Nope I don't mean that at all.
I guess the point I was trying to make above, other than showing off a bit about my fun-filled and ludicrously dangerous past, was that there is no point (to debates of this nature). There isn't a right or wrong. There isn't a winner in passive versus active. There isn't a winner in 'near-field' versus 'domestic'.
There are just a random set of criteria that are then applied randomly when someone creates music, records music and mixes music.
What format in which we then choose to listen to it adds a little more 'random' to the pot (vinyl, cassette, MP3, CD, etc.).
And then finally which type of hardware we then use for playback then adds just that little bit more randomness too (near-field, 'domestic', etc.).
It's fun to exercise one's mind on this type of debate though.
I find it interesting that if one subscribes to the view that music should be listened to on equipment that replicates the 'sound' that the artist/producer intended/created when it was recorded, in theory we'd all be using cheap passive speakers with single paper cones the size and consistency of a crisp packet (except those wonderful metal AE thingies) and the sensitivity of a slab of concrete.