Sonus Faber Amati Futura

Thanks for all inputs!
Actually that was bad news. I had hoped they'd work better than well with a integrated amp with sufficent power.
When i read the spec sheet it seemed that this was what SF wanted to point out. It is a bit troublesome at times to finance an expensive speaker and it also require super expensive big size amps.
I am not as found of the typical SF house sound, but more towards neutral and a deeper set soundstage.

I heard them in a real small sized hotel room and i did find very good depth, but no direct sense of bloom or warmth. Neither was there any signs of bass bloat or nodes, which i did find strange when the room was really small. These were probably new with maximum 10 hours at them.
The electronics were Esoteric all through.
I remember leaving that event with a sense that these could actually be very nice for all types of music.
I am not into the the types of music they always use at demo shows. I don't find it interesting as it is not at all demanding for either speakers or amps.

Tmsorosk, did you mean to be political correct when you ended with saying, "over all very nice"?
I did take it as they inspite of all, were a disappointment?

Inpieces .. No , I was not trying to be graceful , with the right amps these babies sang there hearts out . But they just didn't come to life with the smallish but excellent tube amps that my friend was using . I no I'll get scolded from the tubeys for saying that . If your integrated amp is a 100 watts or better it may work fine . The Vitus are 100watts . I apologize if I mislead you in some way .

Aha, no, you did not. It was me assuming faulty. The problem lays in the area, when speakers need high current design amps. Wattage is no problem, but the current need could be. It was here i had some hopes the Amati Futura was smarter in filterdesign than Sasha (for instance). I heard this piece need high current not to be on the analytical side. When i heard the Amati Futura, i never noticed any sense of heft/ bloom, though i was told Sasha and AF in compairson, the Sasha is more analytical with smaller amps, were the AF is more meaty and friendly to the amps. I never have had chance to compair them side by side, i will not likely be either. This person told me the hight and width etc was about same same.
I just wonder which of them who recreates depth and handles complex and multilayered music better!?
I look for a speaker not bound to musical preferences.
It is not a good design IMO. A good designed speakers should handle almost all music better than well.
Worst for me is when i do find ovelapping and masking problems that is too disturbing.
No need for me to even look at speakers, that cost big bucks and do need amps of same costs.
I have grown overly tired of this. Speakers is for me the single largest important ring in the chain.
Over here, we got rather small rooms in most flats. Big amps to fill big rooms, well, i rather avoid if possible.
It just adds too much costs. I rather put the difference at acoustics, as far as possible.
Now, it might be, i have never really seen SF as a brand that would fit my preferences. So, i was rahter amazed with the brief insight i had with these.
What disturbs me somewhat with all speakers, is that no manufacturer is upfront with the damping factor the speakers are designed with.
Some works better with low damping factor, some sound bad, some sound very good. This affects the sonics very very much. Also cables will come out as very different sounding if used between a high damping factor amp, or a low. It is too many areas on this hobby, where one know too little to actually know what might be good of a mix of brands and approach. I would indeed like to thank you all for the inputs.

I heard them in Paris, they were just new and not broken in. Sounded not right....

I heard them in Lisboa with dartzeel eletronic and in Munich with AR, and I did not like what I heard, it is a beatiful speaker( maybe the most) but not one of the best sound, I am disappointed.