To the first paragraph, I've already agreed with that point you made after you qualified what thing you were referencing when you mentioned "superior". There is no debate about this.
Genelec isn't a "major brand", they don't really target their products to straight up everyday consumers, I can't for instance go and buy their speakers at Best Buy. Kef on the other hand, I can - they move far more units than Genelec... That's what I am referencing when I talk about dominant players, or the top players in an industry. So when you say I'm mixing something up, I'm really not, and any mixup that perhaps is happening, is due to ambiguities you're creating - I'm directly replying to precise points you're making, and anything that isn't clear I address with more than one interpretation based on the ambiguity left over.
Next, you say it takes a major brand to do something like the R&D required for coax designs. But Genelec's overall budget obviously pales in comparison to the top players. So again, while you may call Genelec and Kef both major brands (I don't care about a "brand" I was talking about a company, not sure there needs to be this discussion about branding, unless you also mean companies which I hope), Kef and Genelec aren't the same simply due to the scale of markets they address. In the same way JBL is also a "major brand", but you're not seriously going to sit here and tell me that there's no distinction between JBL and Genelec I hope.
Finally you make the claim about: "but it's not the same thing as proving that Manufacturer X speakers would be better if they start doing them. Those are not obscure concepts, not sure what you are disagreeing on to be honest." (again, the problem of ambiguity I always have to keep contending with like here when you say "better", do you mean market performance, or performance from technical perspectives? I will assume the latter).
So in the same way you think there is a debate going on, you also think there is a disagreement, when all there really is; is confusion about what it is you think you're giving an answer to. So I'll make it simple...
Why is it that coaxial designs aren't more prevalent in the industry, when the company like Genelec that takes a scientific approach to designing their products has demonstrated all of their speakers in their coaxial offerings, perform better in appreciable aspects than their non-coaxial versions of similar product family... You are disqualified from saying "R&D costs" because I already explained the simple matter of fact that bigger companies have far more money, thus this cannot be the primary reason they don't offer such products. I already understand "it's not proven", but I already addressed this as well when I said in my prior post, which you seem to have ignored for some reason: "Also Coax doesn't need to be superior in all aspects, in the same way multi drivers don't need to be inferior in all respects for them to fail as the inverse...".
I don't need to know who's the major brand or whatever it is you want to bring up about that. Fact of the matter remains, there are companies with far more money to spend than Genelec has. So I am wondering what precisely is their excuse for not having coaxial designs in a complete speaker package? Since all indicators point to benefits not easily possible with split driver designs, especially not in similar form factor.
So your answers about "it's not proven to be superior" (while true to an extent based on perspective, isn't really a satisfactory answer, since no industry stands still as a single company or two do all the rest of the heavy R&D lifting, unless we live in some communist driven world or something where competition doesn't exist. Nor is the answer "well it doesn't mean their coaxial designs will be better than their split designs". Again while true, it would be like saying "class D amps doesn't mean the amplifier won't use a lot of power compared to some Class AB designs" -- Sure, in the same way vertical directivity may not be better than some Revel TOTL split driver speaker, but you'd have to be quite incompetent to botch that when that is obviously one of the aspects where coaxial is clearly beneficial when compared to split drivers.
Here's what you answers amount to if taken in summary:
A large company X doesn't offer coaxial designs because even as one of the largest brands, it costs too much, and they're not sure if they can make a better performing product even if the design has been demonstrated to have better performance in certain aspects by another company on the market that does adopt such newer designs.
You're basically saying a large company that has money, can't somehow spend (or doesn't have the money to spend) on developing such design. And also because they aren't aware if they can produce a better performing product, they're not even going to try.
Sorry but that just seems like a silly thing to say about top players. If you for instance said something like: "They simply don't care to try new things, they'd rather sell the same old designs over and over since it makes them money they satisfied with", that would make more sense. But saying they're scared, and that they don't have enough money even though company X is one of the top players - that just rings as an odd claim to me personally. Could be true, not sure (and is why I ask from people here who may know better).
Every time I see it in a statement, the speaker is often (in my estimation, that is!) either completely clueless or of questionable trustworthiness.
