Perceptual Evaluation of Consumer Headphone Spatial Audio Systems

Scheuregger O, de Las Heras S, Francombe J. Perceptual Evaluation of Consumer Headphone Spatial Audio Systems. In: 2025 AES International Conference on Headphone Technology. Audio Engineering Society; 2025. Paper 13. Available from: https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=22939

@inproceedings{Scheuregger2025_22939,
  author = {Scheuregger, Oliver and de Las Heras, Sergio and Francombe, Jon},
  title = {{Perceptual Evaluation of Consumer Headphone Spatial Audio Systems}},
  booktitle = {2025 AES International Conference on Headphone Technology},
  note = {Paper 13},
  year = {2025},
  month = aug,
  publisher = {Audio Engineering Society},
  url = {https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=22939}
}

TY  - CPAPER
TI  - Perceptual Evaluation of Consumer Headphone Spatial Audio Systems
AU  - Scheuregger, Oliver
AU  - de Las Heras, Sergio
AU  - Francombe, Jon
T2  - 2025 AES International Conference on Headphone Technology
M1  - Paper 13
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025/08/18
UR  - https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=22939
PB  - Audio Engineering Society
LA  - en
AB  - Many consumer headphones today support a feature often referred to as Spatial Audio. However, there is no clear consensus on what Spatial Audio is and little research on how consumer products perform. Four consumer headphones that support Spatial Audio were evaluated using stereo music content. Head tracking was disabled. In part I, an attribute selection study found that clarity, localizability, externalization, and natural were the four most-chosen attributes for describing the sensory characteristics of Spatial Audio. The practical challenges of evaluating Spatial Audio on consumer products include no given reference; assessor bias; rapid switching between products; suitable product settings; and input content format (e.g., stereo, multichannel, Dolby Atmos). In part II, these challenges are addressed through the experiment design. Assessors rated their ideal and perceived intensities of each attribute shortlisted in part I. The results highlight differences between assessors’ ideals and suggest that no one product was perceived closer to the ideal than any other.
ER  -