Interesting situation! Do we need this....

 I think your experience is partly a result of expectation bias because you expected that the new amplifier would be an improvement with the more expensive speakers.

After 50 years in the HiFi business, and auditioning hundreds of amplifiers and speakers, I'm WAY beyond improved expectation bias. In fact, most times just the opposite..."Here we go again with yet another Worlds Greatest amplifier/speaker/preamplifier..." Mostly underwhelmed or simply what I expected. 

@rbertalotto - Is the question how good speakers need to be to be enjoyed or how good the audiophile expects them to be?  I think your experience is partly a result of expectation bias because you expected that the new amplifier would be an improvement with the more expensive speakers.  This is human nature and what makes me trust results that are counterintuitive the most. 
 

I have found more than once that I’ll make a change and then convince myself that the original setup sound difference in some way, but when I swap back it’s far more similar (maybe close to indistinguishable) from the new setup. 
 

My most recent change was to try a new set of speaker cables. In this case it was an actual relief when I switched back.  In this case my listening muscle memory didn’t deceive me.

@asctim 

I’ll bring up another point that’s similar to me - perfect blacks on OLED TVs.

Unless everything else is "perfect" too, tis just another example of chasing the wrong thing.

Perhaps the real problem is in our genes?

We men especially have evolved over countless millennia as hunters.

Looking around it's not too hard to see aspects of this in much of present day male behaviours.

I think what is interesting about the situation is that the op inadvertently listened blind, and was surprised by the enjoyment. I’ve been through this myself many times, discovering that my ability to discern sound quality is much higher than my need for it for optimal musical enjoyment. At a certain point it’s just a curiosity, a freakish thing that a sound system can be so accurate and capable down to the finest minutia, but I get bored with that aspect of it. In building my own speakers, attempting to get to a higher level of performance is a lot of fun. It’s an attempt to pull of a stunt and I’m happy when I do it, but then I need to find something new to do, so I try something new and then people say "Won’t you ever find the system you’re truly happy to listen to and enjoy music with?" My answer is that’s way too easy. I’ve had dozens of those systems.

Another thing I will say about this is that the pursuit of ultra high end sound quality for the sake of musical enjoyment has a certain self defeating quality to it for me. It never sounds quite like live musicians. There are too many complications for that to happen. So no matter what it’s a compromised presentation. But that’s ok because it doesn’t have to be perfect. So if it’s not going to be perfect because it can’t be, it’ fine if it’s imperfect in a number of different ways about equally. If it’s got certain things uncannily accurate while it still suffers from built in issues with the way recordings are made and the limited number of speakers, inter aural crosstalk, all that, then it actually can become distracting. To my ear the electronics and speaker quality pretty quickly can get way out ahead of the quality limitations inherent in a 2 channel recording played into both ears at the same time in a room that is invariably coloring the sound. If I’m going to work on something I’m going to be looking for new and novel ways to present the sound differently - a more holistic approach rather than squinting at minutia like the sound differences of dacs or speaker cables. To me it’s case of straining at gnats while swallowing camels. But to each his own! One person’s camel may be another’s gnat.

I’ll bring up another point that’s similar to me - perfect blacks on OLED TVs. I went with a mini LED even though I can see the blooming. It’s no big deal to me because I don’t typically watch in a perfectly dark room, and a lot of the content that I enjoy has a lot of brightness all over the screen. So the overall persistent brightness limit is more of a big deal to me than the perfect blacks, which I have trouble seeing most of the time because of the lighting in the room and my own eyes and glasses causing glare. The biggest thing I notice, especially in outdoor daylight scenes, is that clouds and glare on water and stuff like that are much, much brighter than TVs can currently produce. I don’t see a lot of perfect blacks anywhere in my world.

@rbertalotto
Congratulations on finding something you truly enjoy, that’s the main thing

That being said, when you use “we” is likely rubbing some people the wrong way as it seems you are speaking for all of us which I disagree- Audio price/performance is subjective 

Peter3..."but I think that the OP is really looking for validation that cheap speakers can sound good to him."

Once again, you simply don't get the jist of the post. It has nothing to do whether the speakers sound good or bad or ARE good or bad.....It is all about the fact that I enjoyed 6 hours of listening to very inexpensive speakers.......They fulfilled my need that night for an evening of music enjoyment. The point is, how "good" do speakers need to be to enjoy them.....

thanks for getting back to me. your response proves my point since you've turned from discussing YOUR appreciation of these speakers to their qualities which is what you should have started with.

