Ear sampling angle and compensation in highs

The ear canal opens 55-60 degrees from the frontal angle, but then zags the opposite way to the ear canal.  (It also heads up, meaning it's directed towards the ground at a fair distance, not towards the sky, which makes sense.)

The initial sampling angle is the most important.  So that means, a human pair of ears is like a pair of directional microphones, crossed at a 120 degree angle.  (There was some recording standard like that.)

The zag tends to preference things from the side and back, but in hard to predict ways.  It's like a set of tiny spotlights set off to random angles to the sides and back.  This is a smaller effect than the initial sampling angle.

This is my prediction, based on looking at a diagram of the ear canal which I should have done long ago.

The "front" has no special advantage in the highs, being derived from two sources at 60 degree angles from it.  The "back" is at a slight disadvantage, also due to the pinnae.

So this explains why distributing the highs more in the reverberant field, as omnis and dipoles do, requires attenuated high frequency response compared to unidirectional speakers pointed AT the listener, and in proportion to how this causes greater HF response being sampled by the ear.

Some high frequency attenuation may be required for normal unidirectional speakers also...because listening rooms are more reflective of short term reflections which combine additively in the highs.  But dipoles and omnis need more such attenuation.

And this is assuming recordings were made "flat" with no such compensation in the first place, instead of every band adjusted for sound on nearfield monitors.  So highly-mixed recordings may need no adjustment on comparable unidirectional speakers, the compensation already having been dialed in during production.

Which approach (unidirectional or omni/dipolar) is better?  Well, real sources aren't usually directed precisely at the listener, or at sufficient distance so even if they are the low level non-additive reflective field is larger.

So, in principle, the dipolar/omni radiation is "more like the real thing," despite need for more high compensation, which is essentially correcting for the room being small and not vast like an auditorium (where the reflected highs become non-additive mostly due to delays, or otherwise attenuated).

And this is even more true with line source floor-to-ceiling system.  The soundfield reaching the listener is "more like the real thing" EXCEPT for the need for compensation in the highs.