Thoughts on Active/Passive Speakers? Looking for pros and cons.

Most, if not all active speakers have active crossovers...what does that mean? It means the signal passes through the crossover, followed by the power amp and then reaches the speaker. Passive goes power amp -> crossover -> speaker. The main difference is that an active crossover can work at 'low' voltage where heat and power dissipation are vastly easier to manage and there's a lot more flexibility in what you can achieve. It's a bit like the difference between a scalpel and a meat cleaver. A significant disadvantage is that you need a separate power amp for each driver. It's probably also worth saying that an active crossover can be analogue.
Just because something is active doesn't mean it's better, the manufacturer needs to have used those tools to the best of their advantage for the result to be worthwhile.
I'm currently working my way through 'The Design of Active Crossovers' by Doug Self, which I think is the same book Siegfried Linkwitz gave to Nelson Pass when he asked him to design the analogue active crossovers for his LXminis. There's a great section in chapter 1 which covers the pros and cons for active crossovers.

The first speakers I owned that I was truly happy with were active Genelecs, the second were Seas A26 passives - both sound great to me.

Most, if not all, speakers are designed using active crossovers nowadays. Passive crossover speakers can sound very good, parts cost $$. But if they were left as actives they would sound even better in my opinion. My 2¢

pragmas: signal processing at speaker level is a WHOLE different animal than at line level. Heat is the lowest issue compared to the rest of the losses and lack of phase control. Have you seen a proper passive crossover, how much copper is involved in air core inductors etc?  Should I post a picture of a good 3 way passive crossover so you can see?

It is NOT a disadvantage for seperate amp for each driver: active means its possible to provide the right power for each driver for matched dynamics acoss all the drivers. With seperate amps, a big peak in the bass does not raise distortion on the tweeter or midrange as it does with one amp. The cost of a big power supply and transformer for one big amp can be much more difficult and expensive to execute than two or three smaller amps.

Of course the manufacturer needs to do a good job with active- this is true of everything. It is true that active can be done cheap- especially using little Class D amp modules available everywhere now (95% of which sound awful).

IN the case I am very familiar with , ATC, the electronics are all analogue. ATC avoids digital for that changes too much too often and better to chose your own converters.

Whether analogue or digital designs, that has nothing to do with active vs passive.

pragmas: signal processing at speaker level is a WHOLE different animal than at line level.

Yes I agree, that's what I said.

Have you seen a proper passive crossover

Yes lots

It is NOT a disadvantage for seperate amp for each driver

As long as you don't care how much you spend on equipment

Of course the manufacturer needs to do a good job with active

Yes, I think I said that as well.

I get the feeling you didn't like what I said, just can't work out which bit.

I have built a active big 3 way speaker before. best bass ive ever had. but the sound was mechanical.
same with genelec 1037 that I had before, good sound, but not natural

Im a fan of low order crossover. first order assure one to have a good phase response between the drivers.

My limited experience so far seem to point that both can be good but i will stick to passive's.