It is apparent that you are not very aware of what constitutes the norm of contemporary recording technique, as your preferences necessarily assumes that all recording be done in an ensemble manner where the mic records and retains the precise phase relationships between players as well as records the gain of all players relative to one another that is assumed to be regulated at the time of playing - which unfortunately is nowhere close to contemporary recording technique. And as a result of the actual common studio practices, I fear most of your 'debate' is moot as the process dictates the techniques available for use.
Such while such imagined 'ensemble' technique might be great if you are recording chamber music, such is not the nature of contemporary recording technique, where players may be in different rooms, in isolation booths, and parts are layered that are performed independently to click tracks or are overdubbed, or someone may even 'phone in' a part from half way across the world via wire, and/or complete a part 3 weeks after the rest of the track is completed. So much for maintaining the phase and spatial relationships of each part relative to one another with a mic pair (of whatever topology)!
I am curious to hear how you would affect the time /phase relationships of a typical session of that sort in addition to create an image/sense of localization when there is NO sense of imaging or localization from the individual multi-tracked parts other than with gain and panning and where the 'phase relationship' consists of little more than where in the track the engineer punches in the part laid down a month after the rest of he material was recorded!...
And all that is in addition to the fact that this thread is now so far removed from whatever it was originally about in the name of "moving the discussion in a constructive direction" which apparently means simply responding with any concern however unrelated it is to ANYTHING that the thread ever pretended to be about.
But then it is instructive to note that on a forum that pretends to include acoustics as a fundamental part of audio, that there is NO defined area in the entire forum designated for the discussion of actual acoustical concepts. Speaks volumes - especially as what passes for acoustics for most here is the transposition of small signal 2space analysis imagined to be analogous to 4 space acoustical behavior.
Of course, we have still others who can only perform word searches and whose acoustics training consists of "spending several days" on the subject and who cite "references" from someone I have NEVER spoken with who claims that "After all that, 90% of the gear he admired, I found to be bad, musically speaking", which is absolutely bogus as I NEVER made reference to which "gear" should be used! (aside from the fact that I DO like the heritage Klipsch horn loaded products, provided they are modified with precision signal delay to compensate for the physical driver offsets. Oh, but I DO like the TAD mid-high horns coupled with the Jubilee horn loaded low end for a single crossover located at ~400 Hz...)
And as to statements such as "Personally, i dont know if I agreed with his science. If it sounds good and measures poorly, then stick to the measurements because what you're hearing is deceiving you. While this can be true it also has its problems, notably when the relationship of the measurements to the performance is circumspect." Not bad for someone who hallucinated that I talked about equipment preferences (funny, none of what what was alleged was substantiated - as is the pattern in cut and paste - as opposed to discussing the actual concepts) and the topic back then was the fact that the KlipschHorn (as well as the LaScala) had significant non-minimum phase signal offsets between drivers, that as they were designed before the advent of precision microsecond delay units featured a woofer that was delayed by not inches, but with the woofer delayed by 7.4ms and the mid range horn delayed by 1.7ms - a factor of 8.364 -> ~8.4 FEET of offset!!!! Can we say mega group delay?!
Of course those citing this would NEVER actually address the issue raised that suggested that these speakers would benefit from the use of precision microsecond delay and which got quite a few audiophool's panties in a wad who were aghast that I would dare challenge the implementation of a design from someone as esteemed as Paul Klipsch or that the design could not be improved upon. Oh, and how could anyone dare make such a claim regarding the signal alignment problem that does result in substantial crossover region superposition errors when folks claimed not to hear it as a distinct issue - as the offset was within the Haas region and would only be defined by measurement equipment that has a more acute resolution than do our ears! DUH!
But hey, its interesting that he now comes down on the side of those who contest the validity of signal alignment and who can find no nexus between SIGNIFICANT 8.4 FOOT driver signal offsets and audible anomalies and for whom innuendo is the bread and butter of some who are unable to address the actual substantial facts - which included the validation of the claim by none other than Dick Heyser himself. But rather than directly address such substantial acoustical issues, they expend more time running to moderators to complain about the presentation of such facts rather than actually addressing them. But its hard to actually address issues when all one can do are word searches and cut and past and who avoids any actual reference to the topic at hand regarding the effects of non-minimum phase signal offset. But hey, what can be more consistent that selectively finding a quote from someone clueless who was NEVER involved in any discussion and who admits that they did not fully understand the point and is confused at the potential that there may indeed be a no nexus between measurements and perception and then falsely claims that I was recommending other "equipment" choices rather than a modification that is now implemented as standard in their products such as the Jubilee and is now standard in their professional line. Apparently Klipsch engineering has also fallen for the ruse...
Yup, another case of the same Flatlanders aghast at the suggestion that there could indeed exist acoustical behaviors that manifest themselves as audible anomalies that are beyond the unaided resolution of our hearing - analogous to the existence of small unseen 'bugs' in water and the environment that can only be seen with the use of a microscope that could contribute to health issues! Imagine, the nerve of some people who employ measurements to augment perception. And to think some assert that such signal offsets do not manifest themselves in the form of substantial spatial polar lobing and cannot be heard? That is simply BS. Burn the witch!
But then the false charge that one relies and believes on measurements to the exclusion of perception is yet one more BS claim made by someone who bases their experience upon having spent an ENTIRE several days discovering the existence of acoustics and who likewise cites hearsay evidence rather than actual substantial facts. But when that is all one has, its any port in a storm...as apparently 7.4 ms non-minimum phase signal offsets corresponding to an 8.4 FOOT offset are inconsequential. But hey, why mention the actual substance behind an issue when you can quote someone who in reading about it after the fact failed to grasp the meaning of the issue?
And a "gamer" tag? It came from an old email and AVS would not allow it to be updated after non-use of over 6 years. But of course one should not be surprised that "games" is where someone from the ultimate world of games and dysfunctional toys called MS would naturally gravitate...
Oh, and as far as Amy, who objected when I had the audacity to point out what many considered to be a 'flaw' in a product on a company forum...I didn't tell her to 'kiss my @ss', I told her to F O.