DXOMARK https://www.dxomark.com The leading source of independent audio, display, battery and image quality measurements and ratings for smartphone, camera, lens and wireless speaker since 2008. Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:57:40 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.6.8 https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/logo-o-transparent-150x150.png DXOMARK https://www.dxomark.com 32 32 Fairphone 4 Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/fairphone-4-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/fairphone-4-audio-test/#respond Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:57:40 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=106708 We put the Fairphone 4 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 Fairphone [...]

The post Fairphone 4 Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
We put the Fairphone 4 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 Fairphone 4, like previous models in this eco-conscious line, is modular, and set up so that users can easily replace the battery and some other parts themselves. Parts and raw materials are as much as possible sourced responsibly, according to the company. Running on Android 11, the device is powered with the mid-range Snapdragon 750G chipset and is 5G ready. On the audio front, the device has two speakers, one top center and one bottom right. Among its peers in this price range (about 650 euros), its global score was among the lowest, notching a 53, which matches the score of the Vivo X51 5G. In playback, the Fairphone 4 is functional. Balance is good, and voices are in general intelligible. But the timbre is very midrange focused — low end is desperately absent and high end isn’t great either  — and at maximum volume artifacts become glaring. As a recording device, the Fairphone 4 is functional with some flaws in most use cases. But the device’s memo app was deeply flawed across use cases and attributes, bringing down the overall score. In some cases, the recordings were simply unintelligible.

Key audio specifications include:

  • Two speakers, one top center, one bottom right
  •  No earphone jack, but there is a USB-C port

Fairphone 4
53
audio
54

89

51

81

48

88

61

85

86

96


56

91

38

81

25

78

51

99

55

97

16

60

Playback

Pros

  • Decent overall spatial performance
  •  Smooth and unaggressive treble, making voice content intelligible
  • Good balance in all use case

Cons

  • Lack of support for 24-bit audio
  • Very midrange-focused timbre, lacking low- and high-end extension
  • Occasional resonance on the low mids, depending on the content
  • Maximum volume-induced distortion and pumping, reducing the spectrum on the low side

Recording

Pros

  • Correct envelope in loud (high sound-pressure level) scenarios
  • Correct balance when recording videos indoor

Cons

  • Very poor timbre in memo recording
  • Poor handling of noise-canceling

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.

[glossary_exclude]Playback[/glossary_exclude]

55

Fairphone 4

86

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
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.

As a playback device, the Fairphone 4 scores at the bottom end of its price-range group. In terms of timbre, treble is a positive, even if lacking high end. It remains smooth, clear, not aggressive. Midrange is sometimes boxy, and resonant in the low mids, imparing voice clarity. Kick and bass information are not well rendered at all. The lack of low-end extension is the most obvious defect in this attribute. When playing games and watching moves, the lack of low-end extension impairs the sensation of punch. Dynamics in general are below par. Attack is soft in most use cases. Bass precision is surprisingly adequate when gaming, listening to music, or watching a movie. In the spatial attribute, the Fairphone 4 presents limited wideness, barely extending beyond the physical dimensions of the device, and localizability is not well defined. On a positive note, balance is well centered and distance perception is on target. Voices in movies and spoken content are at screen position. When playing games, spatial performance is average, and localizability doesn’t impair playability. At maximum volume, the device doesn’t become “harsh” sounding, but compression tends to amplify the low-end extension and accentuate the midrange-centric timbre. The first volume step is barely discernible. The device didn’t score well in the artifacts attribute either. Distortion emerges at high volumes, accompanied by obvious pumping. On the technical side, aliasing and frequency resonances are recurring problems.

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

Apple iPhone 3GS
Nokia N95
Nokia N95 Stereo Widening
Here is how the Fairphone 4 performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
[glossary_exclude]Use-cases scores[/glossary_exclude]


[glossary_exclude]Timbre[/glossary_exclude]

54

Fairphone 4

89

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Dynamics[/glossary_exclude]

51

Fairphone 4

81

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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.


[glossary_exclude]Spatial[/glossary_exclude]

48

Fairphone 4

88

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Volume[/glossary_exclude]

61

Fairphone 4

85

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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
Fairphone 4 75.4 dBA 71.2 dBA
Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon) 73.9 dBA 68.8 dBA
Oppo Find X3 Neo 76.5 dBA 71.8 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


[glossary_exclude]Artifacts[/glossary_exclude]

86

Fairphone 4

96

[glossary_exclude]Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G[/glossary_exclude]

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.


[glossary_exclude]Recording[/glossary_exclude]

45

Fairphone 4

86

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
How Audio Playback 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.

