LSA 20 Statement Speakers

@gano
I read about your poor experience with the LSA10.  However, I believe that the speaker you received is a lemon, and the scratches on the bottom seem to indicate it’s not new and was abused.  A modern new speaker shouldn’t sound that bad.

I have three sets of LSA speakers. Original bookshelf .5, upgraded crossover bookshelf 1's and original LSA 1 towers. The LSA 1 bookshelf speakers and the towers can both be bi-amped. I was using an older Music Hall Maven with the LSA 1 bookshelf bi-amped. I thought this sounded good but something was missing. I found a NAD M2 locally. I am using the NAD M2 to bi-amp the LSA 1 bookshelf speakers. The bi-amping brings out the midrange of the speakers. Vocals are clearer. Instruments you think may be in the song are now clearly heard. The Music Hall was good but the NAD M2 is light years better. The NAD M2 is not a fair comparison to the Music Hall. 
The LSA 1 bookshelf are still bookshelf speakers.  Bass is there but not extended.  The towers have the same tweeters with the additional midrange.  The Towers are front ported.  The towers and the bookshelf sound similar in the midrange and tweeters.  The difference is the bass.  The bass can be overwhelming depending on the material.  The towers showed me how much is missing from any bookshelf speaker.
As far as if you are going to like LSA speakers I cannot tell you. I think it depends on the type of music you listen to. I listen to a variety of music that the LSA produces very well with the NAD M2 driving them.  Comparing Harbeth to LSA is again not an honest comparison.  The LSA 1 bookshelf is only rated for about 100 watts.  The NAD M2 brings out the best in these speakers.  Of course YMMV.

My friend owns the LSA Statement 20. They are miles better then anything they made even 3 years ago , Beryllium is very tough to machine ,they did their homework on this new line up .

Lsa10  is old technologies decent ,but the new 20 statements sound at least 2-3x  more expensive .

 

I've said this before in another similar thread. Somewhere in China there is a factory that cranks out hundreds of thousands of these curved enclosures and anyone who orders a sufficient minimum quantity can customs-spec the cut-outs. Baltic Birch ply? Not a trace. High quality MDF? Nope. The material used is cheap chipboard. How do I know? I know because I used to own a pair of Acoustic Zen Adagio's made with a variation of the same enclosure. Same exact automotive spray paint finish. With the Adagio's, unlike with this speaker, all one had to do is peer into the front-facing port to see the rough finish work and nature of the materials. I also experienced the cheap chipboard when I resorted to rocking the top heavy gangly speakers on the outriggers that I had installed. The threaded inserts broke out of the bottom of the enclosures revealing more crumbly chipboard. There are lots of stories to be found if looked for of how vulnerable these enclosures are to moisture-they will essentially decompose if exposed to water, not that water is healthy for any loudspeaker enclosure. Btw, John of Van L Speakerworks in Chicago makes his own line of loudspeakers using the same enclosure. 

There is a concurrent thread right now in this forum about the difference between very expensive loudspeakers and moderately priced ones. This is one of the key differences. Does cheap enclosure construction have a significant impact upon ultimate sound quality? Probably not. Until the drivers work themselves loose or they get subjected to any significant trauma in shipping or otherwise. I don't fault Walter or Robert Lee or John L or anyone else who uses this enclosure to render best bang for the buck loudspeakers. But don't be fooled by the fancy curved exterior and paint job. This is not artisanal work by any stretch of the imagination.