Eclipsa Audio - Spatial Audio Format by Samsung and Google

[zeerround]

My next Eclipsa Audio experiment was to build this head tracker (<$20 US): https://github.com/trsonic/nvsonic-head-tracker

and a 3D printed mount to hang it on the top of the headphones.

I then tested with the Binaural Monitor VST in the EAR Production Suite in Reaper and it worked straight away. One button, "reset", to sync the position when you are looking straight at your monitor/center speaker and that's it. 3 Degrees Of Freedom head tracking.

This setup will allow you to virtually monitor, with headphones, a 7.1.4 (or whatever surround layout you want) mix.

This is an important capability for hobbyist immersive surround up-remixers as many would not have a way to monitor more than 6 or 8 channels from their PC.

No, it's not a Smyth Realiser A16. but it will get this job done.

 

[zeerround]

From Jan 20:

https://www.androidpolice.com/google-samsung-eclipsa-audio-in-android-16-update/

"Google recently announced plans to bring Eclipsa to Android devices. The change will be bundled along with an upcoming AOSP update, which will be Android 16 on the stable channel. "

...

"Google remained vague, but shared that native support for Eclipsa is on the roadmap for Google Chrome browser, YouTube, several TVs, and soundbars from multiple brands this year."

...

"Later this year, a brand licensing program will start, so buyers have some assurance of quality when buying from a manufacturer with Eclipsa on the label. "

 

[zeerround]

And also from Jan. 20:

https://www.provideocoalition.com/free-eclipsa-audio-plugin-coming-to-avid-pro-tools/

"To simplify the creation of Eclipsa Audio files, later this spring Google will release a free Eclipsa Audio plugin for AVID Pro Tools Digital Audio Workstation. The company also plans to bring native Eclipsa Audio playback to the Google Chrome browser as well as to TVs and soundbars from multiple manufacturers later in 2025. Eclipsa Audio support will also arrive in an upcoming Android Open Source Project (Android AOSP) release. Matt Frost, Jani Huoponen, Jan Skoglund, Roshan Baliga from the Open Audio team believe “that Eclipsa Audio has the potential to change the way we experience sound. We are excited to see how it is used to create new and innovative audio experiences.”"

 

[zeerround]

Some update tidbits here:

https://www.tomsguide.com/tvs/forget-dolby-atmos-lg-tvs-and-google-tvs-are-getting-a-direct-rival

more TVs, VLC Support, AVRs, Pro-tools plugin, etc.

Hmm, AVR support via firmware update would be nice, but of course limited to newer models.

Not that we have any commercial content yet, but I have released HDMI Audio Bridge (for Windows) which can (next version, already working here) decodes Eclipsa audio and shoves it to your AVR/soundbar etc. as Dolby Atmos.

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/hdmi-audio-bridge.37188/

 

[zeerround]

From Feb 20: https://news.samsung.com/global/eclipsa-audio-ushering-in-a-new-generation-of-3d-sound-with-samsung

No real new news, I guess. But I like this part:

"Eclipsa Audio’s open-source framework sets it apart from other 3D audio technologies by allowing anyone to create 3D audio content without paying royalties. Following its debut at CES 2025, the technology has been met with enthusiasm from content creators and has gained momentum across media platforms and online communities." [emphasis mine]

 

[Franck]

From Feb 20: https://news.samsung.com/global/eclipsa-audio-ushering-in-a-new-generation-of-3d-sound-with-samsung

No real new news, I guess. But I like this part:

"Eclipsa Audio’s open-source framework sets it apart from other 3D audio technologies by allowing anyone to create 3D audio content without paying royalties. Following its debut at CES 2025, the technology has been met with enthusiasm from content creators and has gained momentum across media platforms and online communities." [emphasis mine]

I'm not sure, it seems it is channel based... also Google helped develop AV1 for video but Apple does not want to touch it...

 

[zeerround]

I'm not sure, it seems it is channel based... also Google helped develop AV1 for video but Apple does not want to touch it...

