I think the problem here is people are evaluating and comparing speakers by price, not sound quality or more importantly, specific (severe) issues with the sound.
As i said, to me they are so harsh in the treble (even though everything else is fine) you couldn't pay ME to listen to them. So money is secondary. I repeat, I'm happy i didn't blow like 8k on these.
And i can't even hear above 13.5KHz in my left ear, so i dunno how bad it would be for a normal hearing person.
To each his own...
I'm not an audiophile by any standards but i may be sensitive to bad sound.
My previous experiment with mini bookshelves, the audioengine A2 ended badly too, the bloated and exaggerated mid-bass was pretty much overpowering everything else in the frequency spectrum. I was living in a sparsely furnished rented flat of especially poor construction quality (thin and resonating walls) but still.
Now those speakers too have majorly positive reviews but there are plenty of reviews about the unusable mid-bass hump, and some with frequency response graphs proving it though. (Though FR graphs DO NOT tell the whole story).
They were quite expensive so unlike these i had to return them immediately and lost a bit of money in the process.
Compared to both the A2 and the 104, my ancient atp3 (even with a terrible local transformer) is by no means an "audiophile speakers" or "studio monitor" but even though very lo-fi in comparison, the sound is somewhat balanced and not offensive. With a bit of EQ.