As a recording device, the Fairphone 4 comes in at the absolute bottom in this price range with a score of 45. Among all devices tested for recording, it’s near the bottom as well. In the timbre attribute, the problems vary from application to application. When shooting life video (rear camera) in an interior space, tonal balance is correct despite a lack of warmth in voices, Treble is good, but midrange sounds hollow, with a lack of low mids. In the urban scenario, voices sound really canny, focused on the high mids and upper trebles. In selfie video, tonal balance is functional, but the timbre is focused on high mids as in life video. When it comes to the memo app, recordings are really inadequate because of a poor file layout. Voices are barely understandable. There are no treble notes at all, just a sloppy midrange. In dynamics, the signal-to-noise ratio is correct in life and selfie video. In the memo app, again a problem, the envelope is severely impaired. Plosives are not sharp at all. In the high sound-pressure-level scenario (an electronic music concert), the envelope is correct despite slight compression that hinders quick transients like snares. In the spatial attribute, localizability is correct in the video applications, although the audio scene is quite narrow in life video and non-existent in selfie video. Memo app is again a drawback: Localizability and wideness are nonstarters, and distance rendering is unrealistic.  As for artifacts, some clipping was noticed on the high SPL scenario and on shouting voices in the video applications. In the background attribute, noise-canceling triggers after 10 seconds of recording in loud environments with either video application. That completely impairs background restitution, which becomes muffled and not natural at all. When the memo app is used, background is simply non-existent because of the poor quality of recordings. A bright spot: Background is rendered correctly in the at-home scenario.

Here is how the Fairphone 4 performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

[glossary_exclude]Use-cases scores[/glossary_exclude]


[glossary_exclude]Timbre[/glossary_exclude]

56

Fairphone 4

91

[glossary_exclude]Honor Magic3 Pro+[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Dynamics[/glossary_exclude]

38

Fairphone 4

81

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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 Sound-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


[glossary_exclude]Spatial[/glossary_exclude]

25

Fairphone 4

78

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 4S Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Volume[/glossary_exclude]

51

Fairphone 4

99

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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
Fairphone 4 -39.2 LUFS -27.7 LUFS -25.4 LUFS -32 LUFS
Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon) -21.6 LUFS -16.6 LUFS -15.4 LUFS -17.1 LUFS
Oppo Find X3 Neo -19.3 LUFS -17 LUFS -16.4 LUFS -15.7 LUFS


[glossary_exclude]Artifacts[/glossary_exclude]

55

Fairphone 4

97

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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.

Listen for artifacts in this extract, which has been recorded in a busy home environment:


[glossary_exclude]Background[/glossary_exclude]

16

Fairphone 4

60

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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 Fairphone 4 Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
https://www.dxomark.com/fairphone-4-audio-test/feed/ 0
Nikon Z9 Sensor test https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-z9-sensor-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-z9-sensor-test/#respond Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:53:40 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=109977 The Nikon Z9 is the first pro-oriented mirrorless model in the maker’s range of Z-series cameras, and it is arguably the most important camera since the release of Nikon’s first full-frame pro-oriented DSLR, the Nikon D3, and maybe even the Nikon D1 from 1999. As such, the Nikon Z9 showcases several firsts, for Nikon anyway. [...]

The post Nikon Z9 Sensor test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
The Nikon Z9 is the first pro-oriented mirrorless model in the maker’s range of Z-series cameras, and it is arguably the most important camera since the release of Nikon’s first full-frame pro-oriented DSLR, the Nikon D3, and maybe even the Nikon D1 from 1999. As such, the Nikon Z9 showcases several firsts, for Nikon anyway.

The sensor is a “stacked” 45.7 MP CMOS type and various functions are handled by a super-fast EXPEED 7 processor, a native sensitivity of ISO 64-25,600, with expansion to ISO 32-102,400 and a maximum of up to 20 fps in RAW and up to 30 fps in JPEG. While not the first camera to use a totally electronic shutter, the Z9 is the first pro-grade full-frame camera to eschew a mechanical one. Shutter speeds max at 1/30,000 sec and run all the down to 30 secs, extendable to 900 secs (15 mins) in manual mode.

The Nikon Z9 features a ‘black-out free’ 3.69 m-dot OLED electronic viewfinder (EVF) built-in, along with a 3.2-inch quad-axis vertical and horizontal tilting LCD touchscreen. There’s also in-body stabilization with up to 6 stops compensation, working in combination with supported lenses. Autofocus is another highlight. The Nikon Z 9 is the first in the mirrorless series to add 3D subject tracking in stills and video.

Further advances include new High-Efficiency RAW file compression options, plus dual CFexpress Type B card slots with compatibility with older XQD cards. In addition, the Nikon Z9 has some pretty impressive video capabilities such as full-width 8K/60p and oversampled 4K up to 30p, plus 12-bit N-RAW and 4K ProRes RAW are promised in a future firmware option.

