I Was Considering Active, Then I Watched This ...

IMHO, the development of active speakers, particularly high-end actives, has resulted in the single greatest advance in speaker technology, design, and sound reproduction quality since the advent [sic] of the acoustic suspension speaker design some six and a half decades ago. Sorry if it spoils the "fun" of the gearheads who are more into trying to listen to an amp or some interconnects or whatever than to the music, but the quality of the sound reproduced — the music — is ALL I or any listener should care about. In my experience actives in the home, the studio, and in sound reinforcement have a very clear and very audible advantage over almost any passive setup at any given price point.

I should note that I'm agnostic when it come to pure analog vs. DSP controlled speakers. I've used pure analog Swiss-built active PSI Audio monitors for mastering for the last ten years and I've no reason whatsoever to "upgrade." The PSIs disappear sonically; they add or subtract nothing perceptible of their own and have pinpoint imaging, speed, and transparency. They give me the sense that I'm listening past them down the wire to the source, to the original performance. And isn't THAT what anyone who is listening to the music wants? OTOH, I've heard (expensive!) DSP driven speakers in sound reinforcement settings that were likewise breathtakingly clean and transparent at high volumes with no perceptible fault or latency. I've no doubt it's the same in the studio or the home. Take your pick.

Both audio2design and tobes are exactly on the money, and that Guttenberg fellow, whoever he is, is just full of both it and himself. When it comes to quality active speakers, Guttenberg is talking nonsense or worse.

Moreover, anyone who trashes a speaker for being a studio monitor is likewise deluding themselves and others. Studio professional *know* sound, both live and reproduced, and with some few exceptions know what tells the truth to them in their studio monitors. And these days, most often that’s an active speaker for all the reasons that others have explained. As a rule, they’re more accurate, a better value for the money, and they simply sound significantly better.

So fine if one’s hobby is listening to gear and EQing one’s system by other means, but I and others are into listening to the music and frankly don’t want the "hear the gear" getting in the way. At any reasonable price point, and by that I mean at least several thousand $, active speakers will deliver significantly more coherent, transparent, and accurate sound.

BTW, PSI makes a svelte floor-standing pure analog active monitor that I would expect would fit ideally into high-amp’s room, the A215-M. https://www.zenproaudio.com/psi-audio-a215-m If I ever find I need to replace my "living room system" (Thiel 2 2 speakers, Classé CA-200 amp, McCormick pre-amp, actively crossed Mirage sub, balanced interconnects & Kimber speaker cables, balanced AC), I’m certain those PSI A215-Ms along with a proper sub would easily match or exceed my current system.

I've had, and have, passives (many of them, for decades) and I've had, and have, actives (a couple of them, for a decade). Actives are better.