PX-600, a 3 way, composed of 12" Woofer, Radial Horn, Super Horn Tweeter.

I have the passive cross over plan, but thinking about the route of to use the PX-600 and F-25.

What you guys thins about the pros and cons of the 2 routes? 

I have no experience in build a cross over, so I was thinking that the route of PX-600 and F-25, will me more easy, no?

Thank sirs.

but there are usually some trade offs, like 3x more amplifier channels, and a lot more parts that go between the singal and the driver.

Audiophiles are generally happy to spend quite a lot of money on their equipment. Why would you be reluctant to spend a bit of money on another amp to obtain the benefits of going active, when youre happy to spend thousands on other things like cables and accessories which bring little or no benefits?

There are less not more parts between the amp and driver with active. Less expensive capacitors and inductors.