Connectivity options include full-size HDMI, Bluetooth LE, and USB-C (3.2) with charging and ethernet (1000BASE-T). The Nikon Z9 is available now when stocks can be found for $5496/€5999.

Key specifications

  • 45.7 MP full-frame stacked CMOS sensor
  • Native ISO 64-25,600, with expansion to ISO 32-102,400
  • 20 fps (RAW), up to 30 fps (JPEG)
  • 493-point phase-detection AF system
  • 3.69 m-dot OLED electronic viewfinder (EVF)
  • 3.2-in 2.1 m-dot quad-tilt TFT-LCD
  • 8K/60p, 12-bit N-RAW, 4K (oversampled)
  • Sensor shift, up to 6 stops compensation
  • Twin card slots (CFexpress Type B)
  • Ethernet (1000BASE-T), WiFi (2.4/5GHz) Bluetooth LE connection, USB-C (3.2), HDMI (Type A) connectivity

Overall performance

Click on the score chart above to open the Nikon Z9 product page.

The Nikon Z9 sensor achieved an excellent high score of 98 in our benchmarks. In our rankings, this places the new Nikon flagship in joint 9th position for all sensor sizes, including medium format. In terms of sensitivity, peers of the Nikon Z9 include the 50 MP Sony A1, which ranks directly alongside, and the 60 MP Sony A7R IV at 99 points, which is only just fractionally above in sensitivity.

As for the individual scores the Nikon Z9 sensor retains a very high color depth at the base setting (ISO 64) of 26.3 bits and has a wide dynamic range, peaking at 14.4 EV at the same ISO sensitivity. In the Sports (low-light ISO) category, which is calculated and based on minimum values for SNR, color depth, and DR, the Z9 didn’t fare quite so well at ISO 2451.

In-depth comparisons

While the Nikon Z9’s blazing speed will appeal to sports, and wildlife photographers, the 45.7 MP sensor and competitive price will also attract photographers working in other genres. We’ve also lined up the Nikon Z9 against the  $6,499 Sony A1, which has a similar stacked CMOS sensor and a 50 MP tailored for speed, albeit without the double-gripped body.

And, we’ve also pitted the Nikon Z9 against the similarly priced ($5,999) Canon EOS R3. With its lower 24 MP resolution, the EOS R3 is touted as a sports-oriented camera and like the Nikon Z9 and Sony A1, it features a stacked CMOS sensor and fast maximum continuous frame rate.

Portrait (color depth)

The Nikon Z9 has a particularly strong result for maximum color depth at 26.3 bits due to the sensor’s lower native base of ISO 64 over rivals. This contrasts with the Sony A1 at 25.7 bits at ISO 100 (and practically identical to the Nikon Z9 at ISO 100) and 25 bits for the Canon EOS R3 at the same setting. Note all three have lower extended settings but they all share a similar result with their respective native bases.

While the Nikon and Sony share a similar curve, both seeing a similar bump in color, with the Nikon Z9 maintaining over 22 bits at ISO 800, the Sony has a slight (0.4 bit) advantage. Above that all three cameras share a similar At ISO 25,600, however, the Nikon Z9 reports some 15 bits but loses out to both the Sony A1 and the Canon EOS R3 by a difference of 1.7 and 1.2 bits, respectively.

Nikon Z9 Color Depth graph

Landscape (dynamic range)

In the landscape category, the Nikon Z9 is slightly below (within 0.3 EV) of the Sony A1 and Canon EOS R3 in the maximum dynamic range at the base ISO setting, but that gap widens over ISO 100-400. Interestingly, both the Nikon and Sony share another similar curve to that seen with color depth. The Canon clearly has a very different response, though. It displays a second gain at ISO 400 (manufacturer setting) as opposed to the Nikon and Sony’s at ISO 800. This results in quite a sizable difference between the Canon EOS R3 at 13.3 EV and Nikon Z9 at just 12 EV. Still, the Nikon Z9 and Sony A1 recover somewhat at ISO 800 putting the Canon EOS R3 in third place, albeit by just 0.39 EV against the Z9. From ISO 1,600 upwards the Canon EOS R3 has the widest DR of the three with around +0.7 EV advantage over the Nikon Z9 and the Sony A1 sitting in between.

Nikon Z9 DR graph

Sports (low-light ISO)

In this category, both the Canon EOS R3 and Sony A1 have the edge over the Nikon Z9 with slightly noisier results. Compared to the best of the three, the Canon EOS R3, the calculated low-light ISO of 2,451 for the Nikon Z9 vs 4086 ISO corresponds to a difference of 0.73 EV. Against the Sony A1, the Nikon fares a bit better but even then there’s around 0.36 EV advantage over its rival.

