I was quite reluctant to write this reply. many days have passed already. but still I thought I would pass some more info to back up passive side of the discussion. I also would like to point out here that I'm not for or agains any fraction. I just want to write what I know is true.
Craig M. said:
there is such a thing as speaker crossover distortion. google 'martin grindrod crossover distortion' also http://www.bobsamerica.com/bozak-xoveranalysis.html
as for what's written on his web site. this speakers' passive crossover distortion would be phase shifting of signal reaching drivers in crossing over frequencies. that might have been an issue in the 60-ties, 70-ties, 80-ties or maybe even in the 90-ties. but introduction of computer assisted design programs helped to solve that problem a lot. there are manufacturers who specifically address this issue in product design. see info section at YG Acoustic's or Monopulse's web sites. I also think Dynaudio does a great deal of work in this direction with their complex crossovers. Their speakers imaging is preety good although I never red anything which explicitly says Dynaudio's crossovers are design to maintain frequency response linearity and and at the same time keep phase shifting to minimum. or you can also chose crossoverless speakers, like electrostats. but problem with them is that not everybody would enjoy the look of big panels in their room or even have space to accomodate them. plus electrostats suffer from not being as dynamic as moving coil designs.
Craig M. said:
i think the only real advantage [of active speakers] is the sound.
if validation of these words would be your mini review of Opal Events in another post: "the opals have deeper, more accurate bass. it's ridiculously easy to hear changes in bass notes and bass level, and also hear which is the kick drum and which is the bass. the mid is clean, clear and natural and as real as i've heard. treble seems very realistic to me. the imaging is great, with unbelievable depth." then I must say I can without any reservation apply your description to my passive set-up. I don't think it falls behind your actives in resolution, imaging, timbre and ambience retrieval. it will fall behind in dynamics capabilities if we listen on high volume levels though.
IMO there are 2 great advantages of active designs:
1. power distribution. in passive designs with crossover power has to be split between drivers and some power is also lost in crossover network. with active designs power amps are connected directly to drivers so there's no loss of power due to crossover. plus in some cases active set-up might be safer for your speakers. if power amp goes into clipping for extended period of time it might destroy tweeters in passive set-up. in active set-up it will not happen because bass-mid amp is not connected to tweeters.
2. VFM. you say your Ovals cost 2600 GBP. I never heard them but I'm quite sure I wouldn't find any passive set-up for this kind of money that sounds as good. and that's not open to debate. however, if someone has awful amounts of money to spend they can get great performance. plus they get chance to experiment with new technologies in amplification and speaker construction because it's the hi-fi which's trying to push boundaries of reproduction realism further, not pro market.