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

There us often confusion between the terms active or passive,

Bi or Tri-Amping cam still use passive electronic crossovers.

I had a bi-amped setup with a passive crossover between bass anp/speaker, and then 2 level controls. Really clean and will-balanced.

Granted, the mid-hi speakers had a basic passive crossover between mids and tweets.

This was Miller and Kriesel (M&K) before they became mass-marker/Best-Buy low-fi.

Is the OP talking about passive line level crossovers vs active vs DSP.

Thank you for the informative and extremely civilized discussion on the subject. No, I’m not personally interested in the PLLC. I also was wondering if the speaker impedance (let say over 100db sensitivities) , 4 way full range from 30 Hz up to 25 Kz and with crossover points of 7KH, 500H and 90h, would make any difference in your choice of crossovers?

@mikelavigne wrote:

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.

My Xilica XP-3060 is exactly that: remote controlled via ethernet for on-the-fly filter parameter tuning from the listening position. Doesn’t get much easier. Delay, Q, slope types and steepness, etc. - vastly more elaborate settings options than any built-in DSP solution I’ve tried. It’s built for the pro environment and looks that as well, but who cares, or should care about segment and aesthetics when it’s sonically rather transparent and fairly priced? Oh, well - the latter (i.e.: fair price) may rub some the wrong way as well..

Actually considered a pair of Funk Audio 18.0’s for my setup some years back, but went the tapped horn route instead.

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.

A DSP cross-over for active config. comes in especially handy with bandwidth limited horns in the need of steep slopes, not to mention that horns are very revealing in exposing the sonic advantages a DSP XO offers while not least getting rid of the passive XO. Indeed I’d say they’re instrumental in getting the most from horns, but a successful DSP pairing is not limited to horns; low efficiency direct radiators can suffer from heat build-up not only in the voice coils but passive XO’s as well (that cause changing filter values), and so running them actively - also for other reasons here - would as well be a great boon.

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.

Well, kudos to Magico for sticking to their guns with a DSP solution "for the best performance," as you put it yourself. Why users don’t comply with that would seem to be more about habits and conservatism than sound per se, or a particular sound perhaps they’d expect to be a product of an analogue (i.e.: passively configured) approach.

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

Maybe not much more interesting than what’s possibly illuminated with above Magico example already, the difference though being that Avantgarde may simply have complied with the costumers here. Not saying passive XO's in conjunction with horns can't provide for very good results, they most certainly can.

 4 way with Crossovers at 90hz, 500hz 7000hz, what speaker are you referring to?