But that actually is one of Gregorio's points (correct me if I am wrong, @gregorio) : no one can claim to know for sure that nobody can experience for example speaker like spatiality over headphones using the right tools.
No need to correct you, you're not wrong.
I thought my post was pretty clear: I have not experienced and do not expect headphones to recreate accurate specialty. You say this can be subjective, but then claim that everyone you know who listens to X system/software will hear a realistic spatial field. I have seen other members post about such and such software making headphones giving realistic modeling, but with my experience....a lot of times, crossfeed or "3D surround" only knocks down detail and/or dynamics.
That's largely my experience too. I've never heard a crossfeed I preferred, very occasionally with specific (mainly very early) stereo recordings the overall effect is somewhat of an improvement but far more commonly, the disadvantages are as bad or worse than not using crossfeed. Additionally, I don't find most binaural recordings (or mixes with applied binaural processing) to be entirely satisfactory or even preferable, although I have experienced the odd exception. And lastly, I too "
get more enjoyment with my surround system", so we seem to be almost identical or at least very similar but with one crucial difference: I don't extrapolate my experience to everyone else because there is reliable scientific evidence which indicates different people have different experiences/perceptions/preferences in this regard and this is the sound science forum, not the "What Gregorio Experiences" subforum.
There's another issue, as castleofargh mentioned, the notion of recreating "accurate spatiality". While there are ways of recording (and reproducing) spatiality accurately, those methods had largely been surpassed even before stereo recordings were available to the public, in favour of inaccurate but more subjectively pleasing spatiality. And with popular music genres, starting in the late 1950's and pretty much ubiquitous by the late 1960's/early 1970's, there wasn't even the notion of an accurate spatiality but a (subjectively pleasing) jumble of completely different simultaneous spatialities. The argument of accurate spatiality is therefore similar to arguing that an image of a white unicorn is more accurate than an image of a pink unicorn! The exception, ironically, is binaural recordings (reproduced on headphones), which ARE spatially accurate, although only relative to a certain generic HRTF.
I realise of course that there is one more problem: >98% of audiophiles believe all kind of nonsense that is scientifically proven wrong. But in this case it is not proven wrong by science, and there is a theoretical foundation to the claim.
Although it sounds entirely plausible, I've not seen scientific evidence that it's ">98%", "many" or even "vast majority" would be a safer assertion
However your basic point hits the nail on the head. There is a very significant amount of scientific research/evidence both theoretical and practical controlled listening tests into PRIR, HRIR/HRTF, ATF, etc., that underpins the claim. This is in complete contrast to many audiophile claims, which contradict all the scientific research/evidence (both theoretical and practical controlled listening tests) and explanations of the claims ultimately rely on some form of magic. On the other side of the coin though, science has also demonstrated that sound localisation is a perception that is heavily biased by our vision and/or knowledge of our environment and therefore, even given a practical implementation of a theoretically perfect PRIR, HRTF and ATF, there will still be some (maybe extremely few) people for whom it doesn't work.
[1] My opinion as to why speakers are better at localization is that they literally are placed in front of (or in the case of surround, have specific drivers all around you).
[2] It's much easier for speakers to convey a perception of spaciality since they are in front of you and not strapped to the sides of your head.
1. But that's an explanation of why speakers should be WORSE at localisation, not better! Firstly, even in the case of surround, you do NOT have "drivers all around you", you have a very limited set of drivers at specific locations around you, which PARTIALLY cover just one (or at most two horizontal planes, in the case of say Dolby Atmos). Secondly, regardless of how many drivers you've got, you've only got two ear drums. Therefore, even if you did have "drivers all around you" or in the case of experiencing a real (not recorded and reproduced) acoustic environment, all that spatial information is reduced down to just two datum points (your ear drums). HRTFs, etc, replicate all that spatial information being reduced down to the two datum points of your ear drums and therefore headphones with the correct HRTFs, etc., should be "better at localisation" than even the latest surround format with multiple speakers.
2. Of course it's much easier for speakers to create a perception of spatiality, because you place speakers in a room that actually creates spatiality (room acoustics). However, it's not of course accurate spatiality, it's the spatiality of your living/listening room, not the spatiality of say a concert hall, arena or toilet. This brings us back to the point made earlier, it's all based on the artists'/engineers' subjective opinion of how a consumer is likely to perceive (inaccurate/nonsensical) spatiality in the presence of generic listening room spatiality/acoustics (in the case of a master created for speaker reproduction).
In effect then, we're talking about an individual's subjective perception of someone else's subjective opinion of deliberately inaccurate (or entirely nonsensical) spatiality. So, besides the assertion that it's likely to vary for at least some individuals, good luck coming up with any factually accurate assertion that applies to everyone!
G
