Active or passive?

But surely a good tube amp with a good passive will always sound better than a similarly priced active...??

First I'd have to believe that I categorically like tubes more than ss, and that's not true for many.

I've fallen hard for several good passive designs that sounded castrated at home in my listening room. I have no idea why, but dsp active speakers sound right in my room where all the world beater passives fall flat.

It saddens me that people have no idea how bad rooms can be in the bass, or how a little DSP eq can transform their experience.

I must saying  that @soix is correct here:

You need not have DSP involved in an active speaker.

My bad. Given recent discussions I misinterpreted the OP, as wanting to convert existing speakers.  And while again, this can be done in the analog domain, replicating a crossover with EQ features is far more than the average audiophile would do in the analog domain. 

Yes, you can build line-level active, analog crossovers of any complexity, but really only the pros and EE geeks would want to.  For everyone else, there is DSP. :) 

Best,

E

Passive: Simpler, no noise, no additional A/D, D/A stages.

Active: Greater control, higher efficiency, and a lot more parts in the way. Multiple amps, cables, and A/D, D/A + DSP in the way.