"I find your comment unfounded. There is much to discuss and banning a topic because you cannot perceive what could be discussed is not a good course for a discussion forum. If one does not have anything to contribute, one is not forced to contribute. Does this inexpensive speaker have a good dispersion pattern? Do most very small speakers have somewhat good dispersion by virtue of their size and driver sizes? If you listen at reduced volumes, can even relatively low cost drivers achieve suitably low distortion for listening enjoyment? Are there some particular aspects of this speaker and drivers that lends itself to superior low cost implementations?

Many of the posters are starting off with the assumption these speakers cannot possibly sound "good". Maybe they should wonder why their expensive speakers do not sound better.

@petar3 ,

I find your comment unfounded. There is much to discuss and banning a topic because you cannot perceive what could be discussed is not a good course for a discussion forum. If one does not have anything to contribute, one is not forced to contribute. Does this inexpensive speaker have a good dispersion pattern? Do most very small speakers have somewhat good dispersion by virtue of their size and driver sizes? If you listen at reduced volumes, can even relatively low cost drivers achieve suitably low distortion for listening enjoyment? Are there some particular aspects of this speaker and drivers that lends itself to superior low cost implementations?

Many of the posters are starting off with the assumption these speakers cannot possibly sound "good". Maybe they should wonder why their expensive speakers do not sound better.

Reviews are interesting but always carry the biases of the reviewer. Use you ears first and foremost. As noted, it can save you a lot of money.

perhaps this topic should be banned since it is clear that there is nothing to discuss. tastes are tastes. instead, try to explain what makes something sound great. but I think that the OP is really looking for validation that cheap speakers can sound good to him. we can't give that, you know, since they sound great to YOU. 

+1 EPI 100s. Had a pair a lifetime ago that I loved.

RBert, How did the new amp sound thru the KEFs? Just curious.

@rbertalotto Your story is amazing and I've had similar experiences with low cost gear.  It always amazes me when reviewers focus on how expensive the gear they're reviewing costs. You would think a reviewer would gain more attention by finding the 'diamonds in the rough'.  I'm sure there are others, but I enjoy watching Steve Guttenberg (The Audiophiliac) and Steve Huff on their YouTube channels for reviewing a variety of gear based on SQ and not price.

@cd318 everything I read about HIIT indicates it is every bit as good for general health as the 3 times, 30 minutes vigorous per week (which seems to be creeping up), if not better. I really like the rowing machine. I am often surprised at the muscles that can be sore after 1 minute.

@thespeakerdude 

I often find it hard to find the time for a healthy ride so my "thing" now is a modified version of HIIT. A couple minutes flat out on the rowing machine several times a day. Consider it 10 minutes a day of a whole body flat out sprint.

I'm a great believer in High Intensity Interval Training too. I know people who spend hours in the gym, and they seem to like it, but I prefer to settle down to listen to music and watch films etc.

Just 5 minutes on the exercise bike to get my heart and lungs pumping faster here and there when I feel like it keeps me going.

It's a pity more people don't know about HIIT.

When I was doing low carbohydrate I did not do a very high fat version of it. Essentially, I replaced A lot of the complex carbohydrates with fiber and a bit more protein. Fat went up but not a huge amount.

I did low carb for about 4 years. I was serious about it - extremely low carb. And it worked in certain ways. I had a very good ability to go for long periods without eating anything while doing moderately vigorous work.  I was great at dealing with cold weather, but struggled with heat stress in the summer. That kind of diet automatically means high fat, and any success for me on that diet meant being extremely picky about what kinds of fats I ate. When I started to get cheap on that diet, going for chicken and pork and other sources of fat high in polyunsaturates it became a problem. I'm thinking now the key is not total carbs or fat,  but total polyunsaturated intake. I experimented with an ultra low fat diet partly because I realized that even the best sources of fat are considerably higher in polys than something like a banana or a boiled potato. So I cut the fats to see what would happen, and so far it's been great. I'm coming up on 2 years now. No cravings for anything with higher amounts of fat have materialized at all. They say the polys are essential fats, suggesting that if you don't eat them you'll die or get gravely ill. The evidence is uncertain that they're needed at all. They seem to be fattening and accumulate in our bodies with age. As body fat levels go up, the percentage of polyunsaturates in the adipose tissue also goes up. The only way that can happen is if you are eating them. Our bodies don't make them. If we do need them, I see zero evidence that they are needed beyond about 0.5% of calories, and pretty much anything natural that you can eat has at least that much.

@cd318 

I was a fat kid. Not obese, but "fat". Turned into a fat young adult. Sort of hit me one day, and I vowed to change, and came across this low carb thing. I slip, but it is an easy thing mentally get back on track. It is much easier to do today that is was 25+ years ago.

