Audio Reviews - DXOMARK https://www.dxomark.com/category/audio-reviews/ The leading source of independent audio, display, battery and image quality measurements and ratings for smartphone, camera, lens, wireless speaker and laptop since 2008. Tue, 05 Mar 2024 12:14:05 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/logo-o-transparent-150x150.png Audio Reviews - DXOMARK https://www.dxomark.com/category/audio-reviews/ 32 32 Xiaomi 14 Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-14-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-14-audio-test/#respond Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:54:49 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=166566 We put the Xiaomi 14 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key audio [...]

The post Xiaomi 14 Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Xiaomi 14 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers.
In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview


Key audio specifications include:

  • Two speakers (Top front under screen, bottom side)
  • No Jack audio output

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Xiaomi 14
Xiaomi 14
135
audio
137
Playback
Timbre
132

158

Dynamics
133

149

Spatial
143

162

Volume
134

162

Artifacts
105

157

129
Recording
Timbre
121

147

Dynamics
127

146

Spatial
116

159

Volume
118

170

Artifacts
145

Best

Background
134

166

AUDIO
Position in Global Ranking
44th
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
4. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
5. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
5. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
5. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
9. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
10. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
11. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
11. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
13. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
14. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
14. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
18. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 15
141
18. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 14
141
18. Huawei P60 Pro
141
23. Apple iPhone 12
140
23. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
23. Google Pixel 8
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
28. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
28. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
32. Apple iPhone 13
138
32. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
32. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
32. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
32. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
32. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
38. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
38. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
38. Google Pixel 6
137
38. Honor Magic Vs
137
38. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
44. Google Pixel 6a
135
44. OnePlus Open
135
44. Oppo Find N2
135
44. Xiaomi 14
135
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
48. Vivo X100 Pro
134
48. Xiaomi 13
134
51. Google Pixel Fold
133
51. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
51. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
51. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
51. Vivo X90 Pro
133
60. Google Pixel 7a
132
60. Vivo X Fold
132
60. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
63. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
63. Asus Zenfone 10
131
63. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
63. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
67. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
67. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
69. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
69. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
69. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
73. OnePlus 11
128
73. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
73. POCO F4 GT
128
73. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
73. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
73. Xiaomi 13T
128
73. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
81. Oppo Find X6
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
81. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
85. Apple iPhone 11
126
85. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
85. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
126
85. Xiaomi 12T
126
85. Xiaomi 11T
126
92. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
92. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
125
92. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
95. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
96. Google Pixel 7
123
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
98. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
98. Apple iPhone SE (2020)
122
98. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
98. Xiaomi 12
122
102. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
102. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
102. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
102. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
109. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
109. Huawei P50 Pro
119
109. OnePlus 9
119
109. OnePlus 8
119
109. POCO F5 Pro
119
109. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Gaming
119
109. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
116. Realme GT Neo 3
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
122. Asus Zenfone 8
117
122. Google Pixel 4
117
122. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
122. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
122. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
127. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
127. Motorola Edge+
116
127. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
127. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
127. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
134. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
134. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
115
134. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
134. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
138. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
138. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
140. Google Pixel 5
113
140. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
140. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
140. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
148. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
148. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
148. Realme GT 5G
112
148. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
152. Oppo A78 5G
111
152. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
154. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
155. Honor 70
109
155. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
155. Oppo Find X5
109
155. POCO X3 NFC
109
155. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
155. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
155. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
162. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
162. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
162. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
162. Realme X2 Pro
108
166. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
167. Honor 90
106
167. Nothing Phone(1)
106
167. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
167. Oppo A77 5G
106
171. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
171. Nothing Phone (2)
105
171. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
171. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
105
175. Honor V30 Pro
104
175. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
175. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
178. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
178. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
178. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
178. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
182. Huawei P40 Pro
102
182. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
182. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
185. Motorola Razr
101
186. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
97
186. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
188. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
188. Honor 20 Pro
96
188. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
188. Vivo X51 5G
96
192. LG G8 ThinQ
95
192. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
194. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
195. Fairphone 4
93
195. Sony Xperia 1
93
195. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
198. Fairphone 5
92
199. Vivo X60 Pro+
91
200. Nokia 7.2
87
201. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86
AUDIO
Position in Premium Ranking
12th
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
3. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
3. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Apple iPhone 15
141
5. Apple iPhone 14
141
7. Apple iPhone 12
140
7. Google Pixel 8
140
9. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
10. Apple iPhone 13
138
11. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
12. Xiaomi 14
135
13. Xiaomi 13
134
14. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
14. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
16. Asus Zenfone 10
131
17. OnePlus 11
128
17. Xiaomi 13T
128
17. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
20. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
21. Apple iPhone 11
126
21. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
23. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
24. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
25. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
25. Xiaomi 12
122
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
29. OnePlus 9
119
29. OnePlus 8
119
31. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
31. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
31. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
34. Asus Zenfone 8
117
34. Google Pixel 4
117
34. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
37. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
38. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
38. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
40. Google Pixel 5
113
40. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
40. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
43. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
44. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
44. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
46. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
46. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
48. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
49. Honor V30 Pro
104
49. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
51. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
52. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
53. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
54. Vivo X51 5G
96
55. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
56. Fairphone 5
92
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86

Playback

Pros

  • Good timbre and dynamics
  • No artifacts at nominal volume

Cons

  • Timbre lacks bass
  • Narrow stereo image
  • Distortion and clipping at maximum volume

 

Recording

Pros

  • Good wind noise resilience, especially with main camera, effective noise-canceling in difficult conditions
  • Good audio zoom, noticeable side rejection at tele and super tele zoom, maintaining tonal balance without artifacts

Cons

  • Tonal balance could be better in most use cases
  • Envelope lacks sharpness and precision
  • Phasing issues in loud environment might impair distance rendition

With a score of 135, the Xiaomi 14 delivered fairly average results in the DXOMARK Audio tests. Our testers liked the playback performance through the built-in speakers, thanks to good timbre and dynamics. However, they also noted a lack of low-end, as well as some distortion and clipping when playing back sound at maximum volume. Playback results were overall best when playing games, but almost on the same level for listening to music and watching movies.

The Xiaomi did less well in the recording category, with recorded audio clips showing some issues with timbre, as well as dynamics that left some room for improvement. On the plus side, the results for audio zoom and wind noise were good, making the Xiaomi 14 a decent option for isolating specific sound elements from the background and recording in windy conditions. In recording the Xiaomi 14 did best for voice memos. Recordings with the main and selfie cameras were not quite on the same level.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions.
(For more details about our Playback protocol, click here; for more details about our Recording protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Playback

137

Xiaomi 14

163

Black Shark 5 Pro
i
How Audio Playback score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test playback through the smartphone speakers, whose performance is evaluated in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio playback

Listen to the tested smartphone’s playback performance in this comparison with some of its competitors:

Xiaomi 14
Nubia Redmagic 8 Pro
Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
Recordings of the smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment by 2 microphones in A-B configuration, at 30 cm
Here is how the Xiaomi 14 performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback use-cases scores

Timbre

132

Xiaomi 14

158

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency. It is the most important attribute for playback.

Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the smartphone when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

133

Xiaomi 14

149

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a bass note is reproduced or the impact sound from drums.


Spatial

143

Xiaomi 14

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness.


Volume

134

Xiaomi 14

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents the overall loudness of a smartphone and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:
Hip-Hop Classical
Xiaomi 14 73.6 dBA 70.2 dBA
Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro 77 dBA 76.6 dBA
Samsung Galaxy S23 FE 74.1 dBA 70.9 dBA
The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume steps correspond to users’ expectations:
Music volume consistency
This line graph shows the relative loudness of playback relative to the user selected volume step, measured at different volume steps with a correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded in axis at 0.20 meter.

Artifacts

105

Xiaomi 14

157

Asus ROG Phone 5
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortion can occur because of sound processing in the device and because of the quality of the speakers.

Playback Total Harmonic Distortion (Maximum Volume)
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device's maximum volume.

Recording

129

Xiaomi 14

160

Honor Magic6 Pro
i
How Audio Recording score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test recording by evaluating the recorded files on reference audio equipment. Those recordings are done in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio recording

Here is how the Xiaomi 14 performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

Recording use-cases scores

Timbre

121

Xiaomi 14

147

Honor Magic3 Pro+
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for recording.

Life video frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

127

Xiaomi 14

146

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a voice's plosives (the p's, t's and k's, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


Spatial

116

Xiaomi 14

159

Vivo X Fold
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness on the recorded audio files.

Recording directivity
Directivity graph of the smartphone when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device.)

Volume

118

Xiaomi 14

170

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents how loud audio is normalized on the recorded files and the how the device handles loud environments, such as electronic concerts, when recording.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:
Meeting Life Video Selfie Video Memo
Xiaomi 14 -24.4 LUFS -19.7 LUFS -17.6 LUFS -18.8 LUFS
Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro -33.5 LUFS -24.4 LUFS -19.2 LUFS -28.4 LUFS
Samsung Galaxy S23 FE -24.2 LUFS -21.1 LUFS -19.6 LUFS -20.7 LUFS

Artifacts

145

Xiaomi 14

Best

i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortions can occur because of sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as how the phone is held.

In this audio comparison, you can listen to the way this smartphone handles wind noise relative to its competitors:

Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background

134

Xiaomi 14

166

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

Background evaluates how natural the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, yet it should provide some context of the surroundings.

The post Xiaomi 14 Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-14-audio-test/feed/ 0 Xiaomi 14 Best AUDIO AUDIO Best Honor Magic6 Pro Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/honor-magic6-pro-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/honor-magic6-pro-audio-test/#respond Sun, 25 Feb 2024 12:00:24 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=165966 We put the Honor Magic6 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key [...]

The post Honor Magic6 Pro Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Honor Magic6 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers.
In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview


Key audio specifications include:

  • Two speakers (Top front under screen, bottom side)
  • No jack audio output

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Honor Magic6 Pro
Honor Magic6 Pro
155
audio
152
Playback
Timbre
147

158

Dynamics
137

149

Spatial
157

162

Volume
142

162

Artifacts
98

157

160
Recording
Timbre
146

147

Dynamics
141

146

Spatial
151

159

Volume
155

170

Artifacts
145

Best

Background
154

166

AUDIO
Position in Global Ranking
2nd
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
4. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
5. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
5. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
5. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
9. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
10. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
11. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
11. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
13. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
14. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
14. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
18. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 15
141
18. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 14
141
18. Huawei P60 Pro
141
23. Apple iPhone 12
140
23. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
23. Google Pixel 8
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
28. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
28. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
32. Apple iPhone 13
138
32. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
32. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
32. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
32. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
32. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
38. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
38. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
38. Google Pixel 6
137
38. Honor Magic Vs
137
38. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
44. Google Pixel 6a
135
44. OnePlus Open
135
44. Oppo Find N2
135
44. Xiaomi 14
135
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
48. Vivo X100 Pro
134
48. Xiaomi 13
134
51. Google Pixel Fold
133
51. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
51. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
51. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
51. Vivo X90 Pro
133
60. Google Pixel 7a
132
60. Vivo X Fold
132
60. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
63. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
63. Asus Zenfone 10
131
63. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
63. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
67. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
67. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
69. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
69. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
69. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
73. OnePlus 11
128
73. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
73. POCO F4 GT
128
73. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
73. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
73. Xiaomi 13T
128
73. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
81. Oppo Find X6
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
81. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
85. Apple iPhone 11
126
85. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
85. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
126
85. Xiaomi 12T
126
85. Xiaomi 11T
126
92. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
92. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
125
92. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
95. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
96. Google Pixel 7
123
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
98. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
98. Apple iPhone SE (2020)
122
98. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
98. Xiaomi 12
122
102. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
102. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
102. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
102. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
109. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
109. Huawei P50 Pro
119
109. OnePlus 9
119
109. OnePlus 8
119
109. POCO F5 Pro
119
109. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Gaming
119
109. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
116. Realme GT Neo 3
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
122. Asus Zenfone 8
117
122. Google Pixel 4
117
122. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
122. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
122. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
127. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
127. Motorola Edge+
116
127. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
127. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
127. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
134. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
134. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
115
134. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
134. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
138. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
138. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
140. Google Pixel 5
113
140. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
140. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
140. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
148. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
148. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
148. Realme GT 5G
112
148. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
152. Oppo A78 5G
111
152. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
154. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
155. Honor 70
109
155. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
155. Oppo Find X5
109
155. POCO X3 NFC
109
155. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
155. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
155. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
162. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
162. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
162. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
162. Realme X2 Pro
108
166. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
167. Honor 90
106
167. Nothing Phone(1)
106
167. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
167. Oppo A77 5G
106
171. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
171. Nothing Phone (2)
105
171. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
171. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
105
175. Honor V30 Pro
104
175. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
175. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
178. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
178. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
178. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
178. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
182. Huawei P40 Pro
102
182. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
182. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
185. Motorola Razr
101
186. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
97
186. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
188. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
188. Honor 20 Pro
96
188. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
188. Vivo X51 5G
96
192. LG G8 ThinQ
95
192. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
194. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
195. Fairphone 4
93
195. Sony Xperia 1
93
195. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
198. Fairphone 5
92
199. Vivo X60 Pro+
91
200. Nokia 7.2
87
201. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86
AUDIO
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
1st
1. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
1. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
3. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
3. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
5. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
6. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
6. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
8. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
9. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
9. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
13. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
13. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
13. Huawei P60 Pro
141
16. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
19. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
22. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
22. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
22. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
22. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
26. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
26. Honor Magic Vs
137
26. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
26. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
30. OnePlus Open
135
30. Oppo Find N2
135
32. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
32. Vivo X100 Pro
134
34. Google Pixel Fold
133
34. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
34. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
34. Vivo X90 Pro
133
40. Vivo X Fold
132
40. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
42. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
42. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
42. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
45. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
45. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
47. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
47. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
47. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
47. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
51. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
51. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
53. Oppo Find X6
127
54. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
55. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
55. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
57. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
57. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
57. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
61. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
62. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
62. Huawei P50 Pro
119
62. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
67. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
67. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
69. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
69. Motorola Edge+
116
69. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
69. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
73. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
74. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
75. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
75. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
80. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
81. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
82. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
82. Oppo Find X5
109
82. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
85. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
86. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
87. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
88. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
88. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
90. Huawei P40 Pro
102
91. Motorola Razr
101
92. LG G8 ThinQ
95
93. Sony Xperia 1
93
94. Vivo X60 Pro+
91

