Kristian,
Of course there is a trade-away, although it may not be the direct result of the active design vs a passive design. The real world trade away is whatever particular characteristic you find compelling in a particular passive speaker that you can't find in any active speaker. In the case of Ohms, I am unaware of any active omnidirectionals. Similarly, some may prefer the specific tonal qualities of the "fill in the blank" and can't find an active equivalent. IOW, I suspect that, if I had to choose between equally well executed passive and active versions of the same speaker design, I'd generally choose the active version. In the real world, this is rarely the choice.
Bottom line: don't fall so in love with your theory regarding the superiority of active designs. They have their advantages, but I doubt that you really believe that every active design is superior to every passive design. The little NHT active sub/sat system is a great value that undoubtedly offers very low distortion within its operational limits (and at its price point), but there are definitely passive designs, even with the attendant higher distortion, that I clearly prefer. I suspect that you'd agree (who knows, maybe not?) Minimizing x-over impact is NOT the only game here. To your priorities, it may trump all other considerations. To mine, it does not. Note, I DO actively cross to subwoofers, so I get your main point here and, to a more limited degree than you , share this priority.
Newbee, don't confuse published "flat response" (which is usually measured anechoically) with flat in-room response. The former will, just as you note, almost always sound too bright. Truly flat in-room is also usually a touch bright for my taste. I actually prefer the gently falling in-room response of my Ohms (and my Verity P/E, for that matter) to really flat in-room response.
As to direct FR vs power response, I have limited experience with the latter, but I do find that the former - if executed carefully - conforms pretty closely with what I hear. However, the point is conceded, simple on-axis FR isn't the entire story either. I'd also note that I never said it was. I merely mentioned that, as caveated in my OP - IN MY ROOM, MEASURED DIRECTLY ON-AXIS - the dispositive factor in evaluating Ohm 100s is unlikely to be "sub optimally flat FR" per Kristian's OP, but rather the perceived impact of the omnipolar dispersion.
Indeed, my main point was/is that FR, compression, distortion, etc - whatever your measurable - isn't the only factor. Speaker evaluation will always have a subjective component. There are also some pretty good tools (i.e. room wizard) to help with the objective side. As Kristian points out, distorion meausrement are another good objective tool. Hopefully, each contributes to any informed overall evaluation of any given speaker system.
Marty
Of course there is a trade-away, although it may not be the direct result of the active design vs a passive design. The real world trade away is whatever particular characteristic you find compelling in a particular passive speaker that you can't find in any active speaker. In the case of Ohms, I am unaware of any active omnidirectionals. Similarly, some may prefer the specific tonal qualities of the "fill in the blank" and can't find an active equivalent. IOW, I suspect that, if I had to choose between equally well executed passive and active versions of the same speaker design, I'd generally choose the active version. In the real world, this is rarely the choice.
Bottom line: don't fall so in love with your theory regarding the superiority of active designs. They have their advantages, but I doubt that you really believe that every active design is superior to every passive design. The little NHT active sub/sat system is a great value that undoubtedly offers very low distortion within its operational limits (and at its price point), but there are definitely passive designs, even with the attendant higher distortion, that I clearly prefer. I suspect that you'd agree (who knows, maybe not?) Minimizing x-over impact is NOT the only game here. To your priorities, it may trump all other considerations. To mine, it does not. Note, I DO actively cross to subwoofers, so I get your main point here and, to a more limited degree than you , share this priority.
Newbee, don't confuse published "flat response" (which is usually measured anechoically) with flat in-room response. The former will, just as you note, almost always sound too bright. Truly flat in-room is also usually a touch bright for my taste. I actually prefer the gently falling in-room response of my Ohms (and my Verity P/E, for that matter) to really flat in-room response.
As to direct FR vs power response, I have limited experience with the latter, but I do find that the former - if executed carefully - conforms pretty closely with what I hear. However, the point is conceded, simple on-axis FR isn't the entire story either. I'd also note that I never said it was. I merely mentioned that, as caveated in my OP - IN MY ROOM, MEASURED DIRECTLY ON-AXIS - the dispositive factor in evaluating Ohm 100s is unlikely to be "sub optimally flat FR" per Kristian's OP, but rather the perceived impact of the omnipolar dispersion.
Indeed, my main point was/is that FR, compression, distortion, etc - whatever your measurable - isn't the only factor. Speaker evaluation will always have a subjective component. There are also some pretty good tools (i.e. room wizard) to help with the objective side. As Kristian points out, distorion meausrement are another good objective tool. Hopefully, each contributes to any informed overall evaluation of any given speaker system.
Marty