Which Spatial Audio Earbuds sound best? A Competitive Analysis

Spatial Audio has gained significant attention in recent years, promising a more immersive and realistic listening experience even with wireless headphones. However, with a growing number of solutions on the market, many users find it difficult to differentiate between various offerings. Companies frequently use similar terminology—head-tracking, HRTF, immersive sound—but the nuances in implementation and user experience are what truly define “better” Spatial Audio.

This article aims to break down what actually makes a difference in Spatial Audio by analyzing the impact of features like Head-Tracking, HRTF, and Reverb across different solutions. By conducting objective measurements and subjective evaluations, we uncover the strengths, weaknesses, and marketing myths surrounding the industry’s leading products.

Spatial Audio Tech: More Than Noise Canceling

Spatial Audio earbuds aim to recreate the perception of three-dimensional sound we are used from loudspeaker. To achieve this, different technical methods are employed to simulate how we naturally perceive sound in the real world. Three of the most critical aspects of Spatial Audio rendering are

• HRTF (Head-Related Transfer Function),
• Head-Tracking, and
• Reverb Processing.

Each plays a distinct role in shaping the experience, and understanding their interaction is key to distinguishing high-quality implementations from ineffective ones.

HRTF: The Key to Externalization and Directionality

The Head-Related Transfer Function (HRTF) is a mathematical model that simulates how our ears and head shape incoming sound waves. Because every human has a unique ear and head shape, sounds reach our ears with subtle time, level, and frequency differences. These interaural differences allow us to determine where a sound originates in three-dimensional space—whether it’s coming from behind, above, or the sides.

With headphones, however, audio is delivered directly to each ear without the natural filtering effects of the outer ear and the reflections from our surroundings. This makes headphone-based audio sound “inside the head” rather than externalized. HRTF processing corrects this by simulating how sound would naturally arrive at the ears, making it possible to create out-of-head localization where sounds appear to come from real-world positions around the listener.

Key factors in HRTF processing for spatial audio and wireless earbuds are:

• Timbre vs. Localization Tradeoff: A perfect HRTF model should provide good spatial precision (accurate sound positioning) without distorting the natural tone of the sound. Many implementations struggle with this balance.
• Compatibility Issues: Different platforms (e.g., Apple, Samsung, Ceva) use different HRTF databases, which can lead to inconsistent experiences across devices and content sources.
• Personalization: Some systems like Apple attempt to measure the listener’s ear shape (e.g., via photos or lidar scans) to create a more accurate HRTF. Others rely on generic HRTF models, which work well for some users but poorly for others.

Since no universal HRTF exists that works equally well for everyone, some companies are exploring dynamic or AI-based HRTF selection to optimize user experience. However, personalization is still a developing field, and many users cannot easily tell the difference between a generic and a personalized HRTF in casual listening scenarios.

Head-Tracking: The most important aspect for spatial sound quality?

Head-tracking dynamically adjusts the sound levels and audio scene based on the listener’s head movements, ensuring that sounds remain anchored in place. Why Head-Tracking in my opinion matters more than pHRTF (Personalized HRTF)?

While personalized HRTFs aim to fine-tune localization, head-tracking has a far greater impact on perceived realism. Without head-tracking:

• Sounds stay fixed to the head instead of the environment, which feels unnatural.
• Front-back confusion is common because the brain lacks motion-based cues to differentiate between directions.

With even basic head-tracking, spatial perception improves significantly because our brain expects small changes in sound position when we move. Even if an HRTF is not perfectly matched to the listener, a well-implemented head-tracking system can compensate for many inaccuracies.

However, head-tracking is not foolproof:

• Latency issues can break immersion if the system takes too long to update sound positions.
• Tracking stability is critical—some systems frequently reset or misinterpret head movements.
• Fixed vs. dynamic anchoring: Some systems allow sound sources to remain fixed in space, while others automatically recenter the sound field after a period of movement.

Despite its challenges, head-tracking remains one of the most effective ways to enhance Spatial Audio realism, often more than fine-tuning HRTFs alone.

Reverb: The Key to Spatial Depth and immersive experience

Reverb (reverberation) is an essential part of how we perceive space. In real-world environments, sound waves reflect off walls, floors, and ceilings, creating a sense of distance, room size, and acoustic texture. In headphone-based Spatial Audio, these reflections must be simulated to avoid the unnatural “dry” sound typical of direct headphone playback.

Key elements of Reverb Processing in Spatial Audio:

• Reverb Amount: Too little, and the sound feels like it’s inside your head; too much, and it loses clarity and punch.
• Room Size Simulation: High-quality rendering should adjust reverb based on the perceived size of the virtual environment.

Challenges in Spatial Audio Reverb Processing

• One-Size-Fits-All Approach: Many systems apply a single type of reverb across all content, which may not always suit different genres and environments.
• Inconsistencies Across Platforms: Some platforms like Apple Music on iOS ignore metadata embedded in Dolby Atmos mixes that dictate how reverb should behave, leading to different playback results across devices.
• Low-End Bloom: Poorly implemented reverb processing can create an excess of bass reflections, making low frequencies muddy rather than immersive.

How did I compare the 3 systems

To conduct a meaningful comparison of spatial audio systems, I employed a structured testing approach that balanced objective measurements with subjective listening evaluations. The goal was to assess the actual performance of head-tracking, HRTF (Head-Related Transfer Function) accuracy, and reverb behavior in real-world use cases, avoiding the common pitfalls of marketing claims that often don’t translate into user-perceivable improvements.