Nkon Z9 SNR 18% Gray Graph

Conclusion

Given the balance between quality and high frame rates, the Nikon Z9 is a phenomenal performer. Strong results at base ISO with maximum dynamic range, and excellent color depth at most ISOs are highly attractive, even if both the Sony A1 and Canon EOS R3 have a slight edge in dynamic range at just about every other ISO setting. Nevertheless, the Nikon Z9 is a formidable rival to both, especially the latter, given that camera’s lower pixel count. With such an incredibly aspiring specification along with the sensor performance to match, the Nikon Z9 is a pioneering product for the Z series and is easy to recommend.

In this review, we have mentioned the Nikon Z9’s most relevant rivals from other brands. As usual, you can compare it with these and with other models and create your own comparisons and in-depth analyses using our interactive image sensor ranking tool. 

The post Nikon Z9 Sensor test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-z9-sensor-test/feed/ 0 Nikon Z9 scores Nikon Z9_CS Nikon Z9_DR Nikon Z9_SNR_18
OnePlus Nord 2 5G Battery test https://www.dxomark.com/oneplus-nord-2-5g-battery-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/oneplus-nord-2-5g-battery-test/#respond Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:29:40 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=107797 We put the OnePlus Nord 2 5G through our rigorous DXOMARK Battery test suite to measure its performance in autonomy, charging and efficiency. In these test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key specifications:  Battery capacity:4500 mAh 65W charger (not included) 6.43-inch, [...]

The post OnePlus Nord 2 5G Battery test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
We put the OnePlus Nord 2 5G through our rigorous DXOMARK Battery test suite to measure its performance in autonomy, charging and efficiency. In these test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications: 

  • Battery capacity:4500 mAh
  • 65W charger (not included)
  • 6.43-inch, 1080×2400, 90 Hz OLED display
  • MediaTek Dimensity 1200 5G
  • Tested ROM / RAM combination:128 GB + 8 GB
OnePlus Nord 2 5G
83
battery
68

104

58

96

59

100

104
charging
99

117

101

109

81

86

78

121

Charging Time
2 days 6h
Battery life
Charging Time
0h22
80% Charging time
Charging Time
0h38
Full charging time

Pros

  • Average autonomy – 54 hours in a moderate use
  • Very fast charging with quite good efficiency
  • Very good performance on 5-minute charging

Cons

  • Very low autonomy when calling on-the-go
  • High Consumption for music streaming in 4G

The OnePlus Nord 2 5G offers a very good overall charging experience. It manages to attain an impressive gain of autonomy of 9 hours and 33 minutes from a mere five-minute charge up when the phone’s power is at 20%. Overall, the device provides an average autonomy experience, except during music streaming and during calling on-the-go tests, when the smartphone struggled, perhaps to find antennas.

Test Summary

About DXOMARK Battery tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone battery reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests over a week-long period both indoors and outdoors. (See our introductory and how we test articles for more details about our smartphone Battery protocol.)

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.

Battery Charger Wireless Display Processor
OnePlus Nord 2 5G 4500mAh 65W
(not included)
0W OLED
1080 x 2400
MediaTek Dimensity 1200 5G
OnePlus Nord CE 5G 4500mAh 30W
(not included)
0W OLED
1080 x 2400
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G 4250mAh 33W
(not included)
0W OLED
1080 x 2400
Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G

[glossary_exclude]Autonomy[/glossary_exclude]

62

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

98

[glossary_exclude]Wiko Power U30[/glossary_exclude]
How Autonomy score is composed

Autonomy score is composed of three performance sub-scores: Stationary, On the go, and Calibrated use cases. Each sub-score comprises the results of a comprehensive range of tests for measuring autonomy in all kinds of real-life scenarios.

Light Usage
76h
Light Usage
Active: 2h30/day
Moderate Usage
54h
Moderate Usage
Active: 4h/day
Intense Usage
34h
Intense Usage
Active: 7h/day

[glossary_exclude]Stationary[/glossary_exclude]

68

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

104

[glossary_exclude]Vivo Y72 5G[/glossary_exclude]

A robot housed in a Faraday cage performs a set of touch-based user actions during what we call our “typical usage scenario” (TUS) — making calls, video streaming, etc. — 4 hours of active use over the course of a 16-hour period, plus 8 hours of “sleep.” The robot repeats this set of actions every day until the device runs out of power.

