I would agree that if the passive crossover network is accomplishing something important for the driver/enclosure system that an active crossover would not do, then I wouldn’t want to ‘mess with success’ and bypass the passive crossover.

I did notice, however, that B&W uses an active crossover network on their five-figure Model Nautilus, requiring four amplifier channels between crossover and drivers for each individual Nautilus. Indirectly, this says to me: B&W knows the advantages direct amp-to-driver connection. They avoid capacitors, coils and resistors between amp and driver to help obtain their flagship system performance – and their active crossover may do more than just divide frequencies. In any case, a response of 25Hz – 25KHz with a variance of +/- 0.5 dB, at very low distortion, is quite an accomplishment.

My guess is that the decision to use passive crossovers in their loudspeaker models costing approximately five to fifty percent of the flagship Nautilus is marketing driven. Someone said, “You mean you want us to ask people to buy four-figure speakers and ask them to buy two, three or four amplifier channels per unit in addition to that?” When it came to the Model Nautilus, the remark was probably, “If someone is laying out $20K per speaker, they are seeking the ultimate in sound and would also have the money to buy four amplifier channels per speaker.”

I am not adamantly against things like bi-wiring (I’m offering a friendly opinion, not an argument), but coming more from an engineering background than an marketing background, I know there are demonstrable benefits to direct amplifier-to-driver connections, while I have never been shown anything, other than opinion, that demonstrates advantages of bi-wiring to passive crossovers – assuming that cables with good electrical properties are used (can be low $) in all cases.

Finding something that works well for you is the goal, correct?