Why not horns?

Mapman, for example; singers with 10' mouths.

I'm not getting that at all. I find the imaging to be very pinpoint, as good as any cone or line array.

Unsound, I am sorry as well, but I am done.......

Wesseixas this is as simple example as I can find http://www.bio-sound.com/images/Wave2D1Src.gif note the molecules are not going anywhere just the wave, all transducers do this. And if you looked into it I offer fullrange, ribbon and horn based systems. I have no bias to any 1 design. Such as many posting here do I try design most every type of loudspeaker. Does bother me to see so many wrong comments about performance of various transducers or loudspeaker types etc from the uninformed. You should read all the - about ribbon designs passed about much of it wrong but taken as fact now. Same with horns.

Unsound imaging issues? Never experienced any weakness in horn based systems to image. If well designed as any loudspeaker should be, horns image wonderfully and can be used in near field if designed for as many of the pro monitors are. I design many for professional use most of the music today is monitored with horns just to bad they record much of it so hot today. This is not the fault of horns. Many of the professionals I deal with engineers scientists medical material researches etc could have loudspeakers of most any design but horns are the better choice for many of them. For audiophiles only a few buy horn systems though I try. They opted for more conventional design. Mostly out of fear since horns have such a greatly undeserved poor reputation.

loudspeakers transfer energy within the medium[air], does not transfer mass