Why HiFi manufacturers don't make active crossovers anymore?


Hello to all,

On the recent days, I noticed that a lot of manufacturers of Hifi 2 channel systems, had plenty of options in a not so long past, of active crossovers, like Luxman, Accuphase, higher end Sony stuff, and many more, why do you think HiFi manufacturers abandoned the inclusion of active cross overs, channel dividers, in their lineup?

Accuphase still makes a digital one.

Appears that this devices are only still relevant in the Pro Audio world, why Home HifI abandoned the active cross over route? It's correct to assume that?

I think that can be very interesting tri-amp a three way loudspeakers with active cross overs, would like to know more about it too...

Share your thoughts about the subject, experiences in bi-amp and tri-amp with active crossovers and etc....

Thanks!
128x128cosmicjazz
even Marantz offered a active crossover in the early 80's... amazing: 
http://www.thevintageknob.org/marantz-Ad-6.html

wish the mass HiFi brands return to produce such amazing lineup of products, how Pioneer, Sony, Marantz, JVC, Denon, made it.. 

Unfortunately that's not gonna happen hehehe
To make modern active one must use DSP and chips no small manufacturers can make chips so they must rely on what's available so basically you have a few versions of basically the same thing and its why smaller companies are avoiding for now. Passive actives are kind of like a model T Ford today still they have a subjective performance advantage if done right over DSP. DSP's great strength is making the wrong work correction is what DSP is mostly about for if the design was proper most of DSP uses are nulled. 
Similar to member chosenplay earlier in this thread, I am also using DEQX & Open Baffle speakers ’though in my case two processors. (HDP-5 - 3-way OBs as master & HDP-3 slave with two subs).

I am 62 y old, a vinyl listener since mid 70s & was extremely cynical about using DSP with an analogue source until I actually heard it in someone else’s system!

I then researched & auditioned/trialled numerous variations including Dirac, Mini DSP, Behringer, Acourate, even Linn Exakt in recent years but for me. DEQX provides by far the most satisfying results in spite of high cost.

The first time I set a correctly time and phase aligned crossover with corrected, time coherent speakers I literally swore out loud at the clarity, transparency, cleanness and sheer musicality of what I was listening to (this was with Shaninian Obelisks & a M&K sub that I had owned for years and knew the sound profile inside-out).

The phrase ’game changer didn’t come remotely close! (that was seven years ago & I progressed a long way since then with a setup that since early 2017 is as near ’perfect’ as I could want).

Any shortcomings that may (or must?) be present in terms of transparency are buried so deep in what I hear that the positives about absolute time/phase coherence (at EVERY frequency in the case of DEQX) completely overrule the negatives I never really appreciated in most purely passive setups that I had owned or listened to.

Any sceptics reading this - please keep an open mind before passing judgement until you hear a properly configured DSP setup
Sure DSP can correct issues and if your system has them then it is very useful. If your loudspeakers of proper design a DSP will have nothing to correct. 
Not true I’m afraid - it will be impossible for any passive crossover or indeed driver to be absolutely time and phase coherent across every frequency. Some of the high end digital algorithms do achieve that.

I have experience of ’correcting’ Shahinians, JBLs, B&Ws & Royds and in every case the change was very apparent & positive.

Some months ago I also did a ’quick & dirty’ crossover and speaker calibration to some Mission floorstanders for another forum member (prior to him using MiniDSP). We were both shocked by the huge uplift in coherence, smoothness, imaging and overall clarity achieved vs the original uncorrected and passive crossovers.

I’m not trying to be controversial so apologies it that appears too blunt.