Playback

Pros

  • Strong overall performance, especially for timbre, spatial and volume
  • Snappy attacks, punchy sound
  • Great performance when gaming

Cons

  • Slight boost in the low end can sound resonant
  • Moderate distortion
  • Bass precision could be better

Recording

Pros

  • Excellent audio zoom, well-controlled wind noise
  • Natural and pleasant timbre, for both main signal and background
  • Very loud recordings, excellent signal-to-noise ratio
  • Consistent performance across use cases

Cons

  • Maximum loudness has some room for improvement
  • Very subtle distortion and compression at high-SPL

With a DXOMARK Audio score of 155, the Honor Magic6 Pro is among the very best devices tested to date under our Audio protocol, delivering strong results across all playback and recording sub-tests. In playback our experts particularly liked the Magic6 Pro’s performance for timbre, spatial and volume. Attacks were snappy and the sound quite punchy overall. A slight boost in the low end brought more depth, although it could also lead to some resonances or light distortion, which could also deteriorate bass precision. Playback quality was especially good when playing games, but results were also excellent for watching movies and music consumption.

In recording tests, the audio zoom feature is excellent and very effective, while wind noise was very well under control. The timbre was pleasantly natural for both the main signal and the background, in all use cases. In addition, recordings were very loud, with an excellent signal-to-noise ratio. Recording with the main camera delivered the best results, although the performance was also very consistent across all our use cases.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions.
(For more details about our Playback protocol, click here; for more details about our Recording protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Playback

152

Honor Magic6 Pro

163

Black Shark 5 Pro
i
How Audio Playback score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test playback through the smartphone speakers, whose performance is evaluated in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio playback
Listen to the tested smartphone’s playback performance in this comparison with some of its competitors:
Honor Magic6 Pro
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
Huawei Mate 60 Pro +
Recordings of the smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment by 2 microphones in A-B configuration, at 30 cm
Here is how the Honor Magic6 Pro performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback use-cases scores

Timbre

147

Honor Magic6 Pro

158

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency. It is the most important attribute for playback.

In our playback tests, timbre was very good across all use cases and volumes, offering an excellent balance between treble, midrange and bass, with great consistency. Treble sounded very natural and was accompanied by a pleasant and warm midrange. Bass was quite deep and powerful but left some room for improvement, as the boost in low end could bring some subtle resonances or distortion. Overall, timbre worked extremely well for gaming with the phone but it was also very good for watching movies and listening to music.

Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the smartphone when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

137

Honor Magic6 Pro

149

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a bass note is reproduced or the impact sound from drums.

Dynamics results were very good, especially for attack and punch. Attack was very snappy, especially at nominal volume, but also with distortion well under control at maximum volume, the transients managed to stand out very well. Punch was remarkably good thanks to the solid low midrange energy. Results for bass precision were not quite on the same high level, however, as the bass envelope was impaired by subtle distortion, and potentially by the resonance mentioned previously in the timbre section as well.


Spatial

157

Honor Magic6 Pro

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness.

The device put in an excellent performance in the spatial category as well, thanks notably to a very wide sound scene. The stereo image, perfectly centered, also rotated adequately with device orientation, even adapting to portrait orientation, adding to the user experience. Individual sound sources were very easy to locate within the sound scene, and both distance and depth rendition were excellent in our tests.


Volume

142

Honor Magic6 Pro

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents the overall loudness of a smartphone and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

The Honor Magic6 Pro provided very good consistency across the volume scale. Tuning of the minimum volume level was excellent, offering good intelligibility of soft sections in highly dynamic audio content, such as classical music, without being too loud. The maximum setting was tuned nicely as well, providing excellent loudness.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:
Hip-Hop Classical
Honor Magic6 Pro 72.1 dBA 68.7 dBA
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max 75.1 dBA 72.3 dBA
Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ 74.9 dBA 71.5 dBA
The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume steps correspond to users’ expectations:

Music volume consistency
This line graph shows the relative loudness of playback relative to the user selected volume step, measured at different volume steps with a correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded in axis at 0.20 meter.

Artifacts

98

Honor Magic6 Pro

157

Asus ROG Phone 5
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortion can occur because of sound processing in the device and because of the quality of the speakers.

Unwanted artifacts in audio playback were overall well managed on the Magic6 Pro. Distortion was well under control, with only some moderate distortion noticeable, especially in the upper low end. Compression was not an issue but our testers noted some very subtle volume fluctuations at soft volume levels.

Playback Total Harmonic Distortion (Maximum Volume)
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device's maximum volume.

Recording

160

Honor Magic6 Pro

Best

i
How Audio Recording score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test recording by evaluating the recorded files on reference audio equipment. Those recordings are done in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio recording
Here is how the Honor Magic6 Pro performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:
Recording use-cases scores

Timbre

146

Honor Magic6 Pro

147

Honor Magic3 Pro+
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for recording.

Timbre was excellent in the Magic6 Pro recording tests, with a very flat frequency response and great tonal balance, that was consistent across use cases. Recordings sounded pleasant and natural. Midrange was notably excellent, and so was treble, although it could sound even brighter arguably. In the Concert use case, the device managed to perform quite well under the high SPL delivered by the lab speakers, as tonal balance was not drowned out by an excess of low end, and treble was not aggressive.

Life video frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

141

Honor Magic6 Pro

146

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a voice's plosives (the p's, t's and k's, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.

Recording dynamics was very good as well, thanks to an excellent signal-to-noise ratio. In our tests, the device did a great job at reducing background noise without impairing the main signal. Our testers found the background to be unintrusive yet natural. Compression could be noticed on occasion, for example on shouting voices, but it was well under control and didn’t impair envelope.


Spatial

151

Honor Magic6 Pro

159

Vivo X Fold
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness on the recorded audio files.

The recorded sound scene was very wide, with good localizability of individual sound sources. Distance rendition was very good as well.

Recording directivity
Directivity graph of the smartphone when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device.)

Volume

155

Honor Magic6 Pro

170

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents how loud audio is normalized on the recorded files and the how the device handles loud environments, such as electronic concerts, when recording.

Recording loudness was excellent. The Honor Magic6 Pro is the loudest device tested to date, both in the lab and in our real-life tests.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:
Meeting Life Video Selfie Video Memo
Honor Magic6 Pro -21.4 LUFS -16.9 LUFS -16.2 LUFS -18 LUFS
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max -24.9 LUFS -22.1 LUFS -20.5 LUFS -19.2 LUFS
Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ -25.4 LUFS -20.2 LUFS -18.9 LUFS -21.4 LUFS

Artifacts

145

Honor Magic6 Pro

Best

i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortions can occur because of sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as how the phone is held.

Recording artifacts were well under control. Compression was slightly noticeable but not problematic overall. Our experts observed some slight distortion when recording at high sound pressure levels but it was well within acceptable limits. The device also dealt well with microphone occlusions.

In this audio comparison, you can listen to the way this smartphone handles wind noise relative to its competitors:

Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background

154

Honor Magic6 Pro

166

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

Background evaluates how natural the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, yet it should provide some context of the surroundings.

Recording background was excellent, unintrusive, with a pleasant brilliance as well as a homogenous and natural timbre.

The post Honor Magic6 Pro Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/honor-magic6-pro-audio-test/feed/ 0 Honor Magic6 Pro Best AUDIO AUDIO Best Best Vivo X100 Pro Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-x100-pro-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-x100-pro-audio-test/#respond Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:38:11 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=164695 We put the Vivo X100 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key [...]

The post Vivo X100 Pro Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Vivo X100 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers.
In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview


Key audio specifications include:

  • Two speakers (Top front under screen, bottom side)
  • No jack audio output

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Vivo X100 Pro
Vivo X100 Pro
134
audio
135
Playback
Timbre
130

158

Dynamics
130

149

Spatial
151

162

Volume
126

162

Artifacts
101

157

133
Recording
Timbre
120

147

Dynamics
125

146

Spatial
112

159

Volume
124

170

Artifacts
139

145

Background
130

166

AUDIO
Position in Global Ranking
48th
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
4. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
5. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
5. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
5. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
9. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
10. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
11. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
11. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
13. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
14. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
14. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
18. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 15
141
18. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 14
141
18. Huawei P60 Pro
141
23. Apple iPhone 12
140
23. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
23. Google Pixel 8
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
28. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
28. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
32. Apple iPhone 13
138
32. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
32. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
32. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
32. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
32. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
38. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
38. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
38. Google Pixel 6
137
38. Honor Magic Vs
137
38. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
44. Google Pixel 6a
135
44. OnePlus Open
135
44. Oppo Find N2
135
44. Xiaomi 14
135
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
48. Vivo X100 Pro
134
48. Xiaomi 13
134
51. Google Pixel Fold
133
51. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
51. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
51. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
51. Vivo X90 Pro
133
60. Google Pixel 7a
132
60. Vivo X Fold
132
60. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
63. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
63. Asus Zenfone 10
131
63. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
63. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
67. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
67. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
69. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
69. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
69. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
73. OnePlus 11
128
73. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
73. POCO F4 GT
128
73. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
73. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
73. Xiaomi 13T
128
73. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
81. Oppo Find X6
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
81. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
85. Apple iPhone 11
126
85. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
85. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
126
85. Xiaomi 12T
126
85. Xiaomi 11T
126
92. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
92. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
125
92. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
95. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
96. Google Pixel 7
123
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
98. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
98. Apple iPhone SE (2020)
122
98. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
98. Xiaomi 12
122
102. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
102. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
102. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
102. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
109. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
109. Huawei P50 Pro
119
109. OnePlus 9
119
109. OnePlus 8
119
109. POCO F5 Pro
119
109. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Gaming
119
109. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
116. Realme GT Neo 3
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
122. Asus Zenfone 8
117
122. Google Pixel 4
117
122. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
122. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
122. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
127. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
127. Motorola Edge+
116
127. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
127. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
127. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
134. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
134. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
115
134. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
134. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
138. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
138. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
140. Google Pixel 5
113
140. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
140. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
140. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
148. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
148. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
148. Realme GT 5G
112
148. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
152. Oppo A78 5G
111
152. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
154. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
155. Honor 70
109
155. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
155. Oppo Find X5
109
155. POCO X3 NFC
109
155. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
155. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
155. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
162. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
162. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
162. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
162. Realme X2 Pro
108
166. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
167. Honor 90
106
167. Nothing Phone(1)
106
167. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
167. Oppo A77 5G
106
171. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
171. Nothing Phone (2)
105
171. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
171. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
105
175. Honor V30 Pro
104
175. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
175. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
178. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
178. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
178. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
178. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
182. Huawei P40 Pro
102
182. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
182. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
185. Motorola Razr
101
186. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
97
186. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
188. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
188. Honor 20 Pro
96
188. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
188. Vivo X51 5G
96
192. LG G8 ThinQ
95
192. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
194. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
195. Fairphone 4
93
195. Sony Xperia 1
93
195. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
198. Fairphone 5
92
199. Vivo X60 Pro+
91
200. Nokia 7.2
87
201. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86
AUDIO
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
32nd
1. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
1. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
3. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
3. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
5. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
6. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
6. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
8. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
9. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
9. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
13. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
13. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
13. Huawei P60 Pro
141
16. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
19. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
22. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
22. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
22. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
22. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
26. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
26. Honor Magic Vs
137
26. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
26. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
30. OnePlus Open
135
30. Oppo Find N2
135
32. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
32. Vivo X100 Pro
134
34. Google Pixel Fold
133
34. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
34. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
34. Vivo X90 Pro
133
40. Vivo X Fold
132
40. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
42. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
42. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
42. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
45. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
45. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
47. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
47. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
47. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
47. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
51. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
51. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
53. Oppo Find X6
127
54. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
55. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
55. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
57. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
57. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
57. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
61. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
62. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
62. Huawei P50 Pro
119
62. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
67. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
67. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
69. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
69. Motorola Edge+
116
69. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
69. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
73. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
74. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
75. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
75. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
80. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
81. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
82. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
82. Oppo Find X5
109
82. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
85. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
86. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
87. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
88. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
88. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
90. Huawei P40 Pro
102
91. Motorola Razr
101
92. LG G8 ThinQ
95
93. Sony Xperia 1
93
94. Vivo X60 Pro+
91