Typical Usage Scenario discharge curves

[glossary_exclude]On the go[/glossary_exclude]

58

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

96

[glossary_exclude]Samsung Galaxy M51[/glossary_exclude]

Using a smartphone on the go takes a toll on autonomy because of extra “hidden” demands, such as the continuous signaling associated with cellphone network selection, for example. DXOMARK Battery experts take the phone outdoors and perform a precisely defined set of activities while following the same three-hour travel itinerary (walking, taking the bus, the subway…) for each device

Estimated autonomy for on the go use cases (full charge)

[glossary_exclude]Calibrated[/glossary_exclude]

59

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

100

[glossary_exclude]Samsung Galaxy M51[/glossary_exclude]

For this series of tests, the smartphone returns to the Faraday cage and our robots repeatedly perform actions linked to one specific use case (such as gaming, video streaming, etc.) at a time. Starting from an 80% charge, all devices are tested until they have expended at least 5% of their battery power.

Estimated autonomy for calibrated use cases (full charge)

[glossary_exclude]Charging[/glossary_exclude]

104

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

117

[glossary_exclude]Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
How Charging score is composed

Charging is fully part of the overall battery experience. In some situations where autonomy is at a minimum, knowing how fast you can charge becomes a concern. The DXOMARK Battery charging score is composed of two sub-scores, (1) Full charge and (2) Quick boost.

Wired
Wired
95%
in 30 min
0h22
0 - 80%
0h38
Full charge

[glossary_exclude]Full charge[/glossary_exclude]

99

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

117

[glossary_exclude]Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

Full charge tests assess the reliability of the battery power gauge; measure how long and how much power the battery takes to charge from zero to 80% capacity, from 80 to 100% as shown by the UI, and until an actual full charge.

Two charts here below illustrate the full charge performance of the smartphone: (1) The charging curves, in wired and wireless (if available) showing the evolution of the battery level indicator as well as the power consumption in watts during the stages of charging toward full capacity.
(2) The time to full charge chart breaks down the necessary time to reach 80%, 100% and full charge.

[glossary_exclude]Power consumption and battery level during full charge[/glossary_exclude]

The charging curves, in wired and wireless (if available) showing the evolution of the battery level indicator as well as the power consumption in watts during the stages of charging toward full capacity.

Time to full charge

The time to full charge chart breaks down the necessary time to reach 80%, 100% and full charge.

[glossary_exclude]Quick boost[/glossary_exclude]

101

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

109

[glossary_exclude]Xiaomi 11T Pro[/glossary_exclude]

With the phone at different charge levels (20%, 40%, 60%, 80%), Quick boost tests measure the amount of charge the battery receives after being plugged in for 5 minutes. The chart here compares the average autonomy gain from a quick 5-minute charge.

Average autonomy gain for a 5 minute charge

[glossary_exclude]Efficiency[/glossary_exclude]

80

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

102

[glossary_exclude]Apple iPhone 13 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
How Efficiency score is composed

The DXOMARK power efficiency score consists of two sub-scores, Charge up and Discharge rate, both of which combine data obtained during robot-based typical usage scenario, calibrated tests and charging evaluation, taking into consideration the device’s battery capacity. DXOMARK calculate the annual power consumption of the product, shown on below graph, which is representative of the overall efficiency during a charge and when in use.

Annual Consumption OnePlus Nord 2 5G
4.4 kWh
Efficient
Good
Bad
Inefficient

[glossary_exclude]Charge up[/glossary_exclude]

81

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

86

[glossary_exclude]Oppo Find X5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

The charge up sub-score is a combination of four factors: the overall efficiency of a full charge, related to how much energy you need to fill up the battery compared to the energy that the battery can provide; the efficiency of the travel adapter when it comes to transferring power from an outlet to your phone; the residual consumption when your phone is fully charged and still plugged into the charger; and the residual consumption of the charger itself, when the smartphone is disconnected from it. The chart here below shows the overall efficiency of a full charge in %.

Overall charge efficiency

[glossary_exclude]Discharge[/glossary_exclude]

78

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

121

[glossary_exclude]Apple iPhone 13 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

The discharge subscore rates the speed of a battery’s discharge during a test, which is independent of the battery’s capacity. It is the ratio of a battery’s capacity divided by its autonomy. A small-capacity battery could have the same autonomy as a large-capacity battery, indicating that the device is well-optimized, with a low discharge rate.

