Go Active Crossover or Upgrade existing XOs?

...all of this seems terribly familiar...and recent, as well...;)

HO...going 'active' does not have to require massive amounts of $.  It will necessitate multiple amps, but it will allow you to 'mate' wattage to the drivers involved....more power to the woofers?  Not a problem.  Back off on the tweets?  Same deal...

Gots passive speakers?  Are they out of warranty?
Do you own a screwdriver?
Make notes on the wiring, check the stated xover frequencies, peruse the type/design of the existing passive unit.
Run jumpers out of the port, if there is one.  Otherwise....surgery, some minor manufacturing, wiring....

Set the xover to 'type of'/points/slopes....start with the 'originals', and then dial to taste....or displayed responses...

You will spend more $ on cables....goes with the territory....

You can make it all sound as described above. *S*

You can also make it all sound like thrice-eaten cabbage....

But...that's the wonder and horror of Control. ;)

....Badges?!  What/When/Where....?
*sigh*  Time to light up Photoshop....again....*grumble*

Is asvjerry posting in Engles?  No comprendo muchachas.  Es poquito?

To the OP, it's a complicated question with no single, clear answer as you can tell from the replies. 

I happen to prefer digital active (since I like the experimenting) provided you can fall back on some kind of power treatment to ward off any digititus. But, that's just me. Others might greatly prefer good passives or good analog actives.

But, I agree it does depend on your goal. If all you want is to replicate the stock parameters, but improve the sq, then upgrading with better passive components may be all you need. 

But, if going active, the main catch is how intimate are you with how the original crossover was designed. If it can be entirely duplicated with whatever level of sophistication of your active crossover has, then you should be ok. And at that point, if you're looking to tweak the original design somewhat, you should be able to. 

One more problem, though. Passive crossover components often have a tendency to 'obscure' things a bit sq-wise and traditionally this has been looked upon in the manufacturing community as an opportunity to 'hide' (sweep under the rug) some minor details of driver mismatching...things that might become audible to you if you undo the maker's work. If it should come down to the fact that the drivers are less than well matched (and this is perhaps more common than you might think), then this might be something of an audible problem whether you are improving things actively OR passively). But, every design is different...and it may be an unknown as to whether or not that might apply or whether it might not be objectionable to you, if it does. That will have to prove to be a judgement call that you'll have to make and the only way for you to make it might be after the fact.

But, there's no real way to know (unless you know of someone who has your speakers and who's been there and done that) until you take that plunge yourself. It's not that I'm telling you that it's all a bad idea, I just mean that you should be willing to accept some risk if you're going to roll the dice on it. But who knows, it could turn out very well, better even than you might have thought, actually...especially if you're that persistent. 

But, likely you'll have to hear those results firsthand and that means that I can't make a recommendation for you one way or the other. I can only outlay, as above, what you might run into, if you choose either.

@ivan_nosnibor  , well put. *S*  And, both a warning and a challenge.

But, since most of what I've been doing lately is experimental....and nothing is 'pedigree' that I own...

Nothing ventured....;)
 ...and really nothing to lose. *G*

@andy2 , ...'muchacho' , gringo...