1. $499/each is still relatively inexpensive, especially for a person touting the benefits of high-res audio. What's more, there are several less-expensive bookshelf/stand-mount speakers out there on the market that measure and perform better than those DeafTecs (e.g., Ascend Sierra 1, Philharmonic Audio's Philharmonitors, NHT Classic Threes).
2. Those Fluances, as with any standmount, require properly integrated subwoofers (plural), or else you're living with limited bass output, poor bass THD, and poor dynamic range.
3. My assessment is not misguided. Quality source material certainly does matter, but high-res is not required for quality source material. Plenty of redbook CD recordings are excellent. CDs are *sometimes* mastered (not "recorded," as you stated) with too much dynamic range compression, it's true. Many modern rock CD releases are terrible in that regard. But that is not a requirement of the medium; it is a mis-guided trend in the industry. I'm not sure what you mean by "hi-res files are recorded flat." Do you mean no dynamic range compression is engaged? At any point in the recording? If you want to say that hi-res files sound better because, in general, better care is taken during mastering, then you *might* have a point. But generalizations are hard to prove, as counter-examples are abundant. But again, that does not mean that hi-res is necessarily better than redbook; just that it is in cases where the redbook CD was poorly mastered and the hi-res version was better mastered.
As to your comments about LPs, again, a generalization. And if we're going into generalizations, let's say for the sake of this discussion that LPs are better-mastered than their CD counterparts. Although not true, I'll give you that 4dB dynamic range benefit for LPs. Now what is the dynamic range available on vinyl? And what is it on CD? And what is the theoretical best SNR on LP vs CD? And what about THD? And how about frequency response? And how about channel separation? Even if your claim were true (and it's not, it's actually a meaningless over-simplification), it still holds true that that 4dB is *SWAMPED* by the myriad other ways in which vinyl is an inferior medium. Not to mention that these days, most audio is recorded and mastered digitally, so even the "analog purity" of vinyl is a myth, given that the audio is digital up to the analog-conversion before the vinyl cutting takes place.
4. Your comments on MP3 are misguided as well. MP3 is a data compression method. It allows for a number of different bitrates. If you believe you can distinguish 96kbps MP3 from the uncompressed source with a good stereo, you're likely correct. Most people can. But now what about 192kbps? It's not so easy to distinguish the two. Now what about 384kbps? Now it's nearly impossible, except perhaps for unusually gifted listeners and very select material (ie, most people can not tell most material apart). At 512kbps, nobody has been able to distinguish the original from the compressed version, no matter the listener or the material. So generalizations about MP3 being "straight crap" show a considerable lack of understanding of the claim being made.