Playback

Pros

  • Decent timbre at nominal volume
  • Good spatial performance

Cons

  • Timbre lacks bass support
  • Fairly unpleasant timbre at maximum volume
  • Distortion and clipping at maximum volume

Recording

Pros

  • Very good timbre in both urban and home scenarios, natural and accurate audio rendition
  • Pretty good distance rendition in most use cases
  • Pretty good wind noise reduction especially with main camera recordings, preserving intelligibility even in strong wind conditions

Cons

  • Slight upper treble and high-end extension deficiency, particularly noticeable in urban scenarios, affecting overall clarity and brightness
  • Limited wideness with selfie camera
  • No audio zoom feature

With a DXOMARK Audio score of 134, the Vivo X100 Pro delivered a fairly average performance in our tests. Distortion was noticeable when playing back audio at high volume, but our audio experts liked the solid timbre rendition in playback at nominal volume, despite a lack of low-end extension. Recording performance was very consistent overall, and timbre delivered from the microphones was deemed particularly pleasant and natural. Thanks to effective wind noise reduction the X100 Pro did very well when recording in windy conditions, but the Vivo is one of few Ultra-Premium phones not to offer an audio zoom feature. 

In the playback tests, the X100 Pro performed best for gaming, but the results were close when listening to music or watching movies. Recording scores were highest when using the memo app. Selfie video was almost on the same level, but main camera video and meeting room recordings dropped a little lower.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions.
(For more details about our Playback protocol, click here; for more details about our Recording protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Playback

135

Vivo X100 Pro

163

Black Shark 5 Pro
i
How Audio Playback score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test playback through the smartphone speakers, whose performance is evaluated in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio playback

In our tests, the Vivo X100 Pro delivered an overall decent timbre, with very good high-end extension, and decent midrange but only average bass. Dynamics performance was good, thanks to decent attack as well as good bass precision and punch. The built-in speakers offered a good sense of wideness across all use cases. Thanks to the wide stereo scene, individual sound sources were easy to pinpoint as well. Both distance and depth rendition were fairly accurate.

Our testers found the minimum volume setting to be slightly too quiet, which made it hard to hear low-volume passages in highly dynamic content, such as classical music. Maximum volume was pretty good, but the volume step distribution from minimum to maximum could have been more consistent. In terms of playback artifacts, the Vivo delivered an average performance. At nominal volume, it appeared to be free of artifacts. However, at maximum volume, our testers noticed high levels of distortion when gaming, watching movies, or playing music. When gaming, it was quite easy to accidentally cover the right speaker. This said, the effect on sound quality was pretty negligible.

Listen to the tested smartphone’s playback performance in this comparison with some of its competitors:

Vivo X100 Pro
Xiaomi 13T
Google Pixel 8
Recordings of the smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment by 2 microphones in A-B configuration, at 30 cm
Here is how the Vivo X100 Pro performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback use-cases scores

Timbre

130

Vivo X100 Pro

158

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency. It is the most important attribute for playback.

Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the smartphone when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

130

Vivo X100 Pro

149

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a bass note is reproduced or the impact sound from drums.


Spatial

151

Vivo X100 Pro

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness.


Volume

126

Vivo X100 Pro

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents the overall loudness of a smartphone and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:
Hip-Hop Classical
Vivo X100 Pro 76.1 dBA 72.8 dBA
Xiaomi 13T 74.2 dBA 70.4 dBA
Google Pixel 8 74.8 dBA 70.1 dBA
The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume steps correspond to users’ expectations:
Music volume consistency
This line graph shows the relative loudness of playback relative to the user selected volume step, measured at different volume steps with a correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded in axis at 0.20 meter.

Artifacts

101

Vivo X100 Pro

157

Asus ROG Phone 5
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortion can occur because of sound processing in the device and because of the quality of the speakers.

Playback Total Harmonic Distortion (Maximum Volume)
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device's maximum volume.

Recording

133

Vivo X100 Pro

160

Honor Magic6 Pro
i
How Audio Recording score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test recording by evaluating the recorded files on reference audio equipment. Those recordings are done in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio recording

In the recording tests, the X100 Pro offered a satisfying tonal balance in urban environments, with a natural and pleasant midrange. Whether in urban or home scenarios, the timbre did however seem to lack some clarity and brightness. When recording loud events, such as concerts, tonal balance remained good, but our experts noticed a upper treble. Consistency of the tonal balance was good across all test use cases, regardless of the app or camera used. The device offered an efficient signal-to-noise ratio in most test scenarios, and concert recordings highlighted sharp attacks and accurate envelope.

The recorded sound scene was pretty wide with the main camera but noticeably reduced when recording a selfie video, like many smartphones. Distance rendition was good across all use cases. In our real-life tests recordings were perceived as nice and loud with the main camera and memo apps, but slightly quieter with the front camera. This said, our lab measurements showed a slightly weaker loudness performance. On the plus side, the Vivo was particularly resilient to high sound pressure levels, as they can occur at loud events, such as concerts. Unwanted artifacts were controlled well in recording, with only some slight clipping on shouting voices and very subtle compression on recordings at high sound pressure levels. Background was quite natural, thanks notably to a balanced midrange. A little more presence in the upper spectrum would have been nice, though.

Here is how the Vivo X100 Pro performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

Recording use-cases scores

Timbre

120

Vivo X100 Pro

147

Honor Magic3 Pro+
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for recording.

Life video frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

125

Vivo X100 Pro

146

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a voice's plosives (the p's, t's and k's, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


Spatial

112

Vivo X100 Pro

159

Vivo X Fold
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness on the recorded audio files.

Recording directivity
Directivity graph of the smartphone when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device.)

Volume

124

Vivo X100 Pro

170

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents how loud audio is normalized on the recorded files and the how the device handles loud environments, such as electronic concerts, when recording.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:
Meeting Life Video Selfie Video Memo
Vivo X100 Pro -26 LUFS -23.6 LUFS -21.5 LUFS -24.5 LUFS
Xiaomi 13T -28.7 LUFS -20.9 LUFS -19.3 LUFS -22.8 LUFS
Google Pixel 8 -26.1 LUFS -20.8 LUFS -18.9 LUFS -19.9 LUFS

Artifacts

139

Vivo X100 Pro

145

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortions can occur because of sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as how the phone is held.

In this audio comparison, you can listen to the way this smartphone handles wind noise relative to its competitors:

Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background

130

Vivo X100 Pro

166

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

Background evaluates how natural the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, yet it should provide some context of the surroundings.

The post Vivo X100 Pro Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-x100-pro-audio-test/feed/ 0 Vivo X100 Pro AUDIO AUDIO Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/huawei-mate-60-pro-plus-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/huawei-mate-60-pro-plus-audio-test/#respond Mon, 08 Jan 2024 12:36:42 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=163830 We put the Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview [...]

The post Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers.
In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview


Key audio specifications include:

  • Two speakers (Bottom right, top left)
  • No jack audio output

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
audio
134
Playback
Timbre
129

158

Dynamics
128

149

Spatial
147

162

Volume
127

162

Artifacts
71

157

148
Recording
Timbre
136

147

Dynamics
131

146

Spatial
144

159

Volume
132

170

Artifacts
145

Best

Background
149

166

AUDIO
Position in Global Ranking
32nd
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
4. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
5. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
5. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
5. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
9. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
10. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
11. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
11. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
13. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
14. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
14. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
18. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 15
141
18. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 14
141
18. Huawei P60 Pro
141
23. Apple iPhone 12
140
23. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
23. Google Pixel 8
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
28. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
28. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
32. Apple iPhone 13
138
32. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
32. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
32. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
32. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
32. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
38. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
38. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
38. Google Pixel 6
137
38. Honor Magic Vs
137
38. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
44. Google Pixel 6a
135
44. OnePlus Open
135
44. Oppo Find N2
135
44. Xiaomi 14
135
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
48. Vivo X100 Pro
134
48. Xiaomi 13
134
51. Google Pixel Fold
133
51. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
51. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
51. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
51. Vivo X90 Pro
133
60. Google Pixel 7a
132
60. Vivo X Fold
132
60. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
63. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
63. Asus Zenfone 10
131
63. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
63. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
67. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
67. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
69. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
69. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
69. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
73. OnePlus 11
128
73. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
73. POCO F4 GT
128
73. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
73. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
73. Xiaomi 13T
128
73. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
81. Oppo Find X6
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
81. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
85. Apple iPhone 11
126
85. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
85. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
126
85. Xiaomi 12T
126
85. Xiaomi 11T
126
92. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
92. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
125
92. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
95. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
96. Google Pixel 7
123
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
98. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
98. Apple iPhone SE (2020)
122
98. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
98. Xiaomi 12
122
102. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
102. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
102. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
102. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
109. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
109. Huawei P50 Pro
119
109. OnePlus 9
119
109. OnePlus 8
119
109. POCO F5 Pro
119
109. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Gaming
119
109. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
116. Realme GT Neo 3
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
122. Asus Zenfone 8
117
122. Google Pixel 4
117
122. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
122. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
122. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
127. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
127. Motorola Edge+
116
127. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
127. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
127. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
134. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
134. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
115
134. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
134. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
138. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
138. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
140. Google Pixel 5
113
140. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
140. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
140. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
148. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
148. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
148. Realme GT 5G
112
148. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
152. Oppo A78 5G
111
152. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
154. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
155. Honor 70
109
155. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
155. Oppo Find X5
109
155. POCO X3 NFC
109
155. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
155. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
155. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
162. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
162. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
162. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
162. Realme X2 Pro
108
166. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
167. Honor 90
106
167. Nothing Phone(1)
106
167. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
167. Oppo A77 5G
106
171. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
171. Nothing Phone (2)
105
171. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
171. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
105
175. Honor V30 Pro
104
175. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
175. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
178. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
178. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
178. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
178. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
182. Huawei P40 Pro
102
182. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
182. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
185. Motorola Razr
101
186. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
97
186. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
188. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
188. Honor 20 Pro
96
188. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
188. Vivo X51 5G
96
192. LG G8 ThinQ
95
192. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
194. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
195. Fairphone 4
93
195. Sony Xperia 1
93
195. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
198. Fairphone 5
92
199. Vivo X60 Pro+
91
200. Nokia 7.2
87
201. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86
AUDIO
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
22nd
1. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
1. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
3. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
3. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
5. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
6. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
6. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
8. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
9. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
9. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
13. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
13. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
13. Huawei P60 Pro
141
16. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
19. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
22. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
22. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
22. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
22. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
26. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
26. Honor Magic Vs
137
26. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
26. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
30. OnePlus Open
135
30. Oppo Find N2
135
32. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
32. Vivo X100 Pro
134
34. Google Pixel Fold
133
34. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
34. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
34. Vivo X90 Pro
133
40. Vivo X Fold
132
40. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
42. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
42. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
42. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
45. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
45. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
47. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
47. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
47. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
47. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
51. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
51. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
53. Oppo Find X6
127
54. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
55. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
55. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
57. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
57. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
57. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
61. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
62. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
62. Huawei P50 Pro
119
62. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
67. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
67. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
69. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
69. Motorola Edge+
116
69. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
69. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
73. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
74. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
75. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
75. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
80. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
81. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
82. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
82. Oppo Find X5
109
82. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
85. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
86. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
87. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
88. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
88. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
90. Huawei P40 Pro
102
91. Motorola Razr
101
92. LG G8 ThinQ
95
93. Sony Xperia 1
93
94. Vivo X60 Pro+
91

Playback

Pros

  • Vivid timbre, pleasant with most audio contents
  • Quite punchy

Cons

  • Strong lack of consistency, too much emphasis on digital processing
  • Poor artifacts performance

Recording

Pros

  • Excellent audio zoom feature
  • Great wind noise performance
  • Very good tonal balance, especially when using the selfie camera

Cons

  • Concert recordings impaired by boomy bass and inconsistent midrange
  • Pretty strong compression when recording concerts

With an overall DXOMARK Audio score of 138, the Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ delivered a very decent performance even though it was outranked by other devices in the Ultra Premium segment. In our tests, we found both playback and recording to be strongly impacted by digital signal processing (DSP), which brought some positives, such as very effective audio zoom and wind-noise reduction as well as a good signal-to-noise ratio, but the DSP also caused some issues, including compression, an exaggerated fake bass, and other artifacts. Overall, the device offered a very pleasant timbre in both playback and recording, but it would definitely benefit from more consistent processing.

