Full FIR vs Hybrid IIR+FIR in active DSP speakers — real-world tradeoffs?

[IncognitOz]

I’m designing an active DSP loudspeaker system and trying to evaluate two main implementation approaches:

1. Full FIR per driver (CamillaDSP-style approach)
Full FIR processing per channel
FIR used for crossover, phase linearization, and driver correction
Maximum flexibility and full time-domain control (typical in systems like CamillaDSP)

2. Hybrid IIR + FIR (commercial approach)
IIR (biquad) crossovers per driver
FIR used globally for room/system correction
Common in commercial DSP platforms like Hypex Electronics and miniDSP systems, largely due to limited processing power (tap count / DSP resources)

Main question:
Is full FIR per driver actually a meaningful real-world improvement over a well-designed hybrid IIR+FIR system, or is it mostly a theoretical advantage?

What I’m trying to understand:
Audible differences in real listening environments
Practical limitations (latency, pre-ringing, CPU/tap constraints, tuning complexity)
Why hybrid systems still dominate commercial implementations
When full FIR becomes genuinely justified from an engineering perspective

Thanks in advance for any insights or real-world experience.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I’m designing an active DSP loudspeaker system and trying to evaluate two main implementation approaches:

1. Full FIR per driver (CamillaDSP-style approach)
Full FIR processing per channel
FIR used for crossover, phase linearization, and driver correction
Maximum flexibility and full time-domain control (typical in systems like CamillaDSP)

2. Hybrid IIR + FIR (commercial approach)
IIR (biquad) crossovers per driver
FIR used globally for room/system correction
Common in commercial DSP platforms like Hypex Electronics and miniDSP systems, largely due to limited processing power (tap count / DSP resources)

Main question:
Is full FIR per driver actually a meaningful real-world improvement over a well-designed hybrid IIR+FIR system, or is it mostly a theoretical advantage?

What I’m trying to understand:
Audible differences in real listening environments
Practical limitations (latency, pre-ringing, CPU/tap constraints, tuning complexity)
Why hybrid systems still dominate commercial implementations
When full FIR becomes genuinely justified from an engineering perspective

Thanks in advance for any insights or real-world experience.

I guess the main advantage would be that FIR makes it easier for you to make it linear phase.

It would also make it easier to "hammer" the frequency response completely flat. Personally I don't like that and I don't even think it sounds better. So wouldn't necessarily recommend that.

Disadvantage with the FIR filters would be increased latency.

 

[ppataki]

If you plan to use linear phase filters for the crossover too, be mindful of pre-ringing
When using steep slopes (24dB/octave or higher) below 300Hz especially

My favorite pre-ringing detection track is this: https://tidal.com/track/184842686/u
You will be able to hear pre-ringing (if any) instantly with this track

Personally I use a mixed-phase approach with my system: linear phase crossovers down to 300Hz and minimum phase below that (for the sub basically + the HPF part of the woofer)
Minimum phase EQ (only a few filters) to flatten the response in the MLP then Dirac Live (which is mixed phase too) and then finally a custom room curve (minimum phase)