Don't be silly. Real scientists actually conduct their own tests. They
don't dismiss every listener's casual account with a wave of the hand
while muttering about the lack scientific control yet making no effort
to conduct their own inquiry, to their own standards. (To be fair, that
may not fully apply to you, because I saw another post you made where
you suggested acquiring some speakers to test.)
I do conduct my own tests, and over the years, 100's in a wide range of large scale and small scale acoustics. Note that I used to do R&D on hearing aids and thing grew out from there on the acoustics and audio front.
Yes, I did say I was going to acquire some very specific speakers, namely something that is a line source. I don't have any in my current "inventory" as my wife calls it. If you followed that whole thread, the reason for the line source speakers was line source speakers are less impacted by ceiling and floor reflections, though for my specific use in this case, they will just have fewer floor/ceiling reflections, hence the ear would not be presented with strong reflections from above and below that will be filtered and reflected by the upper torso and not filtered by the pinna except as would be a mainly forward sound, and hence, a line source speaker may be able to convey some "accurate" sense of height, if the recorded is made with a HATS (head and torso) simulator with a proper ear mold and microphone position. "Accurate" is in quotes because the effect would be different person to person, but creating some sense of height that bears some resemblance to the real world is an interesting proposition.
P.S. someone had a quote above (or maybe another thread), from Dr. Toole, one of the best known "scientists" in this field, that went along the lines of when someone communicates results of a NON blind test, he just nods like he is paying attention, while writing off anything they say.
I don't write off everything people say anecdotally. When people say they get a sense of height while listening, I don't discount that they actually do, heck I even know the reasons why, which is why I know that sense of height (based on current recording techniques), and listening, is artificial. It may be very good, but it is artificial, i.e. not indicative the recording space ... if there was even a recording "space". When someone, Duke in this case, communicates in detail, a recording made in this way, played back on these specific (and unique in some ways) speakers, created this specific effect, then I sit up and take note, because there is enough information to possibly either recreate the experiment and/or simulate the conditions (or both).
When someone says I made this minuscule change and the results were night and day (and they almost seem to be either night and day, OR barely tell the difference), then the right response is skepticism. When people are not even willing to accept they may be letting their eyes fool them, well then skepticism turns into dismissal.
