Active vs passive crossover

Your answer is just as absolute, don’t you see it? Hypothetically, why wouldn’t active be better, or passive for that matter? Why this staunch adherence to "there is no better" when there could very well be a better part of the two in vital aspects of sound reproduction?

You want to walk around in a circle.  You argue against my statement that there's no better because there's no specific, then you argue I should use specific examples, and then you say  either view is an absolute and should not be used.

Have fun running in circles, @phusis

Then why not keep it at that? It seems to me your dodging this simple approach is because you’re stuck with theorizing instead of actually trying out active configuration in your own primary setup,

Wow, you so misread me it’s sad. I’ve never disagreed with this approach nor have I dodged it. When comparing a specific implementation this is the right approach. That’s not what the OP asked though, and you keep trying to answer the wrong question, and seem to be policing me for not answering YOUR version of the OP’s question. That’s not going to work.

The OP asked a hypothetical and my nuanced answer is to explain why a an absolute answer is not possible. There is no absolute "better" for active or passive in home applications.

I have a long history of using active and passive speakers.  The active setups I've used, configured or built involved both digital and analog crossovers in home and professional setups, but you keep trying to school the wrong schoolmaster. Maybe you can stop policing my answers now, @phusis because at the end of the day it just seems you want to be contrarian for no particular reason.

My take is you’re complicating matters unnecessarily here. Quite a few factors determine the sonic outcome and differences on the active side vs. a passive system, but to me it simply comes down to one listening scenario (active) vs. the other (passive).

@phusis 

You missed WHY I was so detailed.

My point was to explain why it is impossible to make blanket statements about the superiority of passive or active speakers.  While evaluating a complete system is relatively simple, explaining why there's no single element here that automatically and undeniably makes one speaker type superior required explanation.

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.

Grrr, "best sounding is not how I would universally classify ACTIVE crossovers."

"Best sounding" is not how I would universally qualify passive crossovers.

Complexity and the desire to avoid an extra A/D, D/A conversion step are important negatives.  If I am the type to want to go out and buy a fancy DAC and amplifier I don't necessarily want to have the sound quality interfered with by another component I wont' be able to evaluate as thoroughly.