Active vs passive crossover

@erik_squires 

"best sounding is not how I would universally classify ACTIVE crossovers." I got this part.  Maybe you had experience (A/B comparison) with it and I am not going to dispute that.  But why the complexity and the desire to avoid an extra A/D, D/A conversion step are important "negatives?"  Why does that become "negatives"? I thought being able to avoid A-D-A in the passive crossover greatly helps preserve the quality of signal.  Maybe you know something that I don't...

Of course, active crossover systems, because they utilize two or more amplifiers are much more complex, and require more careful engineering and component matching to pull off properly.  When done right, they can be quite good.  These days, one is tempted to go fully digital-- use DSP to not only accomplish driver crossover, but to also apply room correction, driver correction, etc., all in one step.  I have heard such systems, but none that really bowled me over (that is not to say that the DSP was the cause of any sonic issues).

The closest I heard to an apples to apples comparison occurred MANY years ago.  I head the Advent Loudspeaker and the powered version of the same speaker (same drivers, same internal volume cabinet, but one with active crossover and built in amps) in a direct comparison.  I could not believe that these were similar systems-- the powered version was so much more alive and engaging.  

Hi OP,

Sorry for the short hand. A/D was short for Analog to Digital, and D/A was short for Digital to analog.

These are 2 new steps which must be introduced into the chain for active digital crossovers. Question is, how do I evaluate the sound quality of each step and decide if I like it? Well, I have to listen to the finished product.

With a few decades of experience listening to a variety of great measuring DAC’s I know that some great measuring DAC’s sound like crap.

On paper, if all sounded great, and all A/D and D/A steps were perfect then the active digital crossover offers a number of advantages vs. passive but it’s not necessarily simpler. Now I must deal with multiple amplifiers per speaker. Does the speaker maker pick those? Do I?

My point is definitely not pro or anti either approach. My point is that in practicality there are a number of complexities and trade offs which prevent blanket statements about the superiority of either approach.

But, my question is, why the vast majority of companies in this industry still chooses the passive route.

Cost and simplicity.

+1 russ - With passive crossovers, it's much easier to protect the drivers too. I don't use any components between the drivers and the amplifier outputs, just wire. Somewhat risky for the drivers, but worth the risk for the sound improvement to me.