Playback performance in terms of timbre was best when watching movies, followed by gaming and then music. Results tended to vary greatly based on the tonal contents. In recording, the Huawei’s timbre and envelope were best with the main camera, when compared to the selfie and memo use cases. Spatial performance, however, showed some disparity in the results, with a narrow sound scene while in selfie video, but a good sense of directivity while using the memo app.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions.
(For more details about our Playback protocol, click here; for more details about our Recording protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Playback

134

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

163

Black Shark 5 Pro
i
How Audio Playback score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test playback through the smartphone speakers, whose performance is evaluated in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio playback

In our tests, the Mate 60 Pro+ provided an overall pleasant timbre that was colorful and vivid. This said, the device appeared to apply a lot of digital signal processing (DSP), which resulted in a lack of consistency between use cases and different types of audio content. The ratio between treble, midrange, and bass was generally good, but bass rendition was particularly impacted by DSP, resulting in an unnatural feel and boxy sound. While midrange sounded warm and quite pleasant, treble was again quite impacted by DSP. It was very brilliant and could sound resonant.

The DSP had a particularly detrimental impact on dynamics, resulting in lower results than for some of the Mate’s competitors in this category. While attack was average, bass precision left room for improvement, especially when listening to music. Punch was consistently good across all test use cases. The device provided good stereo wideness, but localizability of individual sound sources was slightly hazy, again due to DSP behavior. While distance rendition was satisfying, depth rendition was less good, with little to no perceived separation between different instruments.

Loudness was good at maximum volume and tuned nicely at the mínimum volume setting. Volume step distribution was pretty consistent as well. While our testers did not notice any particularly strong artifacts, the sum of issues resulted in a below-average score for this category. Volume could fluctuate and at times some compression became noticeable. Resonances were problematic at nominal and soft volumes, and when gaming, a natural hand position could easily occlude the right speaker, completely muting it.

Listen to the tested smartphone’s playback performance in this comparison with some of its competitors:

Huawei Mate 60 Pro +
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
Huawei P60 Pro
Recordings of the smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment by 2 microphones in A-B configuration, at 30 cm
Here is how the Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback use-cases scores

Timbre

129

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

158

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency. It is the most important attribute for playback.

Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the smartphone when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

128

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

149

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a bass note is reproduced or the impact sound from drums.


Spatial

147

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness.


Volume

127

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents the overall loudness of a smartphone and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:
Hip-Hop Classical
Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ 74.9 dBA 71.5 dBA
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max 75.1 dBA 72.3 dBA
Huawei P60 Pro 71.9 dBA 69.4 dBA
The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume steps correspond to users’ expectations:
Music volume consistency
This line graph shows the relative loudness of playback relative to the user selected volume step, measured at different volume steps with a correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded in axis at 0.20 meter.

Artifacts

71

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

157

Asus ROG Phone 5
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortion can occur because of sound processing in the device and because of the quality of the speakers.

Playback Total Harmonic Distortion (Maximum Volume)
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device's maximum volume.

Recording

148

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

160

Honor Magic6 Pro
i
How Audio Recording score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test recording by evaluating the recorded files on reference audio equipment. Those recordings are done in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio recording

Recording timbre was quite natural with the main camera, and treble was clear enough. Midrange slightly lacked high-mid clarity, but body remained natural. The tonal balance was very good when using the selfie camera, with natural midrange and treble that was slightly brighter than on the main camera. Treble was also good when recording with the memo app. The signal-to-noise ratio was very good with both main and selfie cameras, background noises could have been more attenuated with the memo app, especially in urban scenarios. Still, the envelope was sharp enough to allow for perfect intelligibility of voices.

The wideness of the recorded sound scene was very good with the main camera and recorder apps, but much more limited when recording selfie videos. Localizability was precise across all apps and cameras. Distance rendition was accurate as well, especially with the selfie camera. Recordings were loud enough when using the main and selfie cameras, but slightly weaker with the memo app. Our testers found recording artifacts to be well under control but strong compression was noticeable when recording at high sound pressure levels, for example at concerts. The device’s microphones were also quite sensitive to occlusions. Background rendition was consistently great and free of artifacts. But our testers found it to sound slightly boomy in urban conditions.

Here is how the Huawei Mate 60 Pro + performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

Recording use-cases scores

Timbre

136

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

147

Honor Magic3 Pro+
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for recording.

Life video frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

131

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

146

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a voice's plosives (the p's, t's and k's, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


Spatial

144

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

159

Vivo X Fold
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness on the recorded audio files.

Recording directivity
Directivity graph of the smartphone when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device.)

Volume

132

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

170

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents how loud audio is normalized on the recorded files and the how the device handles loud environments, such as electronic concerts, when recording.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:
Meeting Life Video Selfie Video Memo
Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ -25.4 LUFS -20.2 LUFS -18.9 LUFS -21.4 LUFS
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max -24.9 LUFS -22.1 LUFS -20.5 LUFS -19.2 LUFS
Huawei P60 Pro -24.5 LUFS -19.4 LUFS -18.9 LUFS -20.2 LUFS

Artifacts

145

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

Best

i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortions can occur because of sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as how the phone is held.

In this audio comparison, you can listen to the way this smartphone handles wind noise relative to its competitors:

Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background

149

Huawei Mate 60 Pro+

166

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

Background evaluates how natural the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, yet it should provide some context of the surroundings.

The post Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/huawei-mate-60-pro-plus-audio-test/feed/ 0 Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ Best AUDIO AUDIO Best Samsung Galaxy S23 FE Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-fe-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-fe-audio-test/#respond Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:45:55 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=163651 We put the Samsung Galaxy S23 FE through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview [...]

The post Samsung Galaxy S23 FE Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Samsung Galaxy S23 FE through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers.
In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key audio specifications include:

  • Two speakers (Bottom right, top center)
  • No jack audio output

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
audio
137
Playback
Timbre
127

158

Dynamics
132

149

Spatial
150

162

Volume
135

162

Artifacts
105

157

139
Recording
Timbre
128

147

Dynamics
125

146

Spatial
103

159

Volume
139

170

Artifacts
143

145

Background
147

166

AUDIO
Position in Global Ranking
32nd
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
4. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
5. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
5. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
5. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
9. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
10. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
11. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
11. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
13. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
14. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
14. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
18. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 15
141
18. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 14
141
18. Huawei P60 Pro
141
23. Apple iPhone 12
140
23. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
23. Google Pixel 8
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
28. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
28. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
32. Apple iPhone 13
138
32. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
32. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
32. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
32. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
32. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
38. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
38. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
38. Google Pixel 6
137
38. Honor Magic Vs
137
38. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
44. Google Pixel 6a
135
44. OnePlus Open
135
44. Oppo Find N2
135
44. Xiaomi 14
135
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
48. Vivo X100 Pro
134
48. Xiaomi 13
134
51. Google Pixel Fold
133
51. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
51. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
51. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
51. Vivo X90 Pro
133
60. Google Pixel 7a
132
60. Vivo X Fold
132
60. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
63. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
63. Asus Zenfone 10
131
63. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
63. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
67. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
67. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
69. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
69. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
69. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
73. OnePlus 11
128
73. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
73. POCO F4 GT
128
73. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
73. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
73. Xiaomi 13T
128
73. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
81. Oppo Find X6
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
81. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
85. Apple iPhone 11
126
85. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
85. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
126
85. Xiaomi 12T
126
85. Xiaomi 11T
126
92. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
92. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
125
92. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
95. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
96. Google Pixel 7
123
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
98. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
98. Apple iPhone SE (2020)
122
98. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
98. Xiaomi 12
122
102. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
102. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
102. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
102. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
109. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
109. Huawei P50 Pro
119
109. OnePlus 9
119
109. OnePlus 8
119
109. POCO F5 Pro
119
109. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Gaming
119
109. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
116. Realme GT Neo 3
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
122. Asus Zenfone 8
117
122. Google Pixel 4
117
122. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
122. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
122. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
127. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
127. Motorola Edge+
116
127. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
127. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
127. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
134. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
134. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
115
134. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
134. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
138. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
138. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
140. Google Pixel 5
113
140. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
140. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
140. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
148. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
148. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
148. Realme GT 5G
112
148. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
152. Oppo A78 5G
111
152. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
154. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
155. Honor 70
109
155. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
155. Oppo Find X5
109
155. POCO X3 NFC
109
155. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
155. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
155. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
162. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
162. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
162. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
162. Realme X2 Pro
108
166. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
167. Honor 90
106
167. Nothing Phone(1)
106
167. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
167. Oppo A77 5G
106
171. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
171. Nothing Phone (2)
105
171. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
171. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
105
175. Honor V30 Pro
104
175. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
175. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
178. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
178. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
178. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
178. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
182. Huawei P40 Pro
102
182. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
182. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
185. Motorola Razr
101
186. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
97
186. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
188. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
188. Honor 20 Pro
96
188. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
188. Vivo X51 5G
96
192. LG G8 ThinQ
95
192. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
194. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
195. Fairphone 4
93
195. Sony Xperia 1
93
195. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
198. Fairphone 5
92
199. Vivo X60 Pro+
91
200. Nokia 7.2
87
201. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86
AUDIO
Position in High-End Ranking
2nd
1. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
2. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
3. Google Pixel 6
137
4. Google Pixel 6a
135
5. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
6. Google Pixel 7a
132
7. POCO F4 GT
128
7. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
7. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
10. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
10. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
12. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
12. Xiaomi 12T
126
12. Xiaomi 11T
126
15. Google Pixel 7
123
16. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
17. POCO F5 Pro
119
18. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
18. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
20. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
21. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
21. Realme GT 5G
112
21. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
24. Honor 70
109
25. Honor 90
106
25. Nothing Phone(1)
106
25. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
28. Nothing Phone (2)
105
29. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
30. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
31. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
32. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
32. Honor 20 Pro
96
32. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
35. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
36. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
37. Fairphone 4
93

Playback

Pros

  • Excellent dynamics performance
  • Natural sounding timbre, clear yet warm, pleasant

Cons

  • Range of artifacts
  • Lack of high- and low-end extension

Recording

Pros

  • Very good wideness when recording with the main camera
  • Recordings mostly free of artifacts

Cons

  • No audio zoom feature
  • Underwhelming wind noise performance
  • Mono recordings when using the memo app

With an overall score of 138, the Samsung Galaxy S23 FE delivered a very decent performance for its device class in the DXOMARK Audio test, offering a very natural sound experience when playing back audio through the built-in speakers and recording alike. On the downside, the device lacks useful features that you can find on some competitors, such as audio zoom or wind noise reduction, and recordings made with the recorder app are in mono only.

In playback, the test results were consistently high across all use cases — listening to music, watching movies and gaming. In recording, the Samsung did best when shooting with the selfie camera. Main camera recordings’ results were only slightly lower, but performance dropped off for office and memo applications, mainly due to the monophonic recording.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions.
(For more details about our Playback protocol, click here; for more details about our Recording protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Playback

137

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

163

Black Shark 5 Pro
i
How Audio Playback score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test playback through the smartphone speakers, whose performance is evaluated in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio playback

In playback, the S23 FE’s timbre was clear and natural, with treble that did not sound very bright but had nice presence. Midrange was pleasant and devoid of resonances and bass rendition was pretty good, too, with nice upper bass presence. Overall, timbre results were good across all test use cases and apps. Dynamics results were very good, thanks to sharp and snappy attack at nominal volume, very satisfying bass precision and very good punch. The built-in speakers provided good stereo wideness and made it easy to pinpoint individual elements in the sound scene. Depth rendition was quite satisfying, providing good separation between different sound elements but distance rendition was only average, some content being perceived too far in the distance.

Perceived loudness at maximum volume was good, and the tuning of the minimum volume level was excellent as well, letting you hear quiet passages in dynamic content, such as classical music, without being too loud. In addition, volume steps were distributed quite consistently across the scale. In terms of unwanted audio artifacts, some subtle distortion could be heard at maximum volume, as well as a moderate amount of dynamic compression at nominal and maximum volume. There was no pumping, though.

Listen to the tested smartphone’s playback performance in this comparison with some of its competitors:

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
Xiaomi 13T
Nubia Redmagic 8 Pro
Recordings of the smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment by 2 microphones in A-B configuration, at 30 cm
Here is how the Samsung Galaxy S23 FE performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback use-cases scores

Timbre

127

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

158

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency. It is the most important attribute for playback.

Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the smartphone when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

132

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

149

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a bass note is reproduced or the impact sound from drums.


Spatial

150

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness.


