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

I recently ran a project with a pair of vintage Altec Lansing Valencia 846b and a Lyngdorf TDAi 2170.

I removed the XOs from the speakers and used the XO function in the 2170. I ran the woofers from the 2170's internal amp, then used the analog out from the 2170 into a First Watt J2 to drive the horns. I'd say it was a pretty successful experiment. 

I'd used an upmarket passive XO from Great Plains Audio on the Valencias and found the speaker to sound quite rolled-off on the top end and a little muddy in the mid-bass. The experiment with the Lyngdorf lead me to conclude that it isn't the horn/driver that's rolled off, nor is the woofer necessarily muddy sounding, most of the damage was being done by the passive XO.

Of course, the experiment came to fruition when Room Perfect EQ was utilized, which really helped turn this classic horn speaker into something that could compete with a more modern design - detailed, dynamic, good soundstaging ability,  respectable imaging, etc.

Active crossovers remove coils, capacitors and resistors from the amp-speaker interface with huge benefits in overall system performance: dynamic range, 'speed' and control of drivers. The benefit is due to lacking those energy storing or energy dissipating components, the amps have an easier load, less phase shift and less time smearing/latency/hysteresis and more control over the driver.

I agree, that’s why many of us like full range speakers. However, what do you do with two, three, or got forbids, four way speakers? Are you suggesting DSD perhaps? If so, they have other problems, as noted above from some members, or active analogue crossovers as well. How about simple 1st order crossover? I have noticed that some of the ultra expensive and sound wised desirable speakers today use 1st order passive crossover.

@panzrwagn wrote:

Active crossovers remove coils, capacitors and resistors from the amp-speaker interface with huge benefits in overall system performance: dynamic range, 'speed' and control of drivers. The benefit is due to lacking those energy storing or energy dissipating components, the amps have an easier load, less phase shift and less time smearing/latency/hysteresis and more control over the driver.

Exactly. 

Considering that Mobile Fidelity got away with sneaking a A/D conversion and a D/A conversion into their Original Master LPs for fifteen years perhaps analog purist aren't as able to hear digital processing as they have believed themselves to be.  Online I have been called a tin eared apostate heretic because I use a DEQX DSP to crossover, control and regulate my DIY fully horn loaded triamplified speakers. I've been asked by analog purists why I even bother to play LPs on my Clearaudio turn table since the digital process is going to "obviously" screw up the sound.

My system wouldn't be possible with analog crossovers since I use folded corner horns for the bass and midrange and super tweeter horns well out into the room for better imaging.  Counting the horn path inside the bass bins plus the actual physical separation between woofers and mids the acoustic centers of those drivers are nearly seventeen feet apart.  Yet with DSP the timing is adjusted so that they sound as though the acoustic centers of those drivers are within less than 1/8" of each other.  Also I really like the blend of the three drivers with all roll off slopes set at 96dB per octave.  Neither I nor my audiophile friends are able to hear the 200 Hz crossover point between the woofer horns and midrange horns with test tones, frequency sweeps or music. The same is true of the mid to super tweeter crossover.

I  don't doubt that the DSP exacts some toll on the SQ though I can't hear it.  But then so would analog crossover with even the best component parts.  Obviously my vote is for DSP.