Active vs passive crossover

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.

@fiesta75, can you install in-line fuse to the wire if you concern about it?  Might need to be selective with the quality of fuse and holder.  I have not tried it but some people bypass the fuse in the passive crossover and get the speakers to sing with more clarity treble and tighter bass. 

Passive crossovers can get pretty expensive, so I'm not sure how much of the decision comes down to cost with the higher end speakers.  Passive crossovers give the manufacturer full control of the crossover interaction once the speakers get into the end users hands....not so much with an active crossover.