Volume

135

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents the overall loudness of a smartphone and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:
Hip-Hop Classical
Samsung Galaxy S23 FE 74.1 dBA 70.9 dBA
Xiaomi 13T 74.2 dBA 70.4 dBA
Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro 77 dBA 76.6 dBA
The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume steps correspond to users’ expectations:
Music volume consistency
This line graph shows the relative loudness of playback relative to the user selected volume step, measured at different volume steps with a correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded in axis at 0.20 meter.

Artifacts

105

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

157

Asus ROG Phone 5
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortion can occur because of sound processing in the device and because of the quality of the speakers.

Playback Total Harmonic Distortion (Maximum Volume)
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device's maximum volume.

Recording

139

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

160

Honor Magic6 Pro
i
How Audio Recording score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test recording by evaluating the recorded files on reference audio equipment. Those recordings are done in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio recording

Recording timbre was good overall. When recording with the main camera, treble was clear but slightly lacked brightness. Midrange was natural and provided pleasant warmth. Tonal balance was also good with the selfie camera, but the timbre was quite dark and resonant when recording voices with the memo app. Signal-to-noise ratio was good with the main and selfie cameras, but the background could have been more attenuated when using the memo app, especially in urban scenarios. Recordings offered a wide sound scene with the main camera, but wideness was noticeably more limited with the front camera. The memo app only records in mono by default.

Localizability of individual instruments or other sound elements was consistently precise with both the main and selfie cameras, but much less so in recordings made with the memo app. Distance rendition was overall very good, but voices were perceived slightly too distant with the recorder app. Recording volume was loud enough with both cameras but slightly lower with the memo app. On the plus side, our testers found the microphones to be dealing very well with high sound pressure levels as you find them when recording concerts or other loud events. Recordings were mostly free of artifacts, except for some slight clipping on sudden loud voices. However, the device was quite prone to microphone occlusions, which can strongly muffle the timbre or result in loud finger noises in the recordings. Our testers found the background rendition to be consistently great and natural, without any artifacts.

Here is how the Samsung Galaxy S23 FE performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

Recording use-cases scores

Timbre

128

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

147

Honor Magic3 Pro+
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for recording.

Life video frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

125

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

146

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a voice's plosives (the p's, t's and k's, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


Spatial

103

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

159

Vivo X Fold
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness on the recorded audio files.

Recording directivity
Directivity graph of the smartphone when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device.)

Volume

139

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

170

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents how loud audio is normalized on the recorded files and the how the device handles loud environments, such as electronic concerts, when recording.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:
Meeting Life Video Selfie Video Memo
Samsung Galaxy S23 FE -24.2 LUFS -21.1 LUFS -19.6 LUFS -20.7 LUFS
Xiaomi 13T -28.7 LUFS -20.9 LUFS -19.3 LUFS -22.8 LUFS
Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro -33.5 LUFS -24.4 LUFS -19.2 LUFS -28.4 LUFS

Artifacts

143

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

145

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortions can occur because of sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as how the phone is held.

In this audio comparison, you can listen to the way this smartphone handles wind noise relative to its competitors:

Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background

147

Samsung Galaxy S23 FE

166

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

Background evaluates how natural the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, yet it should provide some context of the surroundings.

The post Samsung Galaxy S23 FE Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-fe-audio-test/feed/ 0 Samsung Galaxy S23 FE AUDIO AUDIO OnePlus Open Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/oneplus-open-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/oneplus-open-audio-test/#respond Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:56:02 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=162643 We put the OnePlus Open through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key audio [...]

The post OnePlus Open Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the OnePlus Open through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers.
In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview


Key audio specifications include:

  • Three speakers (Top left, top right, bottom right, when unfolded)
  • No jack audio output

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

OnePlus Open
OnePlus Open
135
audio
131
Playback
Timbre
127

158

Dynamics
127

149

Spatial
148

162

Volume
124

162

Artifacts
121

157

143
Recording
Timbre
134

147

Dynamics
127

146

Spatial
132

159

Volume
113

170

Artifacts
145

Best

Background
152

166

AUDIO
Position in Global Ranking
44th
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
4. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
5. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
5. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
5. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
9. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
10. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
11. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
11. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
13. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
14. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
14. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
18. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 15
141
18. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 14
141
18. Huawei P60 Pro
141
23. Apple iPhone 12
140
23. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
23. Google Pixel 8
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
28. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
28. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
32. Apple iPhone 13
138
32. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
32. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
32. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
32. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
32. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
38. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
38. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
38. Google Pixel 6
137
38. Honor Magic Vs
137
38. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
44. Google Pixel 6a
135
44. OnePlus Open
135
44. Oppo Find N2
135
44. Xiaomi 14
135
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
48. Vivo X100 Pro
134
48. Xiaomi 13
134
51. Google Pixel Fold
133
51. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
51. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
51. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
51. Vivo X90 Pro
133
60. Google Pixel 7a
132
60. Vivo X Fold
132
60. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
63. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
63. Asus Zenfone 10
131
63. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
63. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
67. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
67. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
69. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
69. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
69. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
73. OnePlus 11
128
73. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
73. POCO F4 GT
128
73. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
73. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
73. Xiaomi 13T
128
73. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
81. Oppo Find X6
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
81. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
85. Apple iPhone 11
126
85. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
85. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
126
85. Xiaomi 12T
126
85. Xiaomi 11T
126
92. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
92. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
125
92. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
95. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
96. Google Pixel 7
123
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
98. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
98. Apple iPhone SE (2020)
122
98. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
98. Xiaomi 12
122
102. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
102. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
102. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
102. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
109. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
109. Huawei P50 Pro
119
109. OnePlus 9
119
109. OnePlus 8
119
109. POCO F5 Pro
119
109. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Gaming
119
109. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
116. Realme GT Neo 3
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
122. Asus Zenfone 8
117
122. Google Pixel 4
117
122. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
122. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
122. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
127. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
127. Motorola Edge+
116
127. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
127. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
127. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
134. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
134. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
115
134. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
134. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
138. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
138. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
140. Google Pixel 5
113
140. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
140. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
140. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
148. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
148. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
148. Realme GT 5G
112
148. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
152. Oppo A78 5G
111
152. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
154. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
155. Honor 70
109
155. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
155. Oppo Find X5
109
155. POCO X3 NFC
109
155. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
155. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
155. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
162. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
162. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
162. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
162. Realme X2 Pro
108
166. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
167. Honor 90
106
167. Nothing Phone(1)
106
167. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
167. Oppo A77 5G
106
171. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
171. Nothing Phone (2)
105
171. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
171. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
105
175. Honor V30 Pro
104
175. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
175. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
178. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
178. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
178. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
178. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
182. Huawei P40 Pro
102
182. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
182. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
185. Motorola Razr
101
186. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
97
186. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
188. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
188. Honor 20 Pro
96
188. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
188. Vivo X51 5G
96
192. LG G8 ThinQ
95
192. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
194. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
195. Fairphone 4
93
195. Sony Xperia 1
93
195. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
198. Fairphone 5
92
199. Vivo X60 Pro+
91
200. Nokia 7.2
87
201. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86
AUDIO
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
30th
1. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
1. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
3. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
3. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
5. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
6. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
6. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
8. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
9. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
9. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
13. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
13. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
13. Huawei P60 Pro
141
16. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
19. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
22. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
22. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
22. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
22. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
26. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
26. Honor Magic Vs
137
26. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
26. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
30. OnePlus Open
135
30. Oppo Find N2
135
32. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
32. Vivo X100 Pro
134
34. Google Pixel Fold
133
34. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
34. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
34. Vivo X90 Pro
133
40. Vivo X Fold
132
40. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
42. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
42. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
42. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
45. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
45. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
47. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
47. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
47. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
47. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
51. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
51. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
53. Oppo Find X6
127
54. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
55. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
55. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
57. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
57. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
57. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
61. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
62. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
62. Huawei P50 Pro
119
62. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
67. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
67. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
69. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
69. Motorola Edge+
116
69. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
69. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
73. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
74. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
75. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
75. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
80. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
81. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
82. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
82. Oppo Find X5
109
82. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
85. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
86. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
87. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
88. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
88. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
90. Huawei P40 Pro
102
91. Motorola Razr
101
92. LG G8 ThinQ
95
93. Sony Xperia 1
93
94. Vivo X60 Pro+
91

Playback

Pros

  • Very pleasant, warm timbre
  • Stereophony in portrait orientation (when unfolded)
  • Excellent artifacts performance

Cons

  • Very limited upper treble and high-end extension
  • Minimum volume too quiet
  • Dynamics performance is hindered by compression
  • Aside from portrait stereophony, unremarkable spatial performance

Recording

Pros

  • Good tonal balance, consistent across all use cases
  • Good signal-to-noise ratio
  • Good spatial performance
  • Great audio zoom performance

Cons

  • Midrange can lack clarity, treble lacks high-end extension
  • Struggles at high sound pressure levels

With an overall score of 135, the OnePlus Open delivered a good performance in the DXOMARK Audio tests. Thanks to an additional speaker, it is one of very few foldable phones that offer stereo rendition in portrait orientation while unfolded, making better use of its design and large dimensions and providing better immersivity than most competitors.

In our tests, the OnePlus was consistently good across all use cases, thanks to a very pleasant timbre in both playback and recording. Our testers liked the device’s effective audio zoom feature, but also noticed some flaws such as a lack of high-end extension, a sometimes overzealous dynamics processing and compression in both playback and recording. According to the measurements, neither the built-in speakers nor the microphones offer a full frequency range, which is unusual for a device in this class. However, this did not prevent the OnePlus from delivering a satisfying timbre, and a solid performance in our tests.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions.
(For more details about our Playback protocol, click here; for more details about our Recording protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Playback

131

OnePlus Open

163

Black Shark 5 Pro
i
How Audio Playback score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test playback through the smartphone speakers, whose performance is evaluated in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio playback

In playback, the OnePlus Open offered a pleasant timbre with a homogenous tonal balance. Midrange was especially warm and satisfying, but a lack of upper treble resulted in a certain dullness when listening to music. Bass sounded pretty strong and round, but it lacked low-end extension. The dynamics performance was overall decent, but notably hindered by compression at high volume. Attack sounded sharp and precise when listening to music or watching movies, but appeared slightly weak when gaming. Its rendition was also less satisfying at soft and maximum volumes. As for bass rendition, it offered good sustain, but envelope accuracy was impaired by compression, which also had a negative impact on punch.

Thanks to a third speaker on the top left of the device, the OnePlus Open is one of the rare, few foldables that offer stereophony in portrait orientation in addition to landscape. However, the spatial performance still left some room for improvement. To start with, in our tests, the third speaker was very quiet, which meant that neither balance nor wideness were actually good in portrait orientation, despite the stereophony. The results in landscape orientation were not particularly impressive either. The stereo image was not too wide, and while localizability was correct, it was not always easy to pinpoint individual sound sources. Distance rendition was pretty good, but voices could sound slightly more distant than expected.

Volume step distribution was quite consistent and the maximum volume setting was fairly loud, but our experts found the minimum volume step to be extremely quiet and therefore hardly usable. The artifacts performance was very good, however, with only some compression noticeable at both nominal and maximum volume, which was generally not problematic for the listening experience. In addition, the device’s built-in speakers were pretty much impossible to occlude.

Listen to the tested smartphone’s playback performance in this comparison with some of its competitors:

OnePlus Open
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
Recordings of the smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment by 2 microphones in A-B configuration, at 30 cm
Here is how the OnePlus Open performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback use-cases scores

Timbre

127

OnePlus Open

158

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency. It is the most important attribute for playback.

Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the smartphone when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

127

OnePlus Open

149

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a bass note is reproduced or the impact sound from drums.


Spatial

148

OnePlus Open

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness.


Volume

124

OnePlus Open

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents the overall loudness of a smartphone and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:
Hip-Hop Classical
OnePlus Open 75 dBA 73.5 dBA
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 72.8 dBA 69.4 dBA
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max 75.1 dBA 72.3 dBA
The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume steps correspond to users’ expectations:
Music volume consistency
This line graph shows the relative loudness of playback relative to the user selected volume step, measured at different volume steps with a correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded in axis at 0.20 meter.

Artifacts

121

OnePlus Open

157

Asus ROG Phone 5
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortion can occur because of sound processing in the device and because of the quality of the speakers.

Playback Total Harmonic Distortion (Maximum Volume)
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device's maximum volume.

Recording

143

OnePlus Open

160

Honor Magic6 Pro
i
How Audio Recording score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test recording by evaluating the recorded files on reference audio equipment. Those recordings are done in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio recording

When used as a recording device, the OnePlus delivered a good tonal balance across all use cases. With the main and front cameras, treble was correct but would have benefited from some additional high-end extension. It appeared clearer with the memo app. Midrange was satisfying and natural in all use cases, and while bass rendition was good, it lacked low-end extension and depth. Thanks to a very effective noise-reduction algorithm, the signal-to-noise ratio was good when recording with the main and front cameras. Attack was generally sharp and precise, but at high sound pressure levels, such as when recording loud concerts, compression resulted in a lack of sharpness.