Average discharge current

 

 

 

 

The post OnePlus Nord 2 5G Battery test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
https://www.dxomark.com/oneplus-nord-2-5g-battery-test/feed/ 0 Charging Time Charging Time Charging Time BATTERY BATTERY Light Usage Moderate Usage Intense Usage BATTERY BATTERY Wired
Vivo iQOO 9 Pro Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-iqoo-9-pro-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-iqoo-9-pro-audio-test/#respond Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:35:24 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=110501 We put the Vivo iQOO 9 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 Vivo iQOO 9 Pro Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
We put the Vivo iQOO 9 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 Vivo iQ00 9 Pro is aimed at gamers, with gameplay sensors built into the frame and a vapor-cooling chamber. It has two speakers, one at the top front and one bottom side. Its global score of 67 is just a slight improvement over the last device we tested in the same line, the iQ00 7 Legend, which earned a 66. As a playback device, the iQ009 lacks low-end and bass and does not sound very good at maximum volume, with a lot of artifacts among other problems. It works best when listening to podcasts or other vocal content at lower volumes. Spatial performance is a high point — with localizability that is a plus for gamers. As a recording device, the Vivo smartphone is functional but its timbre lacks bass as well as high-end and is overall not pleasing to the ear. It does a good job when using the memo app. It doesn’t work as well when recording in loud environments.


Key audio specifications include:

  • Stereo speakers, top front & bottom side
  • No headphone jack

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
67
audio
63

89

66

81

68

88

62

85

83

96


67

91

62

81

64

78

63

99

71

97

31

60

Playback

Pros

  • Good wideness
  • Tonal balance is preserved at soft volume

Cons

  • Many artifacts, especially at maximum volume
  • Inconsistent and midrange-centered tonal balance

Recording

Pros

  • Good tonal balance when using memo app
  • Good intelligibility of voices in all apps, despite uneven tonal balance
  • Good wideness in life videos

Cons

  • Unrealistic background due to compression in selfie videos
  • Narrow wideness in selfie video
  • Aggressive tonal balance in high sound-pressure scenario

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.

[glossary_exclude]Playback[/glossary_exclude]

69

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

86

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
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.

As a playback device, the iQOO 9 Pro is average overall, with its best qualities most evident at low volumes. Louder volumes bring its worst qualities to the fore. Although there have been some improvements from the iQOO 7, the 9 Pro still lacks low end and bass, and the top of the high end is limited as well. Midrange is inconsistent, with resonances in the lower midrange that impair lower vocals and some music. In dynamics, bass precision has been improved thanks to the slightly extended tonal balance. Attack is generally rounded and punch is average. Spatial performance is a bright point, with good wideness that aids localizability. Worth noting: The sound scene doesn’t rotate if you aren’t holding it top-down in landscape mode. While the volume performance is average, the minimum step is not loud enough and the top three steps are basically the same. When played at max volume, the Vivo device produces a lot of compression, distortion, and pumping.

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

Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
Here is how the Vivo iQOO 9 Pro performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
[glossary_exclude]Use-cases scores[/glossary_exclude]


[glossary_exclude]Timbre[/glossary_exclude]

63

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

89

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Dynamics[/glossary_exclude]

66

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

81

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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.


[glossary_exclude]Spatial[/glossary_exclude]

68

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

88

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Volume[/glossary_exclude]

62

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

85

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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 iQOO 9 Pro 73.1 dBA 73.7 dBA
Vivo iQOO 7 Legend 71.6 dBA 70.2 dBA
Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos) 73.8 dBA 68.7 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


[glossary_exclude]Artifacts[/glossary_exclude]

83

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

96

[glossary_exclude]Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G[/glossary_exclude]

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.


[glossary_exclude]Recording[/glossary_exclude]

62

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

86

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
How Audio Playback 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.

As a recording device, the Vivo iQOO 9 Pro is basic and functional with overall average performance. It doesn’t work particularly well recording in loud environments, like an electronic music concert. Recording with the memo app produces generally good results with a relatively homogenous tonal balance. In life and selfie video use cases, the tonal balance captured by the device is not pleasing to the ear. There’s not enough treble, and high-end extension is missing. The midrange is focused on the upper mids and lacks low mids, which makes voices sound slightly aggressive. Bass and low-mid warmth are lacking. Considering dynamics, the signal-to-noise ratio is correct in all use cases, although in loud environments the background noise is not sufficiently attenuated. The sound envelope is precise. Localizabiity is generally good in life and selfie videos despite the flaws in tonal balance. Wideness is quite good in life video but unsurprisingly less so in selfie video, which is a problem with most devices we test. Recording loudness was on the mark in all our use cases. As for artifacts, there is some observable compression in selfie videos and some clipping on shouting voices. In loud environments, pumping becomes a problem on some elements, like “s” syllables. Background restitution is generally good, although again the device falters in loud environments. where in selfie and life video, a noise-canceling algorithm triggers compression and some phasing issues.

