Horns: Why don't they image well?

@ozzy62,
I have the possible option of taking down a wall and therefore gaining another 17' or so. although the width would remain at 13'.  I just have to bend a certain ear that I am listening to close as horns need to be blasted, not to mention they have no precision and I could loan them to the Broncos if they need a PA system..........

It presents a different perspective than dynamic speakers. I was a very long time electrostat listener (started with old Quads in 1973). I switched to horns (Avantgarde Duo) and SET (Lamm ML2) in around 2006-7. 
A much more 'in the room' presentation, very dynamic, biggest drawback has nothing to do with image, but continuity with bass. 
Frankly, many of the audiophile attributes go out the window for better or worse-- that 'performers in the room' quality is something that gives me a very good sense of the stage if there is one on the recording. (Sometimes it is simply a concoction of multi-tracking). In an appropriately sized room, the overall presentation is sizable and depending on source material, very dimensional.  Much of the dimensional quality I attribute to the upstream components. For example, changes in phono stage made a considerable difference in the very specific placement of instruments. 
All that said, this does not sound like a good dynamic speaker system, something I can also enjoy if it is well assembled and set up in the room. 
I've had pretty good sounding rooms for these systems over the years and that also plays a big part. There is magic in horns + SET if it grabs you the right way. And I've heard my own speakers sound pretty terrible with the wrong amp. 

@gawdbless
based on my research i’d want a room of at least 150m3 also personally i’d rather go for a pair of jubilees over kilpshorns