There should be no doubt that active systems allow lower levels of IM distortion. It is also fair to say "So what?"....if you believe that IM distortion isn't particularly important. The advantage is still real, tho it will - like most things audio - vary in importance to a given listener. BTW, small active desktop systems can be strikingly good values, for, I believe, just this reason. Obviously, the bandwidth and spl limitations limit their utility.
The biggest problem with active systems in my book is that the selection is limited. Further, the limited # of choices is further narrowed by the fact that most are designed for pro use and are designed to meet those specific needs. Other than the Linkwitz designs, it's hard to find an active system that is dipolar. I don't know of any that are omnidirectional.
I currently use omnis with subs (a hybrid set-up where the mid to bass x-over is active, but the mid to tweeter x-over is passive) in my main system. The passive x-over sits at a highish frequency, so there's no passive x-over directly in the mids. It's a formula that works for me.
In the past, I've gone with fully active systems and fully passive systemsin my listening room. Each has its advantages and - at the moment - I've settled on a compromise. However.....
I also use Sonos for distributed music throughout my home. Five of my Sonos zones use active monitors because I like their "bang for the buck". My own view is that active systems offer compelling value at lower price points. If you're price constrained and are happy with conventional dispersion, active systems definitely deserve a hard look, IMO.
As you spend more and your options expand, personal preference starts to muddy the decision process.
As always....Pick your poison.
