I think I need to stop being scared and traditional which means I want to buy a pair of active monitors.
I think fear prevents a lot of "traditionalists" from taking the plunge but they're missing out on the best sound per pound. We active users were all traditionalists once.
Am I being practical in terms of the apparent limited connectivity for all the kit I’ve mentioned or is this easily overcome using some sort of switched multiple connector box?
Certainly do-able. Just a matter of selecting the right equipment needed to accommodate all your analogue and digital inputs, whilst minimizing the box count I imagine? Several good suggestions already mentioned. This is not a market segment I know much about though I'd throw the Yamaha WXC-50 into the mix as it's a streamer (with Apple play) and has inputs for one analogue and one digital source together with stereo analogue outputs to feed active speakers. Best check specs. before purchase. If you have just the one digital source then you could add the suggested Nobsound passive switchbox to the Yamaha to accommodate all analogue sources.
As for active nearfield speakers, there are many reviews worth checking out on this reputable website:
www.soundonsound.com
I believe active nearfield monitor speakers make excellent hifi speakers when used at typical hifi listening distances of 2 to 4 meters though just like passives, they don't all sound the same. Some actives, like the Yamaha HS range, sound quite mid-forward (shouty) to my ears whereas KRK's often sound tonally darker (too dull) to me. Just as with passives, you need to choose a speaker that suits your sonic taste.
My theory as to why some may find a typical passive speaker more relaxing to listen to for pleasure is that the perceived near-instant transient response to a music signal of an active speaker, often absorbed by the crossover (electrical sponge?) in passive speakers, comes as a bit of a shock. To my ears, many, possibly not all, passives produce a softer sound which some may enjoy (or find less challenging) especially with less dynamic musical genres.
I use budget active nearfield speakers which some have described as bright but I really enjoy them and find them ultra-detailed and exciting rather than fatiguing (could be that my old ears appreciate a bit more treble). But they can do warm and relaxing too, should the recorded material dictate. Basically, they seem true to the source media. Maybe I'd have a different opinion if, like Khazul, I worked with active nearfields all day long. Maybe I'd like to come home to a softer, easier to listen to sound.
Agree with Paul7777x's point - actives I've heard sound the same at low volume as they do at higher volumes. Same is not true of any passive I've ever owned. The original Mission 770 needed serious welly to come alive. I often wonder if my hearing would be in better shape had I discovered actives much earlier in my hifi journey.
I know a lot of hifi people like that kind of smudgyness but I don’t know why.
I'm tempted to say: that's because they don't like music, but I won't.