Active Speakers Better? No, per Michael Borresen

I own both active and passive speakers. If you listen to acoustic music at low volumes I don’t think you could tell the difference. Dynamic music and music at higher volumes sounds better to my ears with active speakers. This is the active speaker I own and it has a passive counter part (Paradigm Active 40 vs passive 40). Guess which one Paradigm says is better (and has measurements to prove it):

"But active loudspeakers have some distinct advantages over their passive counterparts. In fact, when I asked the designers at Paradigm which technology was better, active or passive (since the company makes both types of speakers), I couldn’t even finish my sentence before the word "active" was rushed back at me. There was just no second thought about it. But why?"

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/paradigm_active40.htm

Each designer has to work with what they got, for Michael, passive must be better for his designs.

@kota1 

Are you using the same amplifier with both active and passive speakers?

 I wasn't aware of this   ":His statement flies in the face of what passes in most audio corners as commonly recognized facts.   " 

To put it bluntly, passive crossovers are crude.  That's why some sophisticated audiophiles prefer no crossover loudspeaker designs.  A line level crossover can be much more precise while doing less damage (adding distortion) to the music signal.  Couple a line level crossover with multiple power amps and it's possible for the designer to have more control over the final sound.  The synergy is built into the loudspeaker and the audiophile doesn't have to search for some magical pairing of loudspeaker and amplifier.  Active loudspeakers definitely have the potential for better sound compared to passive designs.