passive vs. electronic passover

Do the guys who bi-amp do this? I will be bi amping my rig! Just want to get the most out of everything! I am getting a pair of Tyler Acoustic PD80 and he is going to rig it active and passive.
Thanks fo the info!!!

There is no doubt that removing the passive crossover will improve control over your woofers. Nobody argues against this. It is theoretically better. It is measurably better. And it is certainly audibly better.

In my own car audio setup, converting to an active crossover noticably improved the midbass and bass, but the tradeoff was a harsher midrange and top end.

I think that semi-active is the answer. In my experience, the low frequencies benefit most from going active. The midrange and top end, less so.

I am currently trying out biamping my Magnepan 20R's using a Bryston 10B "Standard" (not the "sub" model- although I can get a L+R combined sub out from this unit) active crossover using crossover frequency points and db slope recommendations recommended by Magenpan, with good results. Much improved dynamics in particular.

I agree with Bob Reynolds.When adding a subwoofer system,it is easy enough to position the them for phasing.Removing passives in an already full-range speaker system is another thing all together.The problem being that a passive crossover can adjust for timimg/phase.Taking these out and using an out-board unit usually won't compensate for the phasing.In order to get active units with a delay function can be an expensive proposition.
The best crossovers I have used were passive/capacitor based on top and active in the bass,similar to the Dahlquist and ARC units.JMHO.