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

Phusis:

First, I only answer a few points because it's clear to me you are now using circular logic.  You point left and then right, much like Kenjit.  Are you kenjit?

Why wouldn’t there be a winner?

Because of:

• personal values 
• The impossibility of trying to define best.
• The diversity in implementations. 

For a consumer, you can no more define best type of crossover than you can best type of amplifier.  An absolute inviolate hieararchy is impossible.

Actively driven? Well, it’s an expensive setup (which is not saying much), and only one of many.

And this is where you go 100% kenjit.  You argue in the same piece there must be a best, and then that one example doesn't prove anything.  You can't have it both ways, Kenjit-lite.

I think this is an exciting area of discussion and practice for audiophiles.

There's no clear winner among all of the choices.  Convenience matters a lot.  I run passive crossovers with my main speakers, but active to my sub which right now is only for home theater.

I've been toying with a supreme 3-way center channel build.  Fully active crossovers. 

My take is that this is a hobby and you should focus on what you want to learn and how much of your system do you want to build vs. buy.  How important is it for you to have separates?  After a lifetime of buying into the all separates mentality I've given up.  Separates are not actually better. 

I got to hear the original B&W Nautilus driven by a ridiculous number of Krell amplifiers and crossovers. It was not all that. 

Enjoy the hobby, but don't obsess or think any particular way here is THE way.