There is nothing wrong with passive. You can get very good sound from passive speakers. Although active speakers often sound better where both options are available and direct comparisons can be made.
Active speakers allow for a greater degree of precise driver integration. They eliminate loss of power in passive crossovers, and they dramatically reduce IM distortion from one amp powering several speaker drivers. However, you get what the designer has intended and this is certainly a limitation for those who like to fiddle.
Active is generally well accepted in recording studios where ultra high fidelity and translatable consistent sound is demanded, with looks being much less relevant. Listeners at a studio are in the know about music and have a job to do and prefer a reference sound to "sugar-coating"; if they are to be impressed then it is the actual sound that will carry the day not the "look". The locaton is also an "industrial work" setting with gear expected to last many years. In the past, monitor consistency and match with other studio gear was so poor that engineers did not trust their work until they had tested the mix on a variety of cheaper home audio type speakers. Today that happens much less often, as active speakers have created very reliable and consistent high quality sound.
Audiophiles also care about the sound but often balance these requirements with how things look, as, after all, it is a domestic environment. They may want their susbstantial investment to be visibly self evident too, even to casual non-audiophile observers. They also like some individuality to their setup with a tweak towards their tastes (accuracy is second to a tailored sound for maximum personal enjoyment). Like a sports car with go faster wheel hubs and other largely symbolic styling, such as aerofoils and stripes and things that identify newer versus older models; the look in a domestic setting is relatively important to most audiophiles.
So the absence of a big chrome monster power amp or an array of glowing tubes is, IMHO, a significant drawback of active speakers to most audiophiles.
Furthermore active speakers, being work horses, mostly tend to be big ugly, boxy and extremely heavy ....rather than tall narrow and elegant. Big, boxy and ugly being the requirements of good sound quality - especially if accurate bass reproduction is desired.
Given the restrictions, however, I suspect that a another significant advantage of a high end active speaker is that the sound has often been lab tested to be as close as possible to neutral, natural and transparent; therefore active speakers are generally less likely to fatigue a listener after several months and cause "upgradeitus". Although,like passive speakers, active speakers will still suffer heavily according to the quality of room acoustics (room acoustcs being probably the most common reason people remain frustrated and keep changing gear).
Active speakers allow for a greater degree of precise driver integration. They eliminate loss of power in passive crossovers, and they dramatically reduce IM distortion from one amp powering several speaker drivers. However, you get what the designer has intended and this is certainly a limitation for those who like to fiddle.
Active is generally well accepted in recording studios where ultra high fidelity and translatable consistent sound is demanded, with looks being much less relevant. Listeners at a studio are in the know about music and have a job to do and prefer a reference sound to "sugar-coating"; if they are to be impressed then it is the actual sound that will carry the day not the "look". The locaton is also an "industrial work" setting with gear expected to last many years. In the past, monitor consistency and match with other studio gear was so poor that engineers did not trust their work until they had tested the mix on a variety of cheaper home audio type speakers. Today that happens much less often, as active speakers have created very reliable and consistent high quality sound.
Audiophiles also care about the sound but often balance these requirements with how things look, as, after all, it is a domestic environment. They may want their susbstantial investment to be visibly self evident too, even to casual non-audiophile observers. They also like some individuality to their setup with a tweak towards their tastes (accuracy is second to a tailored sound for maximum personal enjoyment). Like a sports car with go faster wheel hubs and other largely symbolic styling, such as aerofoils and stripes and things that identify newer versus older models; the look in a domestic setting is relatively important to most audiophiles.
So the absence of a big chrome monster power amp or an array of glowing tubes is, IMHO, a significant drawback of active speakers to most audiophiles.
Furthermore active speakers, being work horses, mostly tend to be big ugly, boxy and extremely heavy ....rather than tall narrow and elegant. Big, boxy and ugly being the requirements of good sound quality - especially if accurate bass reproduction is desired.
Given the restrictions, however, I suspect that a another significant advantage of a high end active speaker is that the sound has often been lab tested to be as close as possible to neutral, natural and transparent; therefore active speakers are generally less likely to fatigue a listener after several months and cause "upgradeitus". Although,like passive speakers, active speakers will still suffer heavily according to the quality of room acoustics (room acoustcs being probably the most common reason people remain frustrated and keep changing gear).