DSP vs. active analog crossover vs. passive analog crossover. What is your take?

I’m using low watt tube amplifiers and VT pre for the speakers, lampizator tube DAC/DSD, Esoteric transport, Garrard 301 with the original heavy mass steel tubing tonearm with Ortofon SPU G/T cartridge among others, Nagra T and Stelavox Reel to reel.

I would use what they recommend, lake LM 26 DSP  or comparable, and set them up according to Tannoy spec. Otherwise you can fry drivers. What are you using them in a warehouse?

At my vacation home and liking the way they sound using first order passive analog crossover. 

For me it's analogue active. After the digital to analogue conversion, adding another conversion to digital then to analogue again doesn't seem transparent. I know, DSP allows for things that an analogue crossover will never allow you to do, important things like time alignement, slope selection, sometimes FIR filters... but my question is: do we ALWAYS need those? Isn't it better to try to solve things differently? Time-align physically when needed (and possible)? Use drivers that don't need EQ? treat your room, not your signal? etc etc.

I just love the way my simple Sublime Acoustic K231 crossover sounds. It doesn't mess with the signal. 

We are all different and are all sensitive to different things, I guess, and there's no absolute answer that fits each and every situation. That's the beauty of this hobby.

Still, I have a feeling DSP has become the "universal solution" for everything these days, for a certain percentage of audiophiles, and to me that is not the way to deal with things. 

+1 @blisshifi Exactly...

I may order the new dipole bass units for my ET LFT 8's. I like the concept of the design but my past experience with DSP (and digital cross over) is making me hesitant to take the plunge. First world problems...