Wideness of the sound scene and localizability of individual sound sources were very good when recording with the main camera. With the front camera, wideness was more restricted, but localizability remained good. In addition, distance rendition was realistic across all recording apps. Recording loudness was adequate with the main and front cameras, but slightly weaker with the memo app. Recordings made with the OnePlus were mostly free of artifacts, except for some compression at high sound pressure levels, mostly. Background rendition was excellent too, and free of noticeable artifacts.

Here is how the OnePlus Open performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

Recording use-cases scores

Timbre

134

OnePlus Open

147

Honor Magic3 Pro+
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for recording.

Life video frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

127

OnePlus Open

146

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a voice's plosives (the p's, t's and k's, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


Spatial

132

OnePlus Open

159

Vivo X Fold
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness on the recorded audio files.

Recording directivity
Directivity graph of the smartphone when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device.)

Volume

113

OnePlus Open

170

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents how loud audio is normalized on the recorded files and the how the device handles loud environments, such as electronic concerts, when recording.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:
Meeting Life Video Selfie Video Memo
OnePlus Open -26.8 LUFS -21 LUFS -19.2 LUFS -19.1 LUFS
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 -25.8 LUFS -22.1 LUFS -21 LUFS -21.1 LUFS
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max -24.9 LUFS -22.1 LUFS -20.5 LUFS -19.2 LUFS

Artifacts

145

OnePlus Open

Best

i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortions can occur because of sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as how the phone is held.

In this audio comparison, you can listen to the way this smartphone handles wind noise relative to its competitors:

Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background

152

OnePlus Open

166

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

Background evaluates how natural the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, yet it should provide some context of the surroundings.

The post OnePlus Open Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/oneplus-open-audio-test/feed/ 0 OnePlus Open Best AUDIO AUDIO Best Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-mix-fold-3-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-mix-fold-3-audio-test/#respond Thu, 23 Nov 2023 13:40:13 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=162635 We put the Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview [...]

The post Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers.
In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview


Key audio specifications include:

  • Two speakers (Top side, bottom side, both on same half)
  • No jack audio output

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.


Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
audio
125
Playback
Timbre
118

158

Dynamics
127

149

Spatial
130

162

Volume
121

162

Artifacts
125

157

142
Recording
Timbre
124

147

Dynamics
132

146

Spatial
133

159

Volume
153

170

Artifacts
139

145

Background
154

166

AUDIO
Position in Global Ranking
67th
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
4. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
5. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
5. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
5. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
9. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
10. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
11. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
11. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
13. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
14. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
14. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
18. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 15
141
18. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 14
141
18. Huawei P60 Pro
141
23. Apple iPhone 12
140
23. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
23. Google Pixel 8
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
28. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
28. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
32. Apple iPhone 13
138
32. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
32. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
32. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
32. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
32. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
38. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
38. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
38. Google Pixel 6
137
38. Honor Magic Vs
137
38. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
44. Google Pixel 6a
135
44. OnePlus Open
135
44. Oppo Find N2
135
44. Xiaomi 14
135
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
48. Vivo X100 Pro
134
48. Xiaomi 13
134
51. Google Pixel Fold
133
51. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
51. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
51. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
51. Vivo X90 Pro
133
60. Google Pixel 7a
132
60. Vivo X Fold
132
60. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
63. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
63. Asus Zenfone 10
131
63. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
63. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
67. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
67. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
69. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
69. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
69. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
73. OnePlus 11
128
73. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
73. POCO F4 GT
128
73. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
73. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
73. Xiaomi 13T
128
73. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
81. Oppo Find X6
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
81. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
85. Apple iPhone 11
126
85. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
85. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
126
85. Xiaomi 12T
126
85. Xiaomi 11T
126
92. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
92. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
125
92. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
95. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
96. Google Pixel 7
123
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
98. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
98. Apple iPhone SE (2020)
122
98. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
98. Xiaomi 12
122
102. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
102. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
102. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
102. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
109. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
109. Huawei P50 Pro
119
109. OnePlus 9
119
109. OnePlus 8
119
109. POCO F5 Pro
119
109. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Gaming
119
109. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
116. Realme GT Neo 3
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
122. Asus Zenfone 8
117
122. Google Pixel 4
117
122. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
122. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
122. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
127. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
127. Motorola Edge+
116
127. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
127. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
127. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
134. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
134. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
115
134. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
134. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
138. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
138. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
140. Google Pixel 5
113
140. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
140. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
140. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
148. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
148. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
148. Realme GT 5G
112
148. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
152. Oppo A78 5G
111
152. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
154. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
155. Honor 70
109
155. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
155. Oppo Find X5
109
155. POCO X3 NFC
109
155. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
155. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
155. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
162. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
162. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
162. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
162. Realme X2 Pro
108
166. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
167. Honor 90
106
167. Nothing Phone(1)
106
167. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
167. Oppo A77 5G
106
171. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
171. Nothing Phone (2)
105
171. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
171. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
105
175. Honor V30 Pro
104
175. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
175. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
178. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
178. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
178. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
178. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
182. Huawei P40 Pro
102
182. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
182. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
185. Motorola Razr
101
186. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
97
186. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
188. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
188. Honor 20 Pro
96
188. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
188. Vivo X51 5G
96
192. LG G8 ThinQ
95
192. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
194. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
195. Fairphone 4
93
195. Sony Xperia 1
93
195. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
198. Fairphone 5
92
199. Vivo X60 Pro+
91
200. Nokia 7.2
87
201. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86
AUDIO
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
45th
1. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
1. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
3. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
3. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
5. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
6. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
6. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
8. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
9. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
9. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
9. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
13. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
13. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
13. Huawei P60 Pro
141
16. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
16. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
19. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
19. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
22. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
22. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
22. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
22. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
26. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
26. Honor Magic Vs
137
26. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
26. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
30. OnePlus Open
135
30. Oppo Find N2
135
32. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
32. Vivo X100 Pro
134
34. Google Pixel Fold
133
34. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
34. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
34. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
34. Vivo X90 Pro
133
40. Vivo X Fold
132
40. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
42. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
42. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
42. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
45. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
45. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
47. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
47. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
47. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
47. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
51. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
51. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
53. Oppo Find X6
127
54. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
55. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
55. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
57. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
57. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
57. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
61. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
62. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
62. Huawei P50 Pro
119
62. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
65. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
67. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
67. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
69. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
69. Motorola Edge+
116
69. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
69. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
73. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
74. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
75. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
75. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
75. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
80. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
81. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
82. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
82. Oppo Find X5
109
82. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
85. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
86. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
87. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
88. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
88. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
90. Huawei P40 Pro
102
91. Motorola Razr
101
92. LG G8 ThinQ
95
93. Sony Xperia 1
93
94. Vivo X60 Pro+
91

Playback

Pros

  • Good dynamics performance at maximum volume
  • Audio artifacts very well under control

Cons

  • Strong lack of bass and insufficient treble in tonal balance
  • Dynamics performance is less good as volume decreases
  • Slightly underwhelming spatial performance

Recording

Pros

  • Very good tonal balance
  • Very good wideness of the sound scene
  • Excellent wind noise performance
  • Unintrusive and pleasant background

Cons

  • Strong compression when recording loud concerts
  • Underwhelming audio zoom feature
  • Slightly inconsistent treble

With an overall score of 130, the Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 delivered a good performance in the DXOMARK Audio tests and showed very noticeable improvements over its predecessor, the Mix Fold 2. The Mix Fold 3 especially shone as a recording device, thanks to a very pleasant timbre and very effective wind noise reduction. Only when recording loud events, such as concerts, did the Xiaomi show some weaknesses. Overall recording results were best with the main camera, but the front camera and memo app were almost on the same level.

Playback was not quite on the same high level as the recording results but still decent. Playback quality was very good at high volumes, with very good bass and treble rendition as well as dynamics, but unfortunately the quality dropped at nominal and soft volume levels. Like many other foldable devices, the Mix Fold 3 did not fully take advantage of its form factor, with built-in speakers positioned on the same half, playback was monophonic in portrait, whereas the large size of the device would have suggested a wider sound and a better spatial performance overall.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions.
(For more details about our Playback protocol, click here; for more details about our Recording protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Playback

125

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

163

Black Shark 5 Pro
i
How Audio Playback score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test playback through the smartphone speakers, whose performance is evaluated in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio playback

Playback performance was overall decent, with a timbre that was mostly good. Tonal balance was arguably the device’s main issue, with both treble and bass appearing quite weak when compared to midrange. This said, results were drastically better at maximum volume, with treble and bass gaining enough strength to enhance timbre as a whole. At nominal volume, midrange was on the thin side, though, and bass as a whole was lacking, particularly in terms of low-end extension.

Dynamics performance was good, especially at high volume. Attack was weak at low volume, but decent at nominal volume and very good at maximum volume. Punch and bass precision behaved slightly differently. Both were good at nominal volume but did not improve at high-volume settings. Spatial performance was slightly underwhelming, especially when considering the Mix Fold3’s large dimensions when unfolded. With both speakers installed on the same half of the device, the Mix Fold 3 did not take advantage of its size to offer a stereo rendition in portrait orientation. In addition, the stereo image did not adapt to device rotations in the default music and video apps, and the speakers’ stereo balance did not appear to be exactly perfect, as the bottom speaker seemed slightly quieter than its counterpart at the top. Overall, wideness was underwhelming, and localizability of individual sound sources seemed blurry and imprecise. Distance rendition was no quite realistic either.

Maximum volume was pretty loud, and volume step distribution was quite consistent, but our experts found the minimum volume setting too quiet. Audio artifacts were very well under control, with no distortion or excessive compression noticeable. However, with a natural hand position when holding the device, the speakers were prone to some occlusion.

Listen to the tested smartphone’s playback performance in this comparison with some of its competitors:

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
Recordings of the smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment by 2 microphones in A-B configuration, at 30 cm
Here is how the Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback use-cases scores

Timbre

118

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

158

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency. It is the most important attribute for playback.

Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the smartphone when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

127

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

149

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a bass note is reproduced or the impact sound from drums.


Spatial

130

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness.


Volume

121

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents the overall loudness of a smartphone and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:
Hip-Hop Classical
Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 73.6 dBA 70.1 dBA
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 72.8 dBA 69.4 dBA
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max 75.1 dBA 72.3 dBA
The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume steps correspond to users’ expectations:
Music volume consistency
This line graph shows the relative loudness of playback relative to the user selected volume step, measured at different volume steps with a correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded in axis at 0.20 meter.

Artifacts

125

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

157

Asus ROG Phone 5
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortion can occur because of sound processing in the device and because of the quality of the speakers.

Playback Total Harmonic Distortion (Maximum Volume)
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device's maximum volume.

Recording

142

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

160

Honor Magic6 Pro
i
How Audio Recording score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test recording by evaluating the recorded files on reference audio equipment. Those recordings are done in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio recording

The Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 delivered an overall great recording performance, even though tonal balance varied depending on the use case.  Main camera recordings provided clear and precise treble, offering good intelligibility of voices. However, treble lacked clarity when recording with the front camera. Midrange was very good across all recording apps but could sound slightly thin in some urban scenarios. At high sound pressure levels, for example when recording loud concerts, tonal balance was much less consistent, with a dark and almost muffled treble and midrange that lacked fullness.

Signal-to-noise ratio was pretty good with the main and selfie cameras, thanks to the noise reduction algorithm doing a very good job, especially in domestic environments. However, when using the memo application in an urban scenario, the background was quite loud and got in the way of intelligibility. Envelope rendition generally offered sharp and precise attack, except in the concert use case where envelope accuracy was impaired by strong compression.

Wideness of the recorded sound scene was very good with the main camera, and localizability of individual sound sources was very precise. Wideness remained good with the memo app but was a little more limited when recording with the front camera. Distance rendition was excellent across all recording apps and use cases. Loudness was adequate in recordings made with the main and front cameras, but slightly weaker with the memo app. Recordings were mostly free of artifacts, except for slight clipping on sudden loud voices. Background rendition was excellent, without any noticeable artifacts.

Our engineers expected the Mix Fold 3’s audio zoom feature to be more performant. The noticeable side-rejection present by default did not improve with zoom level, and  instead, boosted low-end signals such as background noise. The wind noise reduction feature, however, proved to be extremely efficient; our experts found the DSP to be well-tuned, properly improving intelligibility in windy conditions.

Here is how the Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

Recording use-cases scores

Timbre

124

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

147

Honor Magic3 Pro+
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for recording.

Life video frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

132

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

146

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a voice's plosives (the p's, t's and k's, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


Spatial

133

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

159

Vivo X Fold
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness on the recorded audio files.

Recording directivity
Directivity graph of the smartphone when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device.)