Huge numbers of people in the world who get a large portion of their daily calories from rice. It is a ticking time bomb. In North America, we layer that with too much fat that on its own would be fine.

I often find it hard to find the time for a healthy ride so my "thing" now is a modified version of HIIT. A couple minutes flat out on the rowing machine several times a day. Consider it 10 minutes a day of a whole body flat out sprint.

@thespeakerdude 

You have to have your priorities straight.

You do.

Even, if like me, after years of resistance, you're eventually forced into a reduced sugar/ carb diet. You don't have to give up sugar/ carbs, just reduce them and burn off the rest.

Apparently there's already over a billion people walking around in the insulin resistant phase.
 

An awful lot of future suffering could be avoided if more people followed your example.

more calories burned  

That's the heart of it I think.

We all slow down metabolically, but we don't have to stop altogether. 

Music also has healing qualities and a good system can certainly improve mood.

I have been doing low carb since before it was fashionable and learning to eat to match my activities, carb loading when I was going to need it. I found that strength training was the best change for weight loss. More muscle mass, more calories burned. I am about 22lbs, but some of that is a carrier and a folding panier. You never know when a good bakery or winery will pop up on your rides. You have to have your priorities straight.

@thespeakerdude

Indeed, that 15lbs of fat off your ass is much more important than 15lbs off the bike. That’s been my experience. I used to go on a fast training ride every Thursday here in town. I had a 27lb Raleigh Technium and I’d get dropped on one of the hills every time. One day I came out with my new weapon - a 17 lb Bianchi with all Dura-Ace. I was eager to hit that hill and when we got there I got dropped. It was as if nothing had changed. Skip ahead 8 weeks of fairly serious training and that hill was no longer a problem - even on the Technium. I think gaining power is even more important than getting fat off your ass. But if you do it right you'll both lose weight and gain power. I've tried dieting by counting calories and witnessed myself get lighter and slower. The trick for me is to ride often and pretty hard and watch what I kinds of things I eat, not how much. I gotta eat as many calories as my body asks me for or I get weak. For me the right foods seems to be very low fat, high carb, but not refined sugars or wheat. The refined sugars and wheat may not make me fat but they make my old teeth hurt, as does diet soda for some reason. 

@jetter

I have about 6 pairs of Cambridge Soundwork speakers plus the Fleetwood set. They sound incredible, when setup properly. Kloss was a genius. 

Mountain bikes have heavy wheels, or can, and you are paying a double penalty for rolling weight. It is not much of an issue on a road bike. The extra 15lbs I am carrying on my ass and elsewhere is where I need weight reduction, not my bicycles :-)

@thespeakerdude

When it comes to cycling I’m a fan of the Rega philosophy - lightness.

Seriously, some lightweight bikes seem to ride themselves, whilst others not so light are a real slog.

And yet, I’ve known people who could ride those horrible heavy mountain bikes without complaint.

It goes without saying they would dismount and walk whenever they came to a challenging incline.

@thespeakerdude

Totally agree about what’s important for a great bicycling experience. And I’m sold on the tubeless concept but haven’t implemented it yet. Next set of tires I’m going tubeless. My rims are tubeless ready.

You have a good point about the big TV. I use it for computing and it is very nice to see everything big and clear while I relax in the recliner.

@asctim , I cycle a lot. When people ask me about bicycles, I say there are 4 very important things. 1) Geometry. A bike that fits you perfectly will be comfortable.  2) Shifters that work properly and reliably. No one likes to fuss with difficult shifters.  3) The most comfortable seat you can afford. 4) Bike shorts.   Carbon this and that, aero wheels, a pound here and there .... how many of us are fit enough, or racing such that it makes a difference?  I do advocate for tubeless tires though. Better rolling resistance with less tire pressure makes for a more comfortable ride.

Audio systems are similar. How many audiophiles have a room properly designed and treated to extract everything that the electronics or speakers can do or get the most out of the recording? Few. How many optimize their bass with subwoofers and rooms treatment and active bass management? More, but still few.

I do like my big TV, but that is only because my eyes are not what they once were. I can relax in the recliner where I like to sit and not have to squint when there is text on the screen.

