AJ Soundfield

Meh. Machina Dynamica has been doing quantum teleportation for the better part of 10 years now. http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina60.htm Please do not comment on less you've tried it for yourself, or I will be enraged. I am very open minded and want to read only positive experience comments that confirm that it works. Any "theory" welcome thanks! (please adjust sarcasm detectors if you can}

Wrong. I have presented evidence in support of my position, you wave your hands, because you have zero evidence. That's the difference. Technically better is utterly baseless and once again, zero technical anything in your response. Zero "technically better". Obviously you don't know the meaning of words. That is purely your preference and sole opinion with zero technical merit. Circular logic, it's "technically better" because you prefer the poor facsimile to real...and because you prefer it, it's "technically better". Wrong. You can't show a single measurement of your system, much less that it would be "better" playing back a recording of the real instruments. Totally absurd (amusement). As expected, you are fabricating "better" objective reasons for you totally subjective preference. You're "better" imaging and resolution measurements now please (rhetorical question). Yep, a totally pathological one, as predicted. Zero to do with live performances anyone else uses as reference. You are superimposing your ignorance of acoustic science on everyone. That is exactly what PSR, WFS, Ambiosonics, etc, etc, and even binaural scanning are about. Even more amusing is that your stereo Maggies can't possibly recreate anything like multi positions of a real event, the dynamic range, the frequency range, the direct/diffuse fields, anything! It's laughable to think otherwise. (amusement) You have absolutely no clue what an "engineers choice for how sound is reproduced" is. Pure fantasy and assumptions. They most certainly didn't intend for any music to be produced specifically by Maggies or Advents, which are infinitesimal segments of the music market. Rock on Paul

I don't think so sorry. Will double check, but since I don't do any recording, its doubtful.

The guy with arms the size of Hulks from all the waving, who posted just above you. He has a penchant for 8000 words that say nothing. (amusement) So you have no evidence, just assumptions. Ok. That opinion is baseless, since all recordings of live are technically inferior by every metric. With 2ch forget it, 90% of the soundfield is missing in capture. MCH lowers this. That's why you can't name one. Begininng with mics limited frequency responses (global), distortion, etc., I a not arguing that you don't prefer a mere facsimile of the actual event (clearly you do!). But there is zero "technically better" reason why, only your personal subjective preference with zero objective/technical metric support. So a pathological one event one person scenario as I stated previously. Ok. Thanks for the admission. That isn't what others like your speaker designers, Kal, myself, all the perceptual reconstruction researchers et al use as live as reference. Making assumptions again I see. Alan Parsons and Stevie Nicks sound just fine on my system, thanks. There is just no way I design using that kind of audiophile electronic construct music as a reference, since there is none. This has nothing to do with preference, just physical facts.

Most plausible, given that the noise floor measurements seemed to be raised from -150db to around -110db. I need to see someone demonstrate being able to hear that before believing that was audible

That won't work. But cat litter as used in these things might

I don't see any evidence there either, if "audible" noise is the "theory"

Btw, I have one of those now if you still need measurements

https://vimeo.com/70051022

Countering woo with high school level science is utterly contemptible and mean. Shame on you

Guesswork

Excellent. There was a link earlier for learning high school level physics that teaches about very basics of electricity, like what ground is, potential difference, current flow, etc, etc. That would go such a long way to correcting all the misunderstandings in this thread and many, many others. Good luck sir.

Yes, but despair causes tunnel vision, blocking out answers and belief does not allow for non-belief. Some folks will always vainly insist that their purely subjective perceptions are unerring representations of physical reality. Power bracelets, Santa, electrical litter boxes, etc, etc. All must be real if perceived. No alternates are allowed, regardless of plausibility. Tis the way of this world. Btw, you seem far more enraged than the OP, who's taking this all in stride.

Would genuinely want any plausible explanations, not just one or two predetermined ones. Or adults telling said kids Santa isn't real. Yeah, there will be a lot of backlash and despair, but it really doesn't make the adults mean. All in eye of beholder.

Guess not. Maybe I am a mind reader. (or we've seen this movie before, many, many times)