Technically, to record at 128 discrete locations would require the mixer to combine them faithfully in, what, 128 to what power number of ways to choose from? And with how many intermediate audio components to decode? Or, without mixing, then with 128 channels and speakers to reproduce? More than there are persons in a full orchestra? (Put a mike on every violinist.) It just seems to me to be a lot of marketing beyond man’s capacity to handle and make sense of... so, if there was ever a time to KISS?
On the other hand, I can certainly understand why persons without a system that provides adequate spatial realism would jump at any promises of possible improvement because they know their systems are lacking. And even audiophiles to check out any and all latest technological developments that could prove beneficial. "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good."
But I return to the point that all "stereo", preceded by whatever descriptive adjective above, still enters our senses in a stereo-solid two-ear configuration, attaining 3-D realism based on the distance between our ears and perceiving distance/depth by milliseconds of timing differences. That depth may be created via 128 channels or via a few milliseconds delay in a traditional stereo recording by the timing of the sound arriving at two-channel microphones. (Perhaps the biggest challenge in milliseconds/depth perception is that speakers' transient response still has the driver waiting to stop vibrating thereby masking the arrival of the secondary, tertiary sounds within the same few ms time span.)
That we have our own sound decoders in our infinitely superior mental technology that can still sense almost immeasurable discrepancies between live and recorded sound will likely always be unmatchable by any human-made technology and may never be satisfied by all our feeble attempts.