## 1 Introduction  
Urban acoustic environments consist of multiple types of sound sources (e.g., traffic sounds, biological sounds, geophysical sounds, human sounds) [1]. The different types of sound sources have different acoustical characteristics, meanings and values [2; 3; 4]. Conventionally, environmental noise policies are primarily centered on the energetic reduction of sound pressure levels (SPL). However, SPL indicators provide limited information on perceived acoustic comfort as it involves higher cognitive processes. To address the limitations of traditional noise management, the notion of a soundscape has been applied as a new paradigm. [PERSON], a Canadian composer and music educator, introduced the term soundscape to encompass a holistic acoustic environment as a macrocosmic musical composition [5]. In this context, soundscape considers sound as a resource rather than waste and focuses on people's contextual perception of the acoustic environment [6]. Due to rising prominence of the soundscape approach, ISO TC43 SC1 WG 54 was started with the aim of standardizing the perceptual assessment of soundscapes. As defined in ISO 12913-1: definition and conceptual framework, acoustic environment is \"sound from all sound sources as modified by the environment\" and the modification by the environment includes effects of various physical factors (e.g., meteorological conditions, absorption, diffraction, reverberation, and reflection) on sound propagation. This implies that soundscape is a perceptual construct related to physical acoustic environment in a place. According to ISO 12913-1, the context plays a critical role in the perception of a soundscape, as it affects the auditory sensation, the interpretation of auditory sensation, and the responses to the acoustic environment [7]. The context includes all other non-acoustic components of the place (e.g., physical as well as previous experience of the individual). [PERSON] et al. [8] proposed a people-activity-place framework for contexts based on four clusters: person, place, person-place interaction and activity. The suggested framework shows interrelations between person and activity and place, which may influence a person's experience of the acoustic environment. It is evident from [8] that the human auditory process is deeply entwined in the person-activity-place framework. Thus, sufficient insight about the human auditory process is imperative to record and reproduce an acoustic environment with sufficient perceptual accuracy for proper analysis. For simplicity, [PERSON] has grouped the human auditory processing system into two stages: (1) the preprocessing in the peripheral system, and (2) information processing in the auditory system [9]. Current reproduction methods (e.g., loudspeakers, headphones, etc.) have sufficient fidelity for proper interpretation of frequency and temporal characteristics in the peripheral system (stage 1). As the spatial dimension of sound is only interpreted in stage 2, where there is significant exchange of information between both ears, complexity of reproduction is greatly increased. For instance, to locate a sound source in space, the characteristics of intensity, phase, and latency must be presented accurately to both ears. Hence, spatial audio recording and reproduction techniques should be reviewed in the technological perspective with a focus on their relationship with soundscape perception--the main goal of this paper. As recording and reproduction techniques are heavily employed in the soundscape design process, a brief discussion will shed light on the areas where such techniques are most commonly used. The soundscape design process can be summarized into three stages, as illustrated in Figure 1[10]. Stage 1 aims to define and analyze existing soundscapes. In this stage, soundscape researchers and planners are required to evaluate and identify 'wanted sounds' to be preserved or added, and 'unwanted sounds' to be removed or reduced based on the context.