Organizations: Center of Intelligent Acoustics and Immersive Communications, School of Artificial Intelligence, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, 710072, China · Digital Signal Processing Lab, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Ambisonics delivers compact scene based spatial audio representation, yet higher order Ambisonic encoding poses difficulties for wearables and embedded hardware. Their microphone arrays are often sparse, irregular, and constrained by device specific boundary conditions. These factors make the spherical-harmonic (SH) domain encoding ill conditioned: inverse filtering amplifies noise, while deterministic neural encoders may overfit to array-specific responses or smooth ambiguous higher-order components. This paper presents DiffM2A, a geometry-adaptive conditional diffusion framework for robust Ambisonic encoding from sparse MAs with variable topologies. Its Geometry-Adaptive Spherical Harmonic Projection (GASHP) front-end constructs boundary-aware SH steering functions and applies an energy-normalized modal projection, mapping array-dependent observations to a common modal representation without explicit pseudo-inverse computation. A dual-branch Elucidated Diffusion Model then estimates complex Ambisonic coefficients, conditioned on both the raw microphone spectra and GASHP features. Sound intensity and rotational equivariance losses further enhance inter-channel phase consistency and structured behavior across SH subspaces. Evaluations on both first- and second-order Ambisonic encoding tasks, using simulated room-acoustics and real-world LOCATA recordings, demonstrate that DiffM2A outperforms conventional and neural baseline methods on signal fidelity, spectral accuracy, spatial coherence, and binaural cue preservation. Additional experiments show that these gains are largely retained across unseen five-microphone layouts and under mismatched open-array and rigid-sphere boundary models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed DiffM2A framework. During training, the target Ambisonic coefficients aN are corrupted with Gaussian noise to obtain aNσ . During inference, the coefficient estimate is initialized from Gaussian noise and iteratively denoised using DPM-Solver.
Task
Method
Single Source
Dual Source
SI-SDR
Coh
Mag. Err
ILD.Err
SI-SDR
Coh
Mag. Err
ILD.Err
(dB) ↑
↑
(dB) ↓
(dB) ↓
(dB) ↑
↑
(dB) ↓
(dB) ↓
FOA
Param.
7.82
0.695
5.93
3.29
4.24
0.630
8.85
4.50
AmbiSpatial
10.57
0.629
8.99
4.91
6.83
0.551
12.32
5.78
Gen-A
11.09
0.649
8.81
4.74
7.59
0.566
11.57
5.59
Attention-based
12.43
0.654
7.90
3.82
8.76
0.593
10.23
4.97
Table 1: Objective evaluation results on the simulated dataset for single- and dual-source scenarios.
Figure 2: Comparison of mean magnitude spectrum error and coherence metrics under the simulated dual-source SOA configuration.
Task
Method
Single Source
Dual Source
SI-SDR
Coh
Mag. Err
ILD.Err
SI-SDR
Coh
Mag. Err
ILD.Err
(dB) ↑
↑
(dB) ↓
(dB) ↓
(dB) ↑
↑
(dB) ↓
(dB) ↓
FOA
Param.
0.85
0.71
5.82
3.88
-0.81
0.60
7.15
4.62
AmbiSpatial
3.82
0.58
4.34
3.31
1.98
0.47
5.58
4.12
Gen-A
4.65
0.63
3.92
2.95
2.85
0.52
5.12
3.61
Attention-based
5.21
0.68
3.65
2.68
3.42
0.58
4.68
3.24
Table 2: Objective evaluation results on the LOCATA dataset for single- and dual-source scenarios.
Method
SI-SDR (dB) ↑
Mag.Err (dB) ↓
Ground Truth
6.86
3.71
Param.
1.01
7.84
AmbiSpatial
3.94
5.43
Gen-A
4.71
4.97
Attention-based
5.48
4.53
Proposed
8.05
3.14
Table 3: Comparison of sensor-domain reprojection errors under the dual-source SOA configuration.
Configuration
SI-SDR (dB) ↑
Coh ↑
Mag. Err (dB) ↓
ILD.Err (dB) ↓
LEDM
6.75
0.224
11.52
6.08
LEDM+LIV
7.32
0.288
10.64
5.62
LEDM+Lrot
8.54
0.332
10.08
5.38
LEDM+LIV+Lrot
9.74
0.405
9.27
5.02
w/o GASHP
7.16
0.272
10.92
5.75
GASHP + U-Net
7.21
0.282
10.97
5.87
Table 4: Ablation study for dual-source SOA encoding.
Figure 3: Comparison of STFT spectrograms of the ground-truth HOA coefficients (top) and the corresponding GASHP-projected modal representations (bottom) for four representative harmonic channels ( W , Y , b2,−2 , and b2,0 ) under the simulated dual-source configuration.
Method
C-5-6
C-5-4
L-5-4
L-5-3
Avg.
Params (M)
Param.
2.42
3.26
1.35
1.51
2.14
–
AmbiSpatial
4.53
5.13
4.40
4.51
4.64
8.12
Gen-A
5.48
6.05
5.21
5.34
5.52
9.10
Attention-based
7.54
7.73
7.15
7.23
7.41
1.19
w/o GASHP
7.66
7.75
7.16
7.31
7.47
8.53
Proposed
9.81
10.10
9.54
9.65
9.78
8.66
Table 5: Comparison on unseen arrays in SI-SDR (dB).
Figure 4: Time-domain waveforms of the reconstructed W -channel under the simulated dual-source SOA configuration.
Figure 5: Comparison of STFT spectrograms for reconstructed Ambisonic channels ( W , Y , b2,−2 , and b2,0 ) across different methods under the simulated dual-source configuration.
Method
Training Cost
Inference Time
Parametric
–
0.35 s
AmbiSpatial
Medium
1.23 s
Gen-A
Medium
1.36 s
Attention-based
Low
0.93 s
Proposed
High
2.66 s
Table 6: Comparison of the training cost and average inference time (evaluated per 4-second audio sample at 16 kHz). The neural network-based models are evaluated on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 GPU, whereas the parametric baseline is executed on an AMD EPYC 9554 64-Core CPU.
Jun 3, 2026·Yuhuan You, Yufan Qian, Tianshu Qu +2Spatial Audio
State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China · 2Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd · 3Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd