Classical speakers that do violins well??

Spica TC50 or Angelus are very good at reproducing the tonality of strings without harshness, are not bloated at all in the bass (the Angeluses seem to have a bit of a dip in the mid bass, but strong low bass). They do have their weaknesses, though, in terms of high frequency extension, dynamics, resolution, and ability to play loudly. (Perhaps this is a speaker that even MrTennis could like?) Plus, they are very inexpensive. Also consider the Audio Physic Virgo II. I've never owned a pair, but remember them in the showroom as one fo the best all around speakers I have ever heard. I liked the Magnepan 1.6 QRs, but could not get them to work well in my room. I also listened to the next model up in the Magnepan line, and thought its tweeter wa way too revealing - every cymbal strike sounded like somoeone throwing a fistful of gravel at the cymbal. More shimmer than you hear in real life.

MrTennis' experiment would not work, unless it were conducted in an anechoic chamber, or with very close very directional microphones (which would not pick up all of the sound being rediated from all over an instrument). The reason is that the room acoustics would be doubled the second time around. The recording would have the instrument sound + the room acoustics' affect on that sound. When you played it back, you would have the instrument sound + the room acoustic sound on the recording + the room acoustic affect on both of those sounds.

Yes, Shadorne understands what I meant. That the effect of the room will be doubled when you play a recording of the room in the room.
Having said that, I don't doubt that in a good large, dead, neutral room, Dave is getting surprisingly good results. If the room is contributing very little to the sound, then doubling that effect shouldn't be objectionable. He is also recording farily close to the instrument, which is pretty directional, that is, the sound comes straight out the bell, not from all over the trumpet body.
Are you using any processing (compression, eq), Dave, beyond perhaps a bit of peak limiting? I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is probably a major key to his success, compared to commercial recordings (see other recent thread on compression).
I also believe MrTennis' assessmetn that his recording of a cymbal came up way short. He picked one of the most difficult to reproduce instruments (imo, based on listening to commercial recordings). Cymbals radiate in all directions, so it would be difficult to get a recording that captures all of the cymbal's sound without picking up a lot of the room's interaction with the sound. They have a lot of complex high frequency content, and very fast transients. I don't know MrTennis system, but he has often posted that he likes dull, boring sound (I believe these were his words), so I can see why he would have trouble reproducing cymbals on his rig. Perhaps an instrument that he has geared his rig toward excelling at reproducing would have produced better results.

"...The surprise of uncompressed drums is that they do not sound louder.....they sound softer!"

I find this to be true of symphonic music as well. I never find myself wishing the music were louder, even though you can usually hear any shuffling around or other quiet sounds by people near you. The transient peaks of instruments (I'm particularly thinking pizzicato violins, as well as percussion)is loud enough to catch your attention and be exciting. To get this same excitement at home out of a compressed recording, you have to turn the volume of the rest of the music up more than is natural.