Active x-overs certainly offer theoretical advantages and (generally speaking) I'm a big believer. Digital, active x-overs offer even more theoretical advantages and (generally speaking) I'm an even bigger believer.
All passive x-overs (internal or external) present certain issues that demand trade-offs. Hence the great debate about low order vs high order x-overs. An active, digital x-over doesn't demand the compromise. Although (obviously) many here find digital sources (or ADC) a compromise in, and of, itself. Be that as it may...
My main system is now fed almost exclusively digital program material that's crossed in the digital domain. There are too many variables at play to say that the x-over scheme is the reason that I prefer the results to any of the many analog based (program material and crossovers) systems I've used in the past, but I prefer the results.
As an aside, several systems use active external x-overs (models from Linkwitz and Salk) come quickly to mind. Going all the way back to the 80s or early 90s, I think Hales had an external passive x-over option available.
All passive x-overs (internal or external) present certain issues that demand trade-offs. Hence the great debate about low order vs high order x-overs. An active, digital x-over doesn't demand the compromise. Although (obviously) many here find digital sources (or ADC) a compromise in, and of, itself. Be that as it may...
My main system is now fed almost exclusively digital program material that's crossed in the digital domain. There are too many variables at play to say that the x-over scheme is the reason that I prefer the results to any of the many analog based (program material and crossovers) systems I've used in the past, but I prefer the results.
As an aside, several systems use active external x-overs (models from Linkwitz and Salk) come quickly to mind. Going all the way back to the 80s or early 90s, I think Hales had an external passive x-over option available.