Testing Setup and Methodology

I tested three Spatial Audio solutions:

• Apple AirPods Pro 2 (using an iPhone as the host)
• Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro 3 (paired with a Samsung S10 + S22)
• Ceva’s reference implementation (evaluated with an AKG Head-Tracker and Sony MDREX 15 in a custom setup)

To eliminate bias and ensure consistency, I only tested 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos content. I deliberately excluded spatialized stereo, as many spatial sudio solutions introduce artificial processing in this mode, which can distort audio quality in the comparison.

Songs and Content Used for Testing

To compare how different solutions handled spatial positioning, externalization, and timbre accuracy, I selected three key reference tracks that presented distinct challenges for spatial rendering:

1. Elton John – Rocketman

   • Chosen for its blend of piano and vocals in the intro, transitioning into a wide, layered chorus.
   • Evaluates how well the systems maintain clarity in a dense mix while handling room reverb and panning.
   • Testing focus: Depth perception, front-back separation, and head-tracking responsiveness in stereo-to-surround transitions.

2. Hans Zimmer – Dune (OST)

   • A cinematic score with long sustain, low-frequency emphasis, and ethereal synthesizers.
   • Useful for assessing whether Spatial Audio systems can maintain definition in ambient soundscapes.
   • Testing focus: Reverb size simulation, bass response, and whether distant elements collapse into the center.

3. Tiesto – Boom

   • A high-energy electronic track with hard-hitting bass and spatial movement effects.
   • Good for evaluating how different Spatial Audio solutions handle dynamic movement and transient-heavy sounds.
   • Testing focus: Localization accuracy of fast-moving sound elements, bass retention in spatialized formats, and phase artifacts.

These tracks were deliberately chosen to test a broad range of spatial audio characteristics—from natural acoustic environments (Elton John), to filmic immersion (Hans Zimmer), to extreme electronic noise and movement effects (Tiesto).

Audio playback is not as simple

At first glance, playing back Spatial Audio content might seem straightforward—just load a 7.1.4 wav-file and listen. However, the reality was far more complicated. Ensuring proper playback of 12-channel WAV files turned out to be a challenge, especially on an Android device, where different apps handle multichannel audio inconsistently.

• Apple’s File Browser actually supports 12-channel WAV playback natively, allowing for an accurate test environment without extra setup. The system indicates multichannel audio playback
• Android’s built-in playback system was unreliable, leading to confusion about what was actually being played* In some cases, all 12 channels were technically active, but the output was collapsed into just the front left and right speakers, completely ruining spatialization.
• Ceva bypassed these limitations by using its own custom playback app on a Google Pixel phone, ensuring proper routing of all channels for accurate testing.

This inconsistency in how different platforms handle spatial audio files highlights a major gap in standardized multichannel audio playback outside a robust set of dedicated Spatial Audio ecosystems.

Differences & Similarities in TWS Solutions

I am aware that comparing a fully finished product (like Apple or Samsung) to Ceva, which is not yet on the market with a multichannel audio solution, may seem a bit imbalanced. However, Ceva does have stereo products on the market, such as the Nirvana Europia (headset) and Nirvana Ivy (TWS).

This comparison focuses exclusively on multichannel audio, not spatialized stereo or stereo-to-3D audio. Despite not having a multichannel product yet, Ceva is making significant strides in this space as I could experience with their demo.

Key Takeaways for spatial audio earbuds

One of the biggest indicators of high-quality Spatial Audio is how well it creates a convincing sense of sound coming from outside the head. A great system should make sounds feel like they exist in a real-world environment rather than being trapped inside the headphones. However, many systems introduce artifacts and noise that break this illusion.

• Apple delivers a mostly solid experience but isn’t perfect. Promises seamless, personalized Spatial Audio, but in blind tests, many users struggle to hear a clear difference between generic and personalized HRTFs. While the tracking is effective, the personalization claims are overstated.

• Samsung largely mimics Apple’s approach of one-size-fits-all but with weaker execution. Overuses the term “Dolby Atmos”, even for basic stereo upmixing. Many users expect true object-based spatialization, but in reality, some implementations just widen the stereo image rather than creating a real 3D space.

• Ceva prioritizes flexibility over simplicity, offering the most control with interesting USPs but requiring manual tuning. Offers the most depth in customization, but the complexity makes it less accessible. Users who want plug-and-play simplicity may find it overwhelming.

Disclaimer

This article was written in collaboration with Ceva. While the collaboration included financial compensation, the opinions and evaluations expressed here are solely based on my independent, professional assessment.

The Future of Spatial Audio

The Spatial Audio market is still evolving, and upcoming developments could further enhance the experience by addressing current limitations. Some key areas of future growth include:

• Content-optimized reverb settings – Instead of using one-size-fits-all reverb, future systems could adapt reverb profiles based on content type, making movies, music, and games sound more natural and immersive.
• More intuitive user interfaces – Ceva shows that customization is powerful, but too many settings can overwhelm casual users. Future Spatial Audio systems could offer simplified controls that automatically optimize settings while still allowing advanced users to tweak details.
• Additional features like noise cancelling, AI translation, transparency mode etc. will help to create a more seamless ambient sound that matches our visual perception just like AR. Keep in mind that spatial audio is just one of the features and consumers do care about battery life, active noise cancellation etc. aswell.

More on that for true wireless earbuds in part two of this article.

Final Thoughts on premium earbuds

Spatial Audio is already transforming how we listen, but the best experience depends on how well the technology is implemented.

The key to a truly immersive experience will be finding the right balance between automation and user control—ensuring that Spatial Audio adapts to the listener, rather than forcing the listener to adapt to the system. This is what Apple and Samsung is trying to achieve but currently not working with the intended wow-effect.

Spatial Audio is still evolving, and the difference between great and average implementations comes down to both technology and content quality.

If you’re curious about what truly great Spatial Audio content can achieve, let’s talk.