Again, I am sorry if I am being a contrary broken record here, but while all of the advantages being presented for active speakers present reasons why there may be audible benefits, as presented these are not necessarily evidence of actual practical audible improvement. You would need some pretty robust blind listening trials with a pretty solid sample size to actually have evidence. As it stands now, at least from what I understand is that what is being presented here is face validity.
My only point here is that if company a designed a speaker with identical drivers, cabinets, but with two versions, an active and a passive assuming the passive was: driven properly, placed in the room correctly for the listeners preferences, had access to corrective DSP to address room issues; that if those conditions were met I still question whether or not the theoretical improvements in sound reproduction for actives would rise to the level of audibility. This would have to be demonstrated by robust, multiple trial, multiple participant blind listening trials.
There are medications that demonstrate an effect, but the effect is so modest that it is not considered practically significant and hence the drug is not released as the benefit has not been established despite showing some effect. That is my question/concern here; how has the significant benefit in terms of audible improvement been demonstrated? We don't consider sighted listening tests of DACs and cables around here so I have to equally challenge sighted listening impressions for actives. I absolutely concur that for some, many even most users putting the electronics inside the speakers makes sense and that alone is an advantage. I just want to know where the evidence base for the claims of significant, objectively demonstrated audible advantage is.