Crossover ? Passive Vs. Active

Would it not be better to crossover before amplifing the signal, or am I missing something?

better is up for debate but for an active one you need 3 amplifiers per channel for a 3 way system vs only one for passive. Good amps aren't cheap.

Speakers evolved as full range devices so you would have to change the whole culture of high end. Few speakers are designed so you can easily bypass the internal crossover.

Plus why can't they separate the highs, mids, and lows during the recording

they could but what medium would you use and where is the market? Up until the dawn of 5.1 surround and hi-rez recordings nothing could handle 6 channels. The average consumer won't accept SACD and wants mp3. Do you think they will buy such an elaborate system?

what frequencies would you choose as cutoffs? And why 3? Maybe I want a 2 way or 4 way system, and every speaker designer would want a different cutoff for their drivers of choice.

I think you are going to have to make your own recordings and build your own speakers.

the amplifiers will be much smaller in power rating and will be economical.

Not really. If you have say a 100 watt amp for a three way speaker, you are still going to need an amp very close to that level for the woofer, and you will need 2 more amps to boot. Yes, the midrange and especially the tweeter will not need as much power but the quality still has to be there. Even if you could get by with 3 amps that had 1/3 the power it would still cost more than a single higher powered amp. Going up the power chain of a power amp line doesn't double the cost when you double the power . It is a fraction of that.

I agree that a well executed system with an active crossover has many advantages for the reasons listed, but saving money is not one of them. Quality amps of any power level are not "economical."

Bob, I agree with what you say. Yes, many things audiophile will seem irrational to the masses, and many actually are, but since this is a web site devoted to all things audiophile I don't think it irrational to bring up those ideas. I suppose it is silly to debate a term like economical in the first place since that means very different things to different people.

Most people would say spending $2k for any piece of stereo equipment would be insane yet you describe the ATI as being economical. To me economical in high end means what I can afford that gives me what I perceive to be the best sound for the money. I have not heard an ATI amp, but having tried various other solid state amps in that and even higher price ranges in my system I doubt it would perform as I wish, which not only makes it uneconomical for me.