High end gear is not required to get great sound that is truly a pleasure to listen to. At least for most of us. I’m finding now that I didn’t need to buy a 75" 4k HDR TV either. It’s nice and I’m not complaining, but when I didn’t have access to it while moving and had to use an older 55" LCD with some noticeable color issues I was still having a great time. You don’t need a high end road bike to enjoy bicycling either. When we got jobs in bike shops after high school me and my friends upgraded to top of the line bikes of the time. After a few months of riding my friend asked me, "Are we really having any more fun than we were on our cheap bikes?" The answer was clearly no. You couldn’t possibly have any more fun than we had in terms of riding. But the new bikes were fun to put together, and there was some pride of ownership, and the new bikes required less maintenance, so we were inclined to keep them. Since then I’ve limited my expenses on bikes even though I’m still super enthusiastic. I’ve done the same with audio equipment, and video equipment. If I could easily afford the very best then sure, maybe, why not? But I’ve got no fear of missing out on what I’m really after. Epicurus said something along the lines of "that which we really need to be happy is free or at least easy to attain."

I hate to tell this story. Years ago living in Huntington Beach, CA, my old stomping (and surfing) grounds. Had modded monoblock amps, tube pre, Museatex Meitner CDD transport and DAC, Triangle Antal speakers. Never a word when people would come and visit.

Monoblocks went down, so in the meantime packed it up and set up a Cambridge Soundworks by Henry Koss set of two small one way speakers with subwoofer, something like this

Hung those little squares up one on each side of the corner wall about two feet apart. Played one of those little darling Radio Shack DVD players that were all the rage through them.

Everyone who came in, all non audio people, comment how great it sounded. Funny thing is it was just a little bit incredible. However it happened, it was like the complete walls they were hung on disappeared, everything disappeared but the music.  Just one of those funny little things that happens when you least expect it.

I think Amazon read this discussion and realized a new market about to emerge...

wasn't a fan of the yellow drivers just based on looks. 

No YELLOW drivers..... Basic Black....I see the price has gone up $30!

It will be interesting to see what his experience is with the intended combination, but he never said that the “lower expectation” speaker was better.

I did connect the KEF LS50 Metas to the Akitika Z4 amplifier, and gave a it a good listen. It is quite obvious that the Fluance speakers are simply no match for the KEFs......The KEF create a sound stage like no other speaker I've auditioned in my living room....on some recordings you'd swear there were two more speakers on the sides of you....It's actually spooky. The Fluance speakers have a rise in the 70hz and down range which gives the impression of deeper bass, but in reality it is just more bass. In my room it is rather plesant. The KEF's are an amazing speaker.....In 50 years of selling, installing, designing systems, only a couple other speakers ever impressed me like the LS50 Metas. (Any Magnepans, Dahlquest DQ10s, B&O Red Line series, and in the right room, Klipsch Forte)......But I'm here to tell ya, for $120 a pair, the Fluance speakers are remarkable....or maybe it is just my room and my ears that they have "synergy"...

All this may say something about the relative quality of the Fluance speakers and the drivers they use. I've never heard them...wasn't a fan of the yellow drivers just based on looks. Good luck with your project if you intend to finish it. 

@anotherbob - I think the OP was simply sharing that when he thought he was listening to one setup it actually turned out to be another one that he wouldn’t have expected to be as good and it “lesser” combination compelled him to enjoy the music. 
 

It will be interesting to see what his experience is with the intended combination, but he never said that the “lower expectation” speaker was better. 
 

It kind of reminds me of the Bose demonstration where you think you’re hearing large speakers and then they reveal the little one. It’s fun when something sounds good enough to trick you into thinking it’s something that you’d expect to be better. 
 

Sometimes it’s expectation bias and sometimes is a high value product, but either way it’s nothing more than a compliment to the gear of the listener enjoyed it. 

@thespeakerdude perhaps, but if they are soooo good, then you’d think people would be keeping them for use in a secondary system, or passing them down to relatives or friends, not pawning them off on eBay. Most speakers I have bought have been repurposed or given to relatives to get them started in this hobby and especially move up from cheap soundbars. I don’t know, maybe people buy them based on the hype, but then find out they just don’t fill a large room like they expected, and they live and learn and move on. This isn’t a knock against KEF or their good design. They image extremely well.

If there were more brick and mortar stores around where people could audition speakers before buying, there wouldn’t be as many for sale on eBay. But those days are almost gone. If they could, they might get the R3 instead and be happy for years and years. 

@moonwatcher the used prices on Ebay seem in line with most used speakers. One of the reasons for a lot of used units is likely that a lot were sold. Even my local discount retailer has them on the shelf. I doubt there is a more popular non amplified speaker. Unlike most speakers, they are easy to ship hence more conducive to Ebay/used.

I’m with @carlsbad. We have to note that despite their embrace by so-called audiophiles, there are a LOT of USED KEF LS-50 and now LS-50 Metas for sale relatively cheap on eBay and other outlets. That alone says that maybe they grow old fast on people. I mean for a small little thing on a desktop maybe, but I’ve never understood the draw of such baby speakers in a decent sized room unless you add a good subwoofer to them. To each their own. If you were happy with the sound from the Fluance then be happy. Sometimes the brain and psychoacoutics can play tricks on even the best person calling themselves an audiophile. Many people upon hearing a X priced whatever will think, "Oh man that does sound good" until you tell them it was not X priced but Y priced and much cheaper.