Volume

153

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

170

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents how loud audio is normalized on the recorded files and the how the device handles loud environments, such as electronic concerts, when recording.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:
Meeting Life Video Selfie Video Memo
Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 -23.7 LUFS -20 LUFS -18.4 LUFS -19.2 LUFS
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 -25.8 LUFS -22.1 LUFS -21 LUFS -21.1 LUFS
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max -24.9 LUFS -22.1 LUFS -20.5 LUFS -19.2 LUFS

Artifacts

139

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

145

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortions can occur because of sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as how the phone is held.

In this audio comparison, you can listen to the way this smartphone handles wind noise relative to its competitors:

Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background

154

Xiaomi Mix Fold 3

166

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

Background evaluates how natural the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, yet it should provide some context of the surroundings.

The post Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-mix-fold-3-audio-test/feed/ 0 AUDIO AUDIO Xiaomi 13T Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13t-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13t-audio-test/#respond Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:21:25 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=158976 We put the Xiaomi 13T through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key audio [...]

The post Xiaomi 13T Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Xiaomi 13T through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers.
In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview


Key audio specifications include:

  • Two speakers (Top front, bottom side)
  • No Jack audio output
  • Dolby Atmos technology

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Xiaomi 13T
Xiaomi 13T
128
audio
129
Playback
Timbre
120

158

Dynamics
128

149

Spatial
139

162

Volume
127

162

Artifacts
113

157

126
Recording
Timbre
98

147

Dynamics
129

146

Spatial
134

159

Volume
118

170

Artifacts
111

145

Background
120

166

AUDIO
Position in Global Ranking
73rd
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
4. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
5. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
5. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
5. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
9. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
10. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
11. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
11. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
13. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
14. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
14. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
18. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 15
141
18. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 14
141
18. Huawei P60 Pro
141
23. Apple iPhone 12
140
23. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
23. Google Pixel 8
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
28. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
28. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
32. Apple iPhone 13
138
32. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
32. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
32. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
32. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
32. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
38. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
38. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
38. Google Pixel 6
137
38. Honor Magic Vs
137
38. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
44. Google Pixel 6a
135
44. OnePlus Open
135
44. Oppo Find N2
135
44. Xiaomi 14
135
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
48. Vivo X100 Pro
134
48. Xiaomi 13
134
51. Google Pixel Fold
133
51. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
51. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
51. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
51. Vivo X90 Pro
133
60. Google Pixel 7a
132
60. Vivo X Fold
132
60. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
63. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
63. Asus Zenfone 10
131
63. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
63. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
67. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
67. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
69. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
69. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
69. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
73. OnePlus 11
128
73. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
73. POCO F4 GT
128
73. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
73. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
73. Xiaomi 13T
128
73. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
81. Oppo Find X6
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
81. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
85. Apple iPhone 11
126
85. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
85. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
126
85. Xiaomi 12T
126
85. Xiaomi 11T
126
92. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
92. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
125
92. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
95. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
96. Google Pixel 7
123
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
98. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
98. Apple iPhone SE (2020)
122
98. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
98. Xiaomi 12
122
102. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
102. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
102. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
102. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
109. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
109. Huawei P50 Pro
119
109. OnePlus 9
119
109. OnePlus 8
119
109. POCO F5 Pro
119
109. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Gaming
119
109. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
116. Realme GT Neo 3
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
122. Asus Zenfone 8
117
122. Google Pixel 4
117
122. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
122. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
122. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
127. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
127. Motorola Edge+
116
127. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
127. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
127. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
134. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
134. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
115
134. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
134. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
138. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
138. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
140. Google Pixel 5
113
140. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
140. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
140. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
148. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
148. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
148. Realme GT 5G
112
148. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
152. Oppo A78 5G
111
152. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
154. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
155. Honor 70
109
155. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
155. Oppo Find X5
109
155. POCO X3 NFC
109
155. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
155. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
155. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
162. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
162. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
162. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
162. Realme X2 Pro
108
166. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
167. Honor 90
106
167. Nothing Phone(1)
106
167. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
167. Oppo A77 5G
106
171. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
171. Nothing Phone (2)
105
171. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
171. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
105
175. Honor V30 Pro
104
175. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
175. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
178. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
178. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
178. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
178. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
182. Huawei P40 Pro
102
182. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
182. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
185. Motorola Razr
101
186. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
97
186. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
188. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
188. Honor 20 Pro
96
188. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
188. Vivo X51 5G
96
192. LG G8 ThinQ
95
192. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
194. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
195. Fairphone 4
93
195. Sony Xperia 1
93
195. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
198. Fairphone 5
92
199. Vivo X60 Pro+
91
200. Nokia 7.2
87
201. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86
AUDIO
Position in Premium Ranking
17th
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
3. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
3. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Apple iPhone 15
141
5. Apple iPhone 14
141
7. Apple iPhone 12
140
7. Google Pixel 8
140
9. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
10. Apple iPhone 13
138
11. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
12. Xiaomi 14
135
13. Xiaomi 13
134
14. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
14. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
16. Asus Zenfone 10
131
17. OnePlus 11
128
17. Xiaomi 13T
128
17. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
20. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
21. Apple iPhone 11
126
21. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
23. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
24. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
25. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
25. Xiaomi 12
122
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
29. OnePlus 9
119
29. OnePlus 8
119
31. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
31. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
31. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
34. Asus Zenfone 8
117
34. Google Pixel 4
117
34. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
37. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
38. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
38. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
40. Google Pixel 5
113
40. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
40. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
43. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
44. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
44. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
46. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
46. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
48. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
49. Honor V30 Pro
104
49. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
51. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
52. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
53. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
54. Vivo X51 5G
96
55. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
56. Fairphone 5
92
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86

Playback

Pros

  • Good dynamics performance, even at maximum volume
  • Very few artifacts

Cons

  • Underwhelming spatial performance
  • Lack of low midrange warmth
  • Lack of both high-end and low-end extension

Recording

Pros

  • Great intelligibility, thanks to brightness of the tonal balance
  • Good and accurate envelope rendition
  • Good spatial performance overall

Cons

  • Aggressive rendition, due to strong hissing in upper treble
  • Slightly thin sound, due to lack of bass below 200hz and prominence of upper treble
  • Poor artifacts performance

The Xiaomi 13T delivered an average performance for its class in the DXOMARK Audio tests, and was overall on par with its predecessor Xiaomi 12T. The audio playback experience was mostly decent but unremarkable. The built-in speakers provided a nice dynamics rendition, even at loud volume levels, and unwanted audio artifacts were well under control. Overall, playback results were best when watching movies, and slightly lower for listening to music and playing games.

In recording, the microphones picked up a lot of upper treble harshness, which could be tiring to the ears. Recordings often sounded harsh and too compressed, especially at high volumes. As a recording device, the 13T did best with the memo app and in office use. Scores with the selfie and main cameras were slightly lower.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions.
(For more details about our Playback protocol, click here; for more details about our Recording protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Playback

129

Xiaomi 13T

163

Black Shark 5 Pro
i
How Audio Playback score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test playback through the smartphone speakers, whose performance is evaluated in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio playback

Playback performance was average overall, with a decent tonal balance. Treble presence was correct, but treble sounded slightly thin and resonant. Midrange lacked warmth, and while bass presence generally made up for the insufficient low midrange, upper bass was slightly blurry, and low-end extension was not deep enough. Dynamics performance was good, with decently sharp attack, correct bass precision, and decent punch. The built-in speakers produced a sound scene with average wideness and the image could appear slightly off-centered in some use cases, for example gaming. As a result, localizability of individual sound sources was not as good as it could have been, with limited accuracy. Distance rendition was not particularly accurate either, with voices often sounding slightly distant. This also had a negative impact on depth rendition, as the distant foreground limited the separation of distinct planes in the virtual sound scene.

Volume step distribution was consistent, even though the first volume step felt slightly loud. On the plus side, this ensured good intelligibility at minimum volume, even with highly dynamic content, for example classical music. Maximum volume was loud enough. In normal use, very few unwanted artifacts were noticeable, such as some light distortion and subtle pumping at maximum volume. Our testers found that the bottom speaker could be easily occluded when gaming, but besides muting the right channel, this was not detrimental to the audio experience.

Listen to the tested smartphone’s playback performance in this comparison with some of its competitors:

Xiaomi 13T
Nubia Redmagic 8 Pro
Google Pixel 8
Recordings of the smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment by 2 microphones in A-B configuration, at 30 cm
Here is how the Xiaomi 13T performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback use-cases scores

Timbre

120

Xiaomi 13T

158

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency. It is the most important attribute for playback.

Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the smartphone when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

128

Xiaomi 13T

149

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a bass note is reproduced or the impact sound from drums.


Spatial

139

Xiaomi 13T

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness.


Volume

127

Xiaomi 13T

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents the overall loudness of a smartphone and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:
Hip-Hop Classical
Xiaomi 13T 74.2 dBA 70.4 dBA
Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro 77 dBA 76.6 dBA
Google Pixel 8 74.8 dBA 70.1 dBA
The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume steps correspond to users’ expectations:
Music volume consistency
This line graph shows the relative loudness of playback relative to the user selected volume step, measured at different volume steps with a correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded in axis at 0.20 meter.

Artifacts

113

Xiaomi 13T

157

Asus ROG Phone 5
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortion can occur because of sound processing in the device and because of the quality of the speakers.

Playback Total Harmonic Distortion (Maximum Volume)
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device's maximum volume.

Recording

126

Xiaomi 13T

160

Honor Magic6 Pro
i
How Audio Recording score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test recording by evaluating the recorded files on reference audio equipment. Those recordings are done in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio recording

Recording timbre performance was good overall. Treble rendition was satisfying, despite a slight lack of high-end extension. Midrange sounded pleasant but slightly lacked low midrange compared to the overwhelming treble. This resulted in a tonal balance that was a bit too treble-focused. Dynamic performance was good, with accurate envelope rendition in most use cases, except at high sound pressure levels, for example at concerts, where compression had a negative impact. With hissing background noise in urban use cases, the signal-to-noise ratio was very inconsistent. In quieter environments, some hissing was still noticeable, but signal-to-noise was much better. Intelligibility remained consistent across all use cases.

The microphones captured a wide sound scene when using the memo app, but wideness was slightly reduced with the selfie and main camera apps. Despite some occasional blurriness, localizability was very good across use cases, and distance rendition was realistic. While recording loudness was slightly above average, objective measurements showed issues when recording at high sound pressure levels, for example at loud events. The artifacts performance could have been better, with noticeable hissing in treble in all apps, except the memo app. Our testers also observed some pumping on louder content, as well as heavy distortion. Background tonal balance was aggressive, mainly due to the hissing upper treble. This resulted in a pretty intrusive background, especially when recording in urban environments.

Here is how the Xiaomi 13T performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

Recording use-cases scores

Timbre

98

Xiaomi 13T

147

Honor Magic3 Pro+
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for recording.

Life video frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

129

Xiaomi 13T

146

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a voice's plosives (the p's, t's and k's, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


Spatial

134

Xiaomi 13T

159

Vivo X Fold
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness on the recorded audio files.

Recording directivity
Directivity graph of the smartphone when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device.)

Volume

118

Xiaomi 13T

170

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents how loud audio is normalized on the recorded files and the how the device handles loud environments, such as electronic concerts, when recording.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:
Meeting Life Video Selfie Video Memo
Xiaomi 13T -28.7 LUFS -20.9 LUFS -19.3 LUFS -22.8 LUFS
Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro -33.5 LUFS -24.4 LUFS -19.2 LUFS -28.4 LUFS
Google Pixel 8 -26.1 LUFS -20.8 LUFS -18.9 LUFS -19.9 LUFS

Artifacts

111

Xiaomi 13T

145

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortions can occur because of sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as how the phone is held.

In this audio comparison, you can listen to the way this smartphone handles wind noise relative to its competitors:

Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background

120

Xiaomi 13T

166

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

Background evaluates how natural the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, yet it should provide some context of the surroundings.

The post Xiaomi 13T Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13t-audio-test/feed/ 0 Xiaomi 13T AUDIO AUDIO Xiaomi 13T Pro Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13t-pro-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13t-pro-audio-test/#respond Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:18:17 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=158947 We put the Xiaomi 13T Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key [...]

