This is not rocket science. The tests are very easy to devise.
How do you propose such a test be devised? Should a stopwatch be sufficient to accurately quantify greater speed in location? Perhaps a friend should be used to allow the location of the sound source to remain unknown to the one being tested? What method should be employed to determine the degree of locational accuracy or error?
I ask because it is also easy to devise a test that proves that all cables sound different, if the test is to be more than anecdotal, it needs to be devised in a way that removes bias, and accurately and repeatedly produces results.
I can't find the links to the articles for you but this basic information comes from pioneering work that was done regarding sound localization begun in the 1960s.
If you find it, please post it. If you find newer research, by all means, post that too, for I'm certain that we can both agree that research into the field of human hearing perception and capability is constantly growing and being refined.
Most anyone could simply look at the shape of the outer ear and speculate correctly as to whether it allows one to localize sounds in the medial plane that emanate from below the horizontal plane better than those that emanate from above the horizontal plane.
I agree that the ear
looks like it should have improved localization ability for sounds below the head than above, but the ear also
looks like it should be incapable of any localization of sounds behind the head.
All I am looking for is credible research as to sound localization being more acute for sounds below the ears than for sound coming from above.
If you are aware of data that supports your theory, again, please provide it (names, places ect...), if not, this discussion is of no further usefulness to either of us.
