Active Speakers Better? No, per Michael Borresen

I wouldn't listen to anything that paradigm has to say their best speakers are very bright and edgy with that beryllium mid-range and tweeter definitely not high-end audiophile quality speakers. and extremely overpriced.

So a Klispch Hersey lV speaker isn’t a full range speaker because it only goes down to 48hz?

Well, I have Heresy IIIs and they are much better with a sub...so yes. My personal minimum is 36 Hz but don't ask how I came up with that.

If you want full range the JBL M2:

Frequency Response (±3 dB)

20 Hz - 40 kH

Speakers are a reactive load meaning a combination of resistance, capacitance and inductance. Amplifiers don't like reactance. They want just resistance, alas. The less reactive the load the more the amp acts like its specs. An amplifier only needs to drive the reactance of the voice coil in an active speaker, a much easier load than a passive crossover with capacitors, resistors and inductors. Which load will the amps be happier with. It's obvious. Add in each amp doesn't have to drive the full audio bandwidth and a few other advantages, all things being equal it's no contest. An active speaker properly done is superior. The biggest problem is audiophiles think they can choose a passive speaker and amp combo better than a good designer can do a speaker combo. So active speakers are a hard sell.

It depends on how much $$ you have and how good or crappy your amp is.  For a TV signal cheap actives are an upgrade to the TV speakers.  On the other hand if you have a decent receiver and not much $$ passives may work for you.  If you have tons of $$; like a lot of those on this site a really good receiver and great passive speakers are hard to beat ( w/ a good powered subwoofer).  FYI comments by NOT an AUDIOPHILE!!