Professional vs. Consumer speakers


I had another question I hope people here can shed some light on. Why don't more people buy professional studio monitors for home use? I have read some more reviews on pro speakers and most of those mfgr's say that audiophiles will not like their speakers. Because they are flat response, clear and accurate.
Isn't hi-fi supposed to be just those qualities? Also, ATC for example, uses soft dome tweeters which seem more like DynAudio's than metallic B&W etc. So I don't really see them as being harsh or bright.
Has anyone here tried or owned some of these "pro" speakers? Are we better off with the consumer models currently available?
cdc
I visited Studio Morin Heights, just north of Montreal. This studio has had some of the biggest artists record there...U2, Bowie, the Police, on and on and on. Gold and Platinum albums grace the walls. Very nice setting visually, looks like the rooms used are well suited for music as well. The speakers on the console...the infamous Yamahas, the electronics used throughout even worse. The equipment isn't worthy of the worst wood-paneled rec-room. I walked away shaking my head, no wonder so much of what's released isn't worth listening to. Economics isn't an issue, the artists spend more on their catered food and accomodations than the gear in the studio. What a farce.
I had the chance to play with a set of Mackie 450 self powered speakers.
If you take away the hisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss that they made when you got real close......... detail and overall pres. was very very good.
I certainly have heard systems costing ten times the amount that did one tenth the true repro. of the tune.
I wonder why in high end, we dont see more spaker/amp matches from manufacturers.
I would be tickled to hear a setup that would be a constant, only needing to be fed a line level and AC!
A nice, matched outboard amp with an umbilical cord...hmmmmm
The reason I got into high-end audio was because I was looking for speakers for my recording studio and found that the "pro" models sounded vastly inferior to what was available on the better consumer end of the spectrum. The B&Ws/Dynaudios/Dunlavys/etc. had way more detail, less fatigue, tigher bass than the Tannoys/Events/KRK/etc. In other words it was easier to get good mixes that translate to home systems if you are using high quality home speakers.
P.S. I have a friend that works at Westlake Studios that heard my B&W system and was blown away with the more natural sound. He said "This is what they want our rooms to sound like but how do they expect us to do it with their speakers?" No joke.
My brief experience as a "consultant" (supposedly, I knew something about how 19th century English choral music was supposed to sound...) for a small studio/production company introduced me to many of the realities of the recording industry touched upon by jvia in his excellent post, above. I was amazed by the variety of reproducers available even in that small facility and the extent to which the final mix was determined by the company's understanding of the target market for each CD. Critical listening was done on "pro monitors" but final mixes were chosen based on the sound coming out of all sorts of things including $14 Sony headsets and "SuperMegaBassBoost" boomboxes.

"We make it sound as good as we can on the type of equipment our market research shows it's going to be played on."

You know what was missing, of course: Anything in the way of high-end speakers. The owners' attitude: "It's a niche market; we can't afford to mix for it."

Alas, the few "niche market" studios that try hard to produce audiophile recordings so often lack the resources to hire real world-class players resulting in luscious recordings of mediocre performances.

(sigh)

will