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

If you start with digital there is no way anyone could know if DSP is used or not. You would know if it was turned on/off but it is supposed to be doing something so I hope so. Can you hear an A/D and D/A conversion? With the right parts highly doubful but then some claim to hear the difference between different high end caps in crossovers so it is a moot point I think.

I would read what Bruno Putzey says about active speakers. He is designing to a price point but still next level in terms of what is possible. Impossible to replicate with passive.

Implementation will still trump basic technology. It will be like vinyl and digital. Digital is far more capable but a good mastering is more important than anything. A bad speaker will be bad no matter passive, active or DSP. However, similarly, it will allow very competent lower cost speakers as the tech progresses. Being mechanical good speakers will never be cheap of course.  

One thing is for sure, a small portion of the audiophile world will continue with their old tech, blissfully claiming the superiority and pureness of their old tech (using lots of incorrect concepts and poor understanding of how things work) while the rest of the world progresses without them :-)

Some here are talking about active crossovers with added DSP. I’m talking about Active performed within the DSP there are no passive filters. The signal goes in digital is processed within the digital domain  to DAC then sent directly to the amp then on to the transducer. Volume control can also be conducted within the digital domain. If an analog signal is sent it first goes through an ADC before DSP. The OP was asking about crossovers. There are passive and active crossovers both use analog components and then there is DSP crossovers which is an entirely different thing.

With my former passive configured all-horn speakers I at one point had 3 processing stages involved: the passive cross-overs in the speakers as an analogue "processing" stage, the Xilica DSP to high-pass them, and JRiver Convolution hosting a software for room correction in both the amplitude and time domain. It was a capable setup overall, but I prefer my current fully active setup with only one processing stage: the Xilica DSP. Room acoustics have been optimized with both diffusion and light absorption, so no room correction.

@phusis

interesting, i actually own a "new-in-box" un-openned Xilica DSP XP-2040 i had purchased to use with my Trinnov for my 3 subwoofers (happy to sell it cheap). it turned out that my 3 Funk Audio 18.0 subs in my Home Theater have an even better internal crossover, the ALLDSP module that is able to be ethernet networked and tuned remotely.

but back to the subject of a dsp crossover and whether it’s suitable for the top level 2 channel music reproduction?

i think we see it mostly in high performance 2-channel with DIY active horn systems where otherwise it’s just not very doable. so in those situations it’s simply the only choice, not that it’s inherently better than analog.

for instance Magico brought out their $600k Ultimate Horn System some years ago, but it used a dsp crossover for the best performance and they only sold a few. the marketplace did not warm to the dsp idea as most high level users want all analog signal paths. we can argue about performance, but 2 channel at the top has it's perspectives.

it is interesting that the new G3 version Avant Garde Trio uses a completely analog crossover.

https://avantgarde-acoustic.de/en/trio/

DSP crossovers are in top level 2 channel  music reproduction. Don't confuse high fidelity with high price. 

agree. the question is whether it's better with an analog crossover in a particular installation. only the designer can say who has heard it both ways.