Here is how the Vivo iQOO 9 Pro performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

[glossary_exclude]Use-cases scores[/glossary_exclude]


[glossary_exclude]Timbre[/glossary_exclude]

67

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

91

[glossary_exclude]Honor Magic3 Pro+[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Dynamics[/glossary_exclude]

62

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

81

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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 Sound-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


[glossary_exclude]Spatial[/glossary_exclude]

64

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

78

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 4S Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Volume[/glossary_exclude]

63

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

99

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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 iQOO 9 Pro -24.8 LUFS -20.7 LUFS -20 LUFS -20.7 LUFS
Vivo iQOO 7 Legend -33.9 LUFS -29.3 LUFS -27.2 LUFS -28.8 LUFS
Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos) -28.9 LUFS -21.4 LUFS -21.2 LUFS -24.2 LUFS


[glossary_exclude]Artifacts[/glossary_exclude]

71

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

97

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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.

Listen for artifacts in this extract, which has been recorded in a busy home environment:


[glossary_exclude]Background[/glossary_exclude]

31

Vivo iQOO 9 Pro

60

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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 iQOO 9 Pro Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-iqoo-9-pro-audio-test/feed/ 0 AUDIO AUDIO
Huawei P50 Pro Battery test https://www.dxomark.com/huawei-p50-pro-battery-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/huawei-p50-pro-battery-test/#respond Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:53:50 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=107790 We put the Huawei P50 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Battery test suite to measure its performance in autonomy, charging and efficiency. In these test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key specifications: Battery capacity: 4360 mAh 66W charger (not included) 6.6-inch, [...]

The post Huawei P50 Pro Battery test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
We put the Huawei P50 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Battery test suite to measure its performance in autonomy, charging and efficiency. In these test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications:

  • Battery capacity: 4360 mAh
  • 66W charger (not included)
  • 6.6-inch, 2700 x 1228, 120 Hz OLED display
  • Kirin 9000 chipset
  • Tested ROM / RAM combination: 256 GB + 8 GB
Huawei P50 Pro
79
battery
59

104

61

96

63

100

96

117

88

109

80

86

88

121

Charging Time
2 days 3h
Battery life
Charging Time
0h30
80% Charging time
Charging Time
0h52
Full charging time

Pros

  • Decent autonomy (2.5 days in moderate use)
  • Charges 80% in only 30 min, and 56% in 30 min with wireless charger
  • Best gaming performance in this price range
  • Above-average charge efficiency

Cons

  • High discharge current when streaming video over Wi-Fi

The Huawei P50 Pro is a very well-balanced device, offering impressive specs and decent autonomy of 2.5 days. The phone also provided the best gaming experience for an ultra-premium device. The Huawei P50 Pro battery charging experience was also a major strong point, whether powering up wired or wirelessly. All those factors, along with a decent charge efficiency, helped place the Huawei P50 Pro into the No. 2 spot of our ultra-premium ranking

Test Summary

About DXOMARK Battery tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone battery reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests over a week-long period both indoors and outdoors. (See our introductory and how we test articles for more details about our smartphone Battery protocol.)

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.

The table below shows the battery capacity, tested charger, display type and resolution, and processor specifications for the comparison devices.

Battery Charger Wireless Display Processor
Huawei P50 Pro 4360mAh 66W
(not included)
50W OLED
1228 x 2700
HiSilicon Kirin 9000
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max 4352mAh 20W
(not included)
15W OLED
1284 x 2778
Apple A15 Bionic
Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra 5000mAh 67W
(not included)
67W OLED
1440 x 3200
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G

[glossary_exclude]Autonomy[/glossary_exclude]

59

Huawei P50 Pro

98

[glossary_exclude]Wiko Power U30[/glossary_exclude]
How Autonomy score is composed

Autonomy score is composed of three performance sub-scores: Stationary, On the go, and Calibrated use cases. Each sub-score comprises the results of a comprehensive range of tests for measuring autonomy in all kinds of real-life scenarios.

Light Usage
73h
Light Usage
Active: 2h30/day
Moderate Usage
51h
Moderate Usage
Active: 4h/day
Intense Usage
32h
Intense Usage
Active: 7h/day

[glossary_exclude]Stationary[/glossary_exclude]

59

Huawei P50 Pro

104

[glossary_exclude]Vivo Y72 5G[/glossary_exclude]

A robot housed in a Faraday cage performs a set of touch-based user actions during what we call our “typical usage scenario” (TUS) — making calls, video streaming, etc. — 4 hours of active use over the course of a 16-hour period, plus 8 hours of “sleep.” The robot repeats this set of actions every day until the device runs out of power.