The post Xiaomi 13T Pro Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Xiaomi 13T Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both at recording sound using its built-in microphones, and at playing audio back through its speakers.
In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview


Key audio specifications include:

  • Two speakers (Top front, side firing)
  • No Jack audio output
  • Dolby Atmos technology

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Xiaomi 13T Pro
Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
audio
119
Playback
Timbre
118

158

Dynamics
129

149

Spatial
124

162

Volume
95

162

Artifacts
113

157

130
Recording
Timbre
102

147

Dynamics
116

146

Spatial
133

159

Volume
141

170

Artifacts
113

145

Background
134

166

AUDIO
Position in Global Ranking
98th
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 6
155
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
155
4. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
5. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
149
5. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
5. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Honor Magic3 Pro+
149
9. Asus ROG Phone 7
148
10. Xiaomi Mi 10 S
147
11. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
144
11. Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
144
13. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
143
14. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
142
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
142
14. Google Pixel 8 Pro
142
18. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 15
141
18. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
141
18. Apple iPhone 14
141
18. Huawei P60 Pro
141
23. Apple iPhone 12
140
23. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
140
23. Google Pixel 8
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Pro
140
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
139
28. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
139
28. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
28. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
139
32. Apple iPhone 13
138
32. Asus ROG Phone 3
138
32. Google Pixel 6 Pro
138
32. Honor Magic5 Pro
138
32. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
138
32. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
138
38. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
38. Google Pixel 7 Pro
137
38. Google Pixel 6
137
38. Honor Magic Vs
137
38. Honor Magic4 Pro
137
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
137
44. Google Pixel 6a
135
44. OnePlus Open
135
44. Oppo Find N2
135
44. Xiaomi 14
135
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
134
48. Vivo X100 Pro
134
48. Xiaomi 13
134
51. Google Pixel Fold
133
51. Huawei Mate 20 X
133
51. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
51. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
133
51. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
133
51. Vivo X90 Pro
133
60. Google Pixel 7a
132
60. Vivo X Fold
132
60. Vivo X90 Pro+
132
63. Apple iPhone XS Max
131
63. Asus Zenfone 10
131
63. Oppo Find X2 Pro
131
63. Oppo Find N2 Flip
131
67. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
130
67. Xiaomi Mix Fold 3
130
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
129
69. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
129
69. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
129
69. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
73. OnePlus 11
128
73. Oppo Find X6 Pro
128
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
128
73. POCO F4 GT
128
73. Realme GT Neo 5 (240W)
128
73. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
128
73. Xiaomi 13T
128
73. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
81. Oppo Find X6
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
127
81. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
127
81. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
85. Apple iPhone 11
126
85. Motorola Razr 40 Ultra
126
85. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
126
85. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
126
85. Xiaomi 12T
126
85. Xiaomi 11T
126
92. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
125
92. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
125
92. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
125
95. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
96. Google Pixel 7
123
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
98. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
98. Apple iPhone SE (2020)
122
98. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
98. Xiaomi 12
122
102. OnePlus 9 Pro
121
102. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
121
102. Sony Xperia 1 IV
121
102. Xiaomi Mix Fold 2
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
109. Asus ROG Phone 2
119
109. Huawei P50 Pro
119
109. OnePlus 9
119
109. OnePlus 8
119
109. POCO F5 Pro
119
109. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Gaming
119
109. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
119
116. Realme GT Neo 3
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
116. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
122. Asus Zenfone 8
117
122. Google Pixel 4
117
122. OnePlus 10 Pro
117
122. OnePlus 8 Pro
117
122. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
127. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
116
127. Motorola Edge+
116
127. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
116
127. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
116
127. Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+
116
127. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
134. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
134. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
115
134. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
115
134. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
138. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
114
138. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
114
140. Google Pixel 5
113
140. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
140. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S20+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy S10+
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (Exynos)
113
140. Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (Exynos)
113
140. Sony Xperia 1 III
113
148. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
148. Nubia Red Magic 5S
112
148. Realme GT 5G
112
148. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
112
152. Oppo A78 5G
111
152. Sony Xperia 5 IV
111
154. Oppo Find X3 Pro
110
155. Honor 70
109
155. Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
109
155. Oppo Find X5
109
155. POCO X3 NFC
109
155. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
155. Vivo X70 Pro+
109
155. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
162. Huawei Mate 30 Pro
108
162. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
162. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
162. Realme X2 Pro
108
166. Sony Xperia 5 V
107
167. Honor 90
106
167. Nothing Phone(1)
106
167. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
106
167. Oppo A77 5G
106
171. Lenovo Legion Phone Pro
105
171. Nothing Phone (2)
105
171. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
171. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
105
175. Honor V30 Pro
104
175. Oppo Reno8 5G
104
175. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
178. Black Shark 3 Pro
103
178. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
178. Oppo Find X5 Lite
103
178. Sony Xperia 1 II
103
182. Huawei P40 Pro
102
182. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
182. Oppo Reno6 5G
102
185. Motorola Razr
101
186. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
97
186. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
188. Black Shark 2 Pro
96
188. Honor 20 Pro
96
188. Oppo Find X3 Lite
96
188. Vivo X51 5G
96
192. LG G8 ThinQ
95
192. Sony Xperia 10 IV
95
194. Nubia Red Magic 3S
94
195. Fairphone 4
93
195. Sony Xperia 1
93
195. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
198. Fairphone 5
92
199. Vivo X60 Pro+
91
200. Nokia 7.2
87
201. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86
AUDIO
Position in Premium Ranking
25th
1. Black Shark 5 Pro
161
2. Asus ROG Phone 5
151
3. Black Shark 4S Pro
149
3. Black Shark 4 Pro
149
5. Apple iPhone 15
141
5. Apple iPhone 14
141
7. Apple iPhone 12
140
7. Google Pixel 8
140
9. Apple iPhone 12 mini
139
10. Apple iPhone 13
138
11. Apple iPhone 13 mini
137
12. Xiaomi 14
135
13. Xiaomi 13
134
14. Lenovo Legion Y90
133
14. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
16. Asus Zenfone 10
131
17. OnePlus 11
128
17. Xiaomi 13T
128
17. Xiaomi 11T Pro
128
20. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
21. Apple iPhone 11
126
21. OnePlus 10T 5G
126
23. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
124
24. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
123
25. Xiaomi 13T Pro
122
25. Xiaomi 12
122
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
120
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
29. OnePlus 9
119
29. OnePlus 8
119
31. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
118
31. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
118
31. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
118
34. Asus Zenfone 8
117
34. Google Pixel 4
117
34. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
117
37. Xiaomi Mi 11
116
38. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
115
38. Xiaomi Mi 11i
115
40. Google Pixel 5
113
40. LG V60 ThinQ 5G
113
40. OnePlus 7 Pro
113
43. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
112
44. Realme GT 2 Pro
109
44. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
109
46. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
108
46. Oppo Find X3 Neo
108
48. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
105
49. Honor V30 Pro
104
49. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
104
51. Nubia RedMagic 8 Pro
103
52. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
102
53. Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
97
54. Vivo X51 5G
96
55. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
93
56. Fairphone 5
92
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
86

Playback

Pros

  • Good dynamics performance, even at maximum volume
  • Unwanted artifacts well under control

Cons

  • Poor spatial performance, especially in terms of localizability and stereo balance.
  • Underwhelming volume performance
  • Aggressive treble

Recording

Pros

  • Natural background rendition
  • Excellent recording loudness
  • Good spatial performance overall

Cons

  • Slightly muddy and unclear timbre
  • Slightly hissing treble can result in occasional harshness
  • Recording artifacts

In the DXOMARK Audio tests, the Xiaomi 13T Pro provided a fairly average performance and ranked behind its predecessor the 12T Pro. Overall, the 13T Pro did better in recording than in playback, which was mainly due to inconsistencies in the stereo rendition with the built-in speakers, which also sounded slightly harsh. But on the plus side, the audio was almost free of unwanted artifacts. Playback performance was best when listening to music and playing games but slightly less so when watching movies.

Audio recordings featured excellent loudness and were overall best in office environments. In terms of audio recordings in video, results were better with the selfie camera in portrait orientation than with the main camera in landscape.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions.
(For more details about our Playback protocol, click here; for more details about our Recording protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Playback

119

Xiaomi 13T Pro

163

Black Shark 5 Pro
i
How Audio Playback score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test playback through the smartphone speakers, whose performance is evaluated in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio playback

The 13T Pro’s playback had average timbre, with a tonal balance that had a noticeable emphasis on upper midrange and treble. Treble had some brightness that did not sound natural, but more sibilant and harsh. Midrange lacked warmth,  and while bass presence made up somewhat for the lack of low midrange, upper bass was quite blurry, and low-end extension was not deep enough. Dynamics performance was good, though, with decently sharp attack, correct bass precision and pretty good punch.

The results of the spatial tests were poor, with average wideness of the stereo scene and a weak left channel, as well as a hole in the middle of the stereo image. Consequently, individual sound sources could not be accurately pinpointed, and distance rendition was not particularly accurate either, with voices often sounding slightly distant. Volume step distribution could have been more consistent, and the minimum volume setting was too quiet, making it hard to listen to low volume passages in highly dynamic content, such as classical music. Maximum volume was loud enough. In normal use, audio artifacts were very well under control, with only some light distortion and subtle pumping at maximum volume. Our experts also noted that the bottom speaker could be easily occluded when gaming, but besides muting the right channel, this was not detrimental to the audio experience.

Listen to the tested smartphone’s playback performance in this comparison with some of its competitors:

Xiaomi 13T Pro
Apple iPhone 15
Google Pixel 8
Recordings of the smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment by 2 microphones in A-B configuration, at 30 cm
Here is how the Xiaomi 13T Pro performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback use-cases scores

Timbre

118

Xiaomi 13T Pro

158

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency. It is the most important attribute for playback.

Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the smartphone when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

129

Xiaomi 13T Pro

149

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a bass note is reproduced or the impact sound from drums.


Spatial

124

Xiaomi 13T Pro

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness.


Volume

95

Xiaomi 13T Pro

162

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents the overall loudness of a smartphone and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:
Hip-Hop Classical
Xiaomi 13T Pro 68.1 dBA 60.2 dBA
Apple iPhone 15 74.6 dBA 72 dBA
Google Pixel 8 74.8 dBA 70.1 dBA
The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume steps correspond to users’ expectations:
Music volume consistency
This line graph shows the relative loudness of playback relative to the user selected volume step, measured at different volume steps with a correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded in axis at 0.20 meter.

Artifacts

113

Xiaomi 13T Pro

157

Asus ROG Phone 5
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortion can occur because of sound processing in the device and because of the quality of the speakers.

Playback Total Harmonic Distortion (Maximum Volume)
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device's maximum volume.

Recording

130

Xiaomi 13T Pro

160

Honor Magic6 Pro
i
How Audio Recording score is composed

DXOMARK engineers test recording by evaluating the recorded files on reference audio equipment. Those recordings are done in our labs and in real-life conditions, using default apps and settings.

Learn more about how we test audio recording

The Xiaomi did comparatively better in recording than in playback. Recording timbre was good, with satisfying treble, good midrange and decent bass rendition. Dynamics performance was fairly good as well, despite slightly inconsistent envelope rendition across use cases. With the main camera in landscape orientation, the envelope accuracy was heavily impaired by compression and pumping, particularly when recording concerts. Attack sharpness was noticeably better with the selfie camera and the memo app. Signal-to-noise ratio was decent when recording in urban environments but even better in quiet surroundings, for example in a home or office.

Wideness of the recorded stereo scene was great with the memo app but less so with the main or selfie cameras. Despite some occasional blurriness, localizability was very good across all use cases. Distance rendition was quite realistic, and overall loudness was excellent despite some slight volume noticeable variations when stepping out from an indoors environment while recording. Results were also poor at high sound pressure levels, for example, concerts. In such conditions, our testers also observed heavy pumping and distortion. In addition, there was heavy hissing across all recording apps, except the memo app. The tonal balance of the background was natural, with good intelligibility of the main signal.

Here is how the Xiaomi 13T Pro performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

Recording use-cases scores

Timbre

102

Xiaomi 13T Pro

147

Honor Magic3 Pro+
i

The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for recording.

Life video frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.

Dynamics

116

Xiaomi 13T Pro

146

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, for example how precisely a voice's plosives (the p's, t's and k's, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


Spatial

133

Xiaomi 13T Pro

159

Vivo X Fold
i

The sub-attributes for spatial tests include pinpointing a specific sound's location, its positional balance, distance, and wideness on the recorded audio files.

Recording directivity
Directivity graph of the smartphone when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device.)

Volume

141

Xiaomi 13T Pro

170

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Volume score represents how loud audio is normalized on the recorded files and the how the device handles loud environments, such as electronic concerts, when recording.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:
Meeting Life Video Selfie Video Memo
Xiaomi 13T Pro -21.4 LUFS -17.5 LUFS -16.7 LUFS -17 LUFS
Apple iPhone 15 -24.6 LUFS -22.4 LUFS -20.3 LUFS -19.2 LUFS
Google Pixel 8 -26.1 LUFS -20.8 LUFS -18.9 LUFS -19.9 LUFS

Artifacts

113

Xiaomi 13T Pro

145

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less the disturbances in the sound are noticeable. Distortions can occur because of sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as how the phone is held.

In this audio comparison, you can listen to the way this smartphone handles wind noise relative to its competitors:

Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background

134

Xiaomi 13T Pro

166

Black Shark 5 Pro
i

Background evaluates how natural the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, yet it should provide some context of the surroundings.

The post Xiaomi 13T Pro Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13t-pro-audio-test/feed/ 0 Xiaomi 13T Pro AUDIO AUDIO