Why not horns?

Large images are a result of recordings not loudspeaker design. Near all recording spaces, instruments etc are larger than reproducing loudspeakers. To me the worst offending loudspeaker designs in audio are bookshelf models they offend in many ways limited dynamics, massive thermo compression,reduced frequency response,Limited SPL.

Macrojack, One thing your enjoying is the controlled dispersion of horns. This reduces room effects. Your also not moving air but exciting air molecules into motion just like a tidal wave the water from the event isn't traveling just the wave.

How about an example of a recording I might be familiar with where the players (singer, whatever) is/are properly sized for reference?

JohnK, IME horns seem to have imaging issues, both in regard to specificity and scale.
I do agree, that mini-monitors though capable of good imaging, more often than not are guilty of degrading audio reproduction. On the other hand they offer the opportunity to offer music in spaces that might not other wise be able to accomodate wider range speakers. This might be especially true for those interested in surround sound/home theatre.

There seems to be an ignorance and artificial intelligence by some of the folks here. We are talking about recorded music here and the systems we acquire to bring us closer to the truth(what ever this truth is). We are all opinionated, but when when someone calls another an oxymoron(Unsound to me on another thread)it is time for me to walk away. Forums such as this are, imo, to reach out and share our experiences and maybe help one another achieve greater listening satisfaction. This is not what is going on here. So with this I say good bye. It has been my pleasure to share with some of you, and my disgust with others. MrD