Why are hi-end active monitors not more popular?

Aktchi

You need to go bsck earlier in the thread - I list the pros.

Active speakers is not the same as putting a single passive amp in a box. For example the Woofer will be driven by a separate amp of say 275 watts, the mid range is driven with a separate amp of 100 watts and the tweeter is driven by a separate amp of 50 watts.

There is no power loss in a crossover (these get hot).
There is way less IMD distortion (the worst kind of distortion and most audible) because different frequency ranges are driven by completely separate circuits instead of one amp connected to as many as three drivers and two crossovers covering 20 to 20,000 Hz (which all interact and feedback into eachother). You can precisely control phase and driver integration way better than using passive cross overs.

There is a difference - it ain't simple moving the external power amp and placing it in the box.

I've asked this question before and several months ago Bob Stuart (Meridian) explained it in a way that made the most technical sense. I'm having too much fun tweaking now but I really could see myself one day buying a pair of DSP active speakers and what's done is done.

http://uk.cinenow.tv/videos/318-meridian-bob-stuart-on-digital-dsp-loudspeakers

AGGHHHHHHH!!!

Anyhow this is why:
1) You need a wall outlet for each speaker - any active speaker.
2) As someone mentioned I think, most are voiced to be listened to in the direct field as near or close-field monitors. I do not know how much the designers takes into account reverberant field which makes up 50% or more of the sound you hear.
3) Most are voiced for studio monitoring not home listening. That means they are voiced harsh or bright to hear into the mix. Maybe some people like this voicing, but I don't and I don' think it is a natural sound.
A perfect example is Tannoy. The rep told me their active monitors are voiced with an elevated "presence region" ( I think that is what it is called) in the 3khz region. This is so you can hear into the mix. Tannoy voices the identical home speaker to be flat or recessed in this region. Different voicing for different intended use.
4) I did not say ATC's were poorly implemented. I said

"Good concept / bad implementation is the usual problem."
the most common problem is how they are implemented, not the basic concept.

5) Cheap amps that are bright and lack harmonics, delicacy, or natural sound as this is unnecessary for studio monitoring. A perfect, and surprising, example were ATC active 20's. The dealer also had the identical passive version. He *did not* want me to hear the passive run with ATC's 300 wpc integrated. He did agree but used lamp cord and whatever to make them worse. But the passives beat the actives because of the better amp. The ATC dealer in Canada verified the same thing. Customers preferred the passive version.

I think active speakers are great and the ATC 100's one of the best speakers I have heard. I even asked the big wheels at Stereophile show in NYC years ago. They thought active was good only for home theater since you don't have to make shelf space for 5+ amps.
This is another reason why I like single driver. One driver / one amp = "active speaker". Especially with no x-over or baffle step correction.

I have also heard KRK, Genelec, Dynaudio, Mackie, Truth, Tannoy, and maybe more. The Genelec was the best as far as neutral. the Dynaudio BM5 where spectacular, especially for the price - they blow away the comparable passive and are cheaper all things considered but dark. KRK V6 were nice for the price but I do not like woven cones like kevlar.
One thing they all had in common was amazing bass depth (for the size) punch and impact that hardly any passive monitor can match.