Brendo asked in another post what the actives sound like relative to passives. I thought I'd try to describe it here using a piece from The Doors I like very much for its lyrics (see link). This is all in my 1800 cu. ft. living room with no room EQ.

On the M100, Jim is back but not as far back as with the actives. On the M100, the sounds on the left and right are more collapsed into the speakers. With the actives, the left and right are behind the speakers and expanded beyond the speaker boundaries. In essence, the actives disappear far better. The bass out of the M100s is unbearable; I have to turn it down by 10 units on my Pioneer and another 6 units on my Chromecast Audio. There is no such problem with the actives. The over-all sound with the actives is bigger, more expansive and Jim's voice is outside my bow window while with the M100s, he is back but not outside. The actives have more immediacy and tightness to their sound. It is a much nicer experience to listen to the actives vs. the M100.

https://open.spotify.com/track/7mc2TP4Vzuyw2vNf1bLW9f?si=G36YBluCQc-8EP2OWRFFMA

Beyond this song, where available on the recording, the actives portray more images, with more space between them with higher resolution to those images relative to the M100. The soundstage of the actives is wider and deeper and sounds more expansive; everything sounds freer, more natural without any softness where there should be hardness and hardness where there should be softness - yin and yang is well-balanced. Even an untrained newbie immediately prefers the actives over the M100 judging from bass and mids alone.

House of the Rising Sone
Out in the mid or far field
Dedicated mid-woofers are over-rated