Why HiFi manufacturers don't make active crossovers anymore?

Very interesting thread. I'm relatively electronics-ignorant compared to many here--but still have a story to tell.

I'm a longtime audiophile who, for reasons too complex to outline here, has been confined to desktop audio in home office for ~20 yrs.
For a long time I used a modest 2.1 active system in my home office: 2 X NHT Pro M-00 satellites + S-00 sub. The output of my preamp du jour went to RCA input of the sub; and the RCA outputs (shorn of frequencies <100 Hz, went to the satellites. I tried this same sub w/other active satellites and it always sounded good. 

Then I upgraded to an SVS SB-1000 sub, which also has a filtered output (big reason that I selected it). Using the same wiring as before, I became aware that the sound from my satellites (which eventually morphed to passive monitors driven by a big class D amp) didn't sound quite right. My current monitors, ATC SCM12 Pro, ran straight from amp/no sub for awhile and so I know how these very resolving monitors should sound. But driven by the output of the SB-1000, not so good.

I picked up a gently used Marchand XM66 variable 2-way crossover w/24 dB slopes. Installed that (everything got more complicated), but immediately heard that exact same ATC sound that had been compromised off the output of the SB-1000. So consider this an electronic crossover success story.

EXCEPT...upon installing the XM66, I've had a ground loop ever since. Have tried almost everything to eradicate it. I think it's the crossover, which basically connects to most of the power supplies on my complicated desktop. 

(no perfect world)

I have been using Marchand Electronics crossover for 2+ years and have been very happy. Phil Marchand is a very knowledgeable person and can guide you to what you want. Part quality is superb, price is very reasonable, crossover modules are very reasonably priced and you can experiment with slopes, crossover points, single ended or balanced etc. without breaking your bank. Pass crossover uses least used and difficult design whereas, Marchand uses Linkwitz Riley, has no phase problems. My speakers are 4 way and tried about 4-5 different crossover points, liked the present one and have stayed with it. Not a difficult job for someone that is not an engineer. Sound is much better than passive crossover, more dynamic.
thanks,

By the way, digital crossovers are easy to use but analog one will give you better sound. I had dbx Driverack but was not satisfied with sound. I have used Krell and Apogee, but Marchand has been my most rewarding so far.

I disagree that analog crossovers inherently sound better. You can make more complicated slopes that address issues with the room that no analog crossover can touch. You can time align the speakers from the listening position which alone is a huge benefit to imaging. When the filters operate at 24/96 or higher there is no loss of fidelity. While some users make fun of people being intimidated, it’s like anything, that once you know how to do it of course it’s easy. Leveraging the power of Room EQ Wizard and Multi Sub Optimizer to build filters that make the best sound in a room has an initial steep learning curve but the payoff is amazing. I’m happy to talk anyone through it as it took me a great deal of reading and trial and error to get everything to work. 

Actual speaker crossovers are complicated.


If you are going to replace a speaker's internal crossover with an external you are going to have replicate the entire transfer function, not just the crossover location and slopes. DSP makes this a lot easier to accomplish.


If on the other hand you are just adding a sub to the bottom end, an analog crossover can do what you need.