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

+1 @blisshifi Exactly...

I may order the new dipole bass units for my ET LFT 8's. I like the concept of the design but my past experience with DSP (and digital cross over) is making me hesitant to take the plunge. First world problems...

As Nelson Pass so eloquently said, "Some think using DSP sours the cow's milk" I tend to be of that opinion. I've spent a bunch of money on a DAC, so to introduce several lower end DACs to manipulate the signal is just, well not even close to being a good topology. Active analog X-overs with jfets. Yeah. But remapping step, phase, and time coherence etc. I believe that is the business of speaker manufacturers and I'll be happy to rely on their brilliance to that end. Even if it happened in the 1990's. Long live John Dunlavy. Peace.

I use DSP forward of my DAC and analog active XO and I am quite pleased with result and would not go back. Not an easy task to get the crossover points right. With an understanding of your speakers XO, and the tools of Room EQ Wizard and a cheezy digital active crossover (behringer makes one) you can determine crossover frequencies and slopes. From there one can replace the digital XO with a proper analog XO. It does complicate the system with 6 to 8 channels of amplificaiton, but well worth the effort and expense IMO.

I don't think anyone will ever quote Nelson Pass in a DSP class, but then again probably not an amplifier class either

I started off repairing speakers as help to my friends, maybe 35 years ago or a bit more.

Then started making and selling one off customs when I realized the process was fun and has huge markups.

So I began designing by the books, and augmented that by ear, not by looking at graphs on a screen. My speakers were always made with the room, placement, and listening position in mind, as well as the buyer's tastes and intended usage.

The past few years I have returned to the coherence of a good full range, integrated with a sub. For this, I've settled on an active two crossover. Compared to a couple of DSP models, (friends lent me and greatly helped configure) it just sounds more natural to me.

I'm impressed with the time alignment capabilities of DSP, but ultimately my design doesn't need it, and the limited room interaction of the dipole speakers doesn't need room correction . Whether the processing scrubs some sort of detail, or the active crossovers add some coloration, I can't determine.

I this simple setup I have a better sense of space with analog, not high end professional crossovers.

My one glaring example is with movies.

In my all in one 2 channel system, pretty often an on-screen vehicle or event will have the sound of something with front to back effects.

To a lesser degree, most records played will seem to make my speakers vanish (and they aren't small, 4 foot 5 inches tall), and instead it's like looking through a window at a 3D area where the sound comes from the whole front wall.

This is the effect I was after with a couple assisted kicks at the can with DSP, and couldn't find it over the course of a month or so.

It could be very doable for someone more experienced , but I'm not going to chase it if I already have it with what I've already got in stock.