How good is the crossover in your loudspeakers?

There is basically nothing new in crossover design, no doubt, as time went on these manufacturers refined their crossovers, just as we can see that Eggleston did. It’s a natural progression. 

If there is truly nothing new in crossover design, why is refinement over time required.  A natural progression is required to get it right when there is nothing new. Makes no sense.

If one has never tried a better quality parts crossover, then just hot air driven opinion of good or bad.  An informed opinion would be based on trying better quality parts.  Fine if that did not suit the listener's taste.  

@russbutton 

You provide an interesting alternative path that can work if one likes massive over-complication that introduces numerous paths to problems. Unless big bucks are spent, the number of cheap, wide tolerance, low reliability components increases at least 10 fold over a passive crossover.  If spending a few hundred to improve a passive crossover is unreasonable, the russbutton solution is insanely costly. 

@devinplombier 

If you want to pay $800 for an upgrade kit that consists of a few sheets of foam and $40 worth of Mouser components, go right ahead!

Completely uniformed claim that just proves you to be a hater.

@phusis 

Russbutton describes an active crossover providing signal to an amplifier for each driver.  For a three driver speaker, three separate amps required.  Six amps total for a typical 2 channel system.  That is increased complication. In no way is replacing a passive crossover with that an equal exchange. Numerous paths to problems include more connection points, more cabling, higher parts count=less reliable, multiple paths for EMI/RFI, matching amps to drivers, level adjustment for each driver to name a few.  The power transfer from amp to each driver is not vastly improved.  A passive crossover does not consume unreasonable power as has been implied either.

No doubt Class D amps will be recommended.  This recommended path is supposed to produce superior sound quality, right.  Six cheap Class D amps are the exact opposite of quality and reliability.  Better have a couple spares on hand at all times.

If an individual wishes to pursue active crossover, DSP, multiple amps, etc. that is just as acceptable as improving a passive crossover.  However, fact is the active path is not as simple or vastly superior as the claims made in this thread.  Pick your poison.

@bdp24 Very well said summary.  For a DIY person crossover modifications or going the amp for each driver route would not be difficult.  If one can't handle a soldering iron, stay away from DIY.  

Passive crossover or all active can result in a system that measures well.  Measurements do not tell the entire story.  For those of us that have over the years tried many of the latest bright shiny audio gizmos or idea we know that fact all too well. Separate amps for each driver is nothing new and revolutionary.  There are trade-offs for any approach.  

Claiming an all active system to be superior is a broad generalization, not a universal truth.  Previously noted potential problems cannot be explained away by opinion.  Parts count increased by dozens and more interconnections decrease overall reliability and introduce new variables.  That is engineering fact that can be calculated.  When a complex system works it can be great.  When a problem appears, it can be a nightmare.   

Besides: my main intention was to point at the amp to driver interfacing, and how active wins out every day here. This is not debatable - indeed it’s a damn fact.

Wins in what specific technical and measurable ways?  Trade offs must be honestly identified and considered.  That is the only damn fact that matters.

Let’s say you buy two more power amps similar to the one you already own for a 3-way active setup, add a high quality DSP and some extra IC’s and power cables - you mean to tell me you’d now have trouble sleeping because of reliability issues?

Buy two more similar amps for 3 way setup, eh?  So say I have a quality 100 Watt amp, so buy two more that would add several hundred dollars of cost.  That is a hypothetical that makes no sense to support the case for all active.  Conflating potential reliability facts with trouble sleeping is an illogical comparison.

The more complexity is added, the more the entire system is at the mercy of the weakest link.  Cheap out on any item and the entire system does not achieve it's potential.  The core premise of active being cheaper, easier, better completely fails.  Pick any 2.  You can't have all 3.

Do your system as you see fit.  Personal preference extrapolated to claims based on broad generalization does not equate to a clear path for all to duplicate. 

@phusis 

The original topic posed was clearly focused on passive crossovers.  Off topic, active crossover as an alternative to passive opinion was introduced and you started pontificating about their unquestionable superiority

how active wins out every day here. This is not debatable - indeed it’s a damn fact.

Going down that path demands more than just saying it is so. Yeah, a good start is objective measurements that provide proof of superior sound quality to justify first of all the additional cost.