I have not ripped open any of my speakers to take a deeper look at the internet structure of the speaker to do a side by side comparison, but I would dare to say that the internals of the LFR1100 and the M100 would be pretty close in the major structures inside
The LFR by my experience takes the sound quality of the M100 and smooths out any of the edges and then wraps the sound around you so as Ian has said to me many times, opens up the sweet spot for the best listening position and makes it more the whole room.
Mojo. when you listen to your M2 or M5, do you find that the sound envelope (transparent feeling) is more focused to a small sweet spot that if you sit in the right spot you can almost feel the speakers disappear? Move 3-4 feet to the left or right and the effect collapse. Move forward or backwards and you feel as if the speaker comes back into view as to what you are hearing.
I don't own a pair of actives. I cannot say if they are for my level of hearing will do a far better job that the passive set i have now. I have no doubt that they will be better, but by how much I cannot say.
Response to each paragraph selected from your post:
My active 1100 is better braced and contains more stuffing than my M100.
Images are appropriately large, realistically focused and diffuse with an enormous soundstage. Centre speaker during movies and music is detrimental for MLP and one to two seats on either side. The centre image, as all others, is incredibly realistic.
The M2, M3, M5 all disappear and even when I move around, although there is some channel collapse, the disappearance remains. However, the centre image falls apart quite easily. I've found they disappear best when the tweeter is 6" below ear level. There is no loss of fidelity with that set-up.
The actives ought to disappear better than your passives and render a more expansive soundstage with improved image focus and fidelity across the entire band. The bass will be more accurate. The bass is truly something to behold.
