Why are hi-end active monitors not more popular?

I had to look for half a year to find a used pair of pmc-aml1's. I found a pair on ebay for 3.5k, they had scratches, the grill on the bottom had a ding, but I did not care. They came from a studio, as they should have, and had studio wear. The aml1 has perfected transmission line bass, so those fat bass notes you heard on your platinum audio duo are now seen for what they are: alternating bass notes phased quickly to give you that phat effect, which was never discernable till you had the aml1. I tried listening to music with the dsp off (the aml1 does have tone controls), but transmission line bass does not have the 'presence' we have all grown up with, so I listen to them with the dsp set at -0 lf rolloff, you really don't need a sub with these unless you want hearing damage, lf set to +3 db and hf set to -5 db. With active speakers, most recordings are going to sound like what they are: poop. Mp3's will become annoying, being able to hear the smear perfectly and distortion clear as day. Most of your cd's made before '95 will have a noticable layer of hiss, and all your hip hop cd's will show every pop and tick from their samples, and you can tell immediately when they layer another sample on top, and exactly how much hiss each sample adds to the final product. Most people will call this sound 'bright', 'fatiguing' etc. I call it accurate, if you don't want to be in the mixing studio hearing all 24 tracks layered and to what degree, then you need to admit it and invest in some mullards. But after I lost $600 in mullards and an amp as well to a power outage, I had to reconsider my preferences. I also have the aml1's hooked up to a benchmark dac-1, it's like freebasing music, they are in your room, in your lap, in your head, it is intense. Some of your bootlegs will become less enjoyable unless you lucked out and it's a well preserved lossless source, but some of my old cassettes that I burned with my trusty hhb 800 are painful to listen to now, so be prepared to be a 'who mastered this' addict as seen in previous posts. OK so let's do the math for active vs. passive costs.
Cost of aml1's (you will need to look hard to match the 3.5k I paid) plus benchmark dac1 bought on audiogon plus verastarr silver signiature xlr's bought on audiogon: $4,900. The digital source for the benchmark is moot, so any cheapo source and digital cable will do. I still need stands for the aml1's which cost $700 from ron whitmore.
Items sold to pay for the aml1's: Sherwood Newcastle r-965: $600, platinum audio solo's w/stands: $850. Platinum audio duo's: $900. Verastarr jumpers and 10 ft. speaker cables: $700. Odds and sodds sitting in the closet leftover from audiophilitis: $1,000. Total: $5,000. It's a wash as far as cost. I'm sure with perseverance and a little ingenuity you can join the few of us in the recovery ward from audiophilitis. The reason the aml1 doesn't sell well outside of studios is because audiophiles don't want to be happy and content with what they have, unlike music engineers who do (I'm going to catch hell for that one).
P.S. My ears are super happy with me for stumbling into transmission line bass, there are no pressure bombs to ring my ears anymore.

Tuffgong,

Nice description. I agree with you that this kind of sound is not for everyone. I only recommend these kind of studio active designs for those who profess to want accuracy and faithful reproduction of the source. Of course, most people believe that this is what they want and your point about increased frustration over badly mastered recordings is one of the reasons "laid back sound"is actually a better choice for many (actually they are really looking for something that makes as much of their music collection sound sweet, warm and nice....syrup and no fatigue)

Just to clarify somones post earlier, the pmc aml1 uses a 3B ST driving the woofer, a 2B ST to drive the tweeter, and a modified 10B providing driver integration. The amp/crossover module is custom made in England. This is not like their lower grade 'actives' that are indeed not active as stated and use a flying mole attached to them, and suffer all the problems an active is supposed to avoid. The pmc aml1 is not two bryston powerpac's slapped onto the back, which would be the next step up from flying mole, and much more preferable since the powerpac is a great a/b amp. The aml1 has a unique heatsink that takes up the entire back, with a hollow center for a chimney effect so they never get very hot. The aml1 has the amazing and huge 32mm soft dome made by audax, which is used in their MB1 and BB5 speakers that are amazingly expensive, and a smaller version of the carbon fiber/nomex woofer used in the IB1, with a 5.7 ft. transmission line packed into the tiny aml1. The woofer is incredibly stiff, very limited range and completely flat sounding (I am sold on transmission line speakers for life now). The aml1 compensates by using a tweeter that is crossed over at 1.4kz, is very large and very expensive. This tweeter is the reason people will tell you this speaker is bright, and indeed I use the hf at -5db to compensate, but I think it is super accurate, beyond compare. If it is a great recording I will creep the hf to -2.5db, but at close range, for home listening, there is just too many artifacts that show up in the tweeter. That's just because it is too well made, most tweeters are not this amazing. I noticed a fugly blue aml1 sold as a single for 1k recently, they are out there, just spraypaint the blue ones and get them twice as cheap. Also there is a pair of active paradigm reference 20's on audiogon right now, try out the o.g. active speaker for under 1k, probably the cheapest real active speaker out there right now, with the crossovers before the amp. Cheers.

Can we all agree at this point that active design is superior to passive all things being equal.

It seems to me that this would be very tough to argue.