The encoding examples we currently have, are either ambisonics or channel based: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/iam...tools.md#encode-wav-files-to-iamf-with-ffmpeg

I personally haven't looked beyond 7.1.4 channel based encode decode yet.

However the spec also includes objects and scenes: https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/v1.1.0.html

This is similar to Atmos, which can be both channel and object based. Typically it's a combination of "bed" channels (7.1.2 by default in pro tools), with objects being used both for additional statically placed channels and for "objects" that move dynamically, where the object audio is encoded separately from it's movement, and is left to the Decoder/Renderer to do the panning into the target speaker layout to achieve the object movement.

 

[Franck]

The encoding examples we currently have, are either ambisonics or channel based: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/iam...tools.md#encode-wav-files-to-iamf-with-ffmpeg

I personally haven't looked beyond 7.1.4 channel based encode decode yet.

However the spec also includes objects and scenes: https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/v1.1.0.html

This is similar to Atmos, which can be both channel and object based. Typically it's a combination of "bed" channels (7.1.2 by default in pro tools), with objects being used both for additional statically placed channels and for "objects" that move dynamically, where the object audio is encoded separately from it's movement, and is left to the Decoder/Renderer to do the panning into the target speaker layout to achieve the object movement.

Thanks for the info.
I hope that YouTube brings spatial audio... I had a look at it a while back https://peachymango.org/surround but the support was very weak... I think they will because as a "TV" provider they lack that feature from all others. All their movies are Stereo only.
I hope they are going to allow IAMF in 360 videos and properly tag videos with the audio quality, like they tag 360 videos.

Seems VLC supports IAMF:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/videolan_ces2025-iamf-spatialaudio-activity-7283295864784076800-vvhF/

May be it will come in Vimeo before YouTube: https://wiki.videolan.org/VDD24/ and https://aomedia.org/av1-adoption-showcase/vimeo-story/

 

[Bearcat_Sandor]

I'm excited for it to be supported by Davinci Resolve, and for the possibility to use my own HTRF sofa file for it.

 

[zeerround]

Article from yesterday, however the lab visit covered occurred before the CES announcement.

https://www.techradar.com/televisio...round-sound-and-why-it-launched-eclipsa-audio

 

[johnbs]

I'm not sure, it seems it is channel based... also Google helped develop AV1 for video but Apple does not want to touch it...

This statement about Apple support for AV1 is no longer true:

https://www.coconut.co/articles/ultimate-guide-apples-av1-support-2023

 

[pat bateman]

Article from yesterday, however the lab visit covered occurred before the CES announcement.

https://www.techradar.com/televisio...round-sound-and-why-it-launched-eclipsa-audio

Samsung's white hot rage towards Dolby is amusing. I guess it started with the refusal to integrate DV into their TV's and decided to oversaturate colors to fool people to think their TVs are better. Basically like what the loudness wars did to music.

2 lies in that article - 1. YouTube doesn't support multi-channels audio - it does support DD+, and has for quite some time and 2. Dolby isn't involved with car audio - https://professional.dolby.com/music/dolby-atmos-for-cars/news/#gref

Dolby's LUFS requirement of -18 LUFS is the best thing to happen to music in a long time. MPEG-H was open source, and a ton of the mixes were loud crap.

I'm not a content creator, so I can't speak to that, but for what it's worth, I asked Grok what the bare minimum costs are to create Atmos music. Here's what it spit out, I would be interested to know if this is accurate.

Total Minimum Cost Breakdown

Assuming you’re starting with just a computer and nothing else:

• Computer: $500 (if needed).
• DAW: $60 (Reaper).
• Dolby Atmos Production Suite: $299.
• Headphones: $50.
• Audio Interface: $100 (optional).
• Total: ~$510 (with existing computer) to $1,009 (with new computer, no interface).

 

[zeerround]

Samsung's white hot rage towards Dolby is amusing. I guess it started with the refusal to integrate DV into their TV's and decided to oversaturate colors to fool people to think their TVs are better. Basically like what the loudness wars did to music.