Don’t get me wrong. Nothing bad about BETTER quality gear that is often pricier, but measurements aside, "better" is in the ear of the beholder.

There's also this thing called "synergy" where it is the complete system that delivers the goods that matters.  Perhaps your amp was happier driving the Fluance than the KEF.

@rbertalotto 

I'll repeat....It is NOT about what was better.....It was all about the satisfying experience listening to a set of speakers that certainly are NOT as good as the KEFs, but none the less, for six hours I was very well pleased.....I reiterated this above so we don't get side tracked....

That's fair enough, but the intriguing point is that you thought you were listening to the Kef's through your brand new kit amplifier, the AKITIKA Z4. 

As you said:

For six hours I was simply amazed at how great the AKITIKA kit amp sounded. Massive sound stage, tight, well defined bass, some of the best vocals I've heard, the "AIR" around jazz instruments was fantastic!.....a system to behold...playing through my KEF LS50 Metas...

It was only when you decided to end the session did the reality of the situation dawn on you.

Six hours later, after all types of music, it was time to call it a night (or early morning)....As I go to shut down the system, I realize that all night I was listening to the Fluance speakers!!! They were placed side by side with the KEFs.
 

Do we really need any of this high end equipment to really enjoy the music!

It seems as if you've already answered your own question.

In certain situations, such as yours where you were able to put the music before the equipment (albeit under a misunderstanding) a situation most of us audiophiles say we aspire to, the answer is a clear NO.

Perhaps we can therefore conclude that when it comes to audio playback there is not only no clear relationship between price and performance, there is no clear relationship between performance and enjoyment either.

Many, many people (musicians included) seem to enjoy music systems that we here might find objectionable.

They don't even need a pair of Fluance SX6 speakers.

So, instead of measuring worth of speaker, we're measuring worth of experience. In that case, each individual evaluates worth of their equipment in relation to their experience of it. What do I know about that!

Anotherbob... well said sir. I stand in full agreement with your sentiment.

I have discovered that most speakers can sound good listening casually, when attached to good gear in the right space. But when critical listening happens in a quiet space little things like timbre, soundstage, separation, thee dimensional imaging, attack, and details become noticeably different between speakers. That is when we realise why we pay more for some of them.

take notes with the same test track and compare/contrast which you prefer. 

more accurate often does not mean "better sounding or easier on the ears"

jmalen123 - It always comes down to a comparison if you’re going to make a legitimate claim regarding two different speakers.  I absolutely agree anyone has the right, within limits of the site’s rules, to post whatever they want, I wasn’t trying to infringe on that right.  All I was saying is he had more work to do before posting anything that anyone should take seriously, hopefully I said that better this time.

Johnfritter - show me a kids ratty Honda Civic that “blows the doors off a new Corvette!”

Even cheap drivers can be low distortion at lower listening levels. Audiophiles place far more importance on crossover parts than is warranted. A good design is more important. Room and speakers are a system. If the room is not treated and the position is poor a cheap speaker can put perform a better one. 

The better question is what was the result after you connected the kefs again?

Easy...The KEF LS50 Metas are a better speaker...no question. But the "question" was never, "What sounds better...."....

Don't bother to ask musicians about hi fi. They have different priorities as they spend the majority of their time actively making music, not "passively" listening to it.

I was listening to my Degritter yesterday but it sounded rather bubbly.

If you're happy, that's great.

But don't assume I will happy.

The better question is what was the result after you connected the kefs again?

I can enjoy both my solid state Adcom with my cheaper speakers and my Tube amp with my Harbeths it’s a enjoyment for music either way I just get more joy from the glow of tubes💫

Never heard the Fluance speakers, but this is why I disagree that "high end" should necessarily be linked to price.  I think it's a reflection of the maker's intent.  If you're serious about making good sounding gear, it can be done at a fairly low price point. 

No doubt the Fluances have limited deep bass & dynamic range, and other compromises necessary to stay in budget.  No doubt, they are using the best components they can source with their cost constraints, and spent serious time voicing the design.  I think all Canadian companies are allowed access to a national testing facility.

The KEFs were designed & built to a more stringent set of standards and a significantly higher budget was allowed for the final speaker cost.  I have no doubt that they would out-perform the Fluances wrt those standards.  Voicing, though, is ultimately partly subjective.  Not everyone will agree with any design team's choices.