2 lies in that article - 1. YouTube doesn't support multi-channels audio - it does support DD+, and has for quite some time and 2. Dolby isn't involved with car audio - https://professional.dolby.com/music/dolby-atmos-for-cars/news/#gref

Dolby's LUFS requirement of -18 LUFS is the best thing to happen to music in a long time. MPEG-H was open source, and a ton of the mixes were loud crap.

I'm not a content creator, so I can't speak to that, but for what it's worth, I asked Grok what the bare minimum costs are to create Atmos music. Here's what it spit out, I would be interested to know if this is accurate.

Total Minimum Cost Breakdown

Assuming you’re starting with just a computer and nothing else:

• Computer: $500 (if needed).
• DAW: $60 (Reaper).
• Dolby Atmos Production Suite: $299.
• Headphones: $50.
• Audio Interface: $100 (optional).
• Total: ~$510 (with existing computer) to $1,009 (with new computer, no interface).

A few issues with the list.

1) Dolby (now) splits up their tools so you can't actually encode atmos with the tools they sell for "content creators" It is instead expected that you will produce a .atmos file (a big multichannel file plus metatdata) that is then passed on another party to do the actual encoding. Dolby will only (now) sell their encoder to companies that they can see are full time in the business, and there may (now) be other requirements like a Dolby approved studio setup. I know people that have been turned down by Dolby, despite having the money. FYI the encoder is another $400, on top of the $300 production suite.

2) You skipped over any speaker setup and audio interface to drive it etc. Those are MAJOR expenses, and while you'll see me argue for binaural monitoring with head tracking solutions for hobbyists, to be taken seriously as a "content creator" you'd need to make the investment (IMHO).

But yeah, as a hobbyist using Binaural monitoring with headtracking (or HDMI Audio Bridge to your Atmos AVR and immersive speaker system), and not paying for Dolby production suite or encoder, you'd be in the ball park.

 

[pat bateman]

A few issues with the list.

1) Dolby (now) splits up their tools so you can't actually encode atmos with the tools they sell for "content creators" It is instead expected that you will produce a .atmos file (a big multichannel file plus metatdata) that is then passed on another party to do the actual encoding. Dolby will only (now) sell their encoder to companies that they can see are full time in the business, and there may (now) be other requirements like a Dolby approved studio setup. I know people that have been turned down by Dolby, despite having the money. FYI the encoder is another $400, on top of the $300 production suite.

2) You skipped over any speaker setup and audio interface to drive it etc. Those are MAJOR expenses, and while you'll see me argue for binaural monitoring with head tracking solutions for hobbyists, to be taken seriously as a "content creator" you'd need to make the investment (IMHO).

But yeah, as a hobbyist using Binaural monitoring with headtracking (or HDMI Audio Bridge to your Atmos AVR and immersive speaker system), and not paying for Dolby production suite or encoder, you'd be in the ball park.

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I didn't include speaker investment, presuming that's a pre-requisite for anyone serious about creating multi-channel content regardless of format. I was interested in knowing the additional cost burden that Dolby imposes vs XYZ format and seeing if the reaction is hyperbolic or not. Sounds like it's not hyperbolic if Dolby is forcing creators to pay big mixing houses to encode.

 

[Franck]

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I didn't include speaker investment, presuming that's a pre-requisite for anyone serious about creating multi-channel content regardless of format. I was interested in knowing the additional cost burden that Dolby imposes vs XYZ format and seeing if the reaction is hyperbolic or not. Sounds like it's not hyperbolic if Dolby is forcing creators to pay big mixing houses to encode.

For audio, you can get a mac with logic and you are done…
well you need a few speakers…
You may need some dolby software because logic meters are no longer accurate. The ADMBWF output is easy to distribute to music streamers.
My main issue, is if you want to encode in Dolby True HD and/or mix it in a DLP (for movies), you need the dolby professional suite, which is a yearly license…

Yes the article is strongly biased. Also remember, Sony tried to push the Sony 360 for audio, and that did not work.

For the studio, I described my studio evolution:
https://www.peachymango.org/Dolby+Atmos+Studio