Typical Usage Scenario discharge curves

[glossary_exclude]On the go[/glossary_exclude]

61

Huawei P50 Pro

96

[glossary_exclude]Samsung Galaxy M51[/glossary_exclude]

Using a smartphone on the go takes a toll on autonomy because of extra “hidden” demands, such as the continuous signaling associated with cellphone network selection, for example. DXOMARK Battery experts take the phone outdoors and perform a precisely defined set of activities while following the same three-hour travel itinerary (walking, taking the bus, the subway…) for each device

Estimated autonomy for on the go use cases (full charge)

[glossary_exclude]Calibrated[/glossary_exclude]

63

Huawei P50 Pro

100

[glossary_exclude]Samsung Galaxy M51[/glossary_exclude]

For this series of tests, the smartphone returns to the Faraday cage and our robots repeatedly perform actions linked to one specific use case (such as gaming, video streaming, etc.) at a time. Starting from an 80% charge, all devices are tested until they have expended at least 5% of their battery power.

Estimated autonomy for calibrated use cases (full charge)

[glossary_exclude]Charging[/glossary_exclude]

95

Huawei P50 Pro

117

[glossary_exclude]Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
How Charging score is composed

Charging is fully part of the overall battery experience. In some situations where autonomy is at a minimum, knowing how fast you can charge becomes a concern. The DXOMARK Battery charging score is composed of two sub-scores, (1) Full charge and (2) Quick boost.

Wired
Wired
79%
in 30 min
0h30
0 - 80%
0h52
Full charge
Wireless
Wireless
56%
in 30 min
0h43
0 - 80%
1h06
Full charge

[glossary_exclude]Full charge[/glossary_exclude]

96

Huawei P50 Pro

117

[glossary_exclude]Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

Full charge tests assess the reliability of the battery power gauge; measure how long and how much power the battery takes to charge from zero to 80% capacity, from 80 to 100% as shown by the UI, and until an actual full charge.

Two charts here below illustrate the full charge performance of the smartphone: (1) The charging curves, in wired and wireless (if available) showing the evolution of the battery level indicator as well as the power consumption in watts during the stages of charging toward full capacity.
(2) The time to full charge chart breaks down the necessary time to reach 80%, 100% and full charge.

[glossary_exclude]Power consumption and battery level during full charge[/glossary_exclude]
[glossary_exclude]Power consumption and battery level during wireless full charge[/glossary_exclude]

The charging curves, in wired and wireless (if available) showing the evolution of the battery level indicator as well as the power consumption in watts during the stages of charging toward full capacity.

Time to full charge
Time to full charge

The time to full charge chart breaks down the necessary time to reach 80%, 100% and full charge.

[glossary_exclude]Quick boost[/glossary_exclude]

88

Huawei P50 Pro

109

[glossary_exclude]Xiaomi 11T Pro[/glossary_exclude]

With the phone at different charge levels (20%, 40%, 60%, 80%), Quick boost tests measure the amount of charge the battery receives after being plugged in for 5 minutes. The chart here compares the average autonomy gain from a quick 5-minute charge.

Average autonomy gain for a 5 minute charge

[glossary_exclude]Efficiency[/glossary_exclude]

88

Huawei P50 Pro

102

[glossary_exclude]Apple iPhone 13 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
How Efficiency score is composed

The DXOMARK power efficiency score consists of two sub-scores, Charge up and Discharge rate, both of which combine data obtained during robot-based typical usage scenario, calibrated tests and charging evaluation, taking into consideration the device’s battery capacity. DXOMARK calculate the annual power consumption of the product, shown on below graph, which is representative of the overall efficiency during a charge and when in use.

Annual Consumption Huawei P50 Pro
4.3 kWh
Efficient
Good
Bad
Inefficient

[glossary_exclude]Charge up[/glossary_exclude]

80

Huawei P50 Pro

86

[glossary_exclude]Oppo Find X5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

The charge up sub-score is a combination of four factors: the overall efficiency of a full charge, related to how much energy you need to fill up the battery compared to the energy that the battery can provide; the efficiency of the travel adapter when it comes to transferring power from an outlet to your phone; the residual consumption when your phone is fully charged and still plugged into the charger; and the residual consumption of the charger itself, when the smartphone is disconnected from it. The chart here below shows the overall efficiency of a full charge in %.

Overall charge efficiency

[glossary_exclude]Discharge[/glossary_exclude]

88

Huawei P50 Pro

121

[glossary_exclude]Apple iPhone 13 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

The discharge subscore rates the speed of a battery’s discharge during a test, which is independent of the battery’s capacity. It is the ratio of a battery’s capacity divided by its autonomy. A small-capacity battery could have the same autonomy as a large-capacity battery, indicating that the device is well-optimized, with a low discharge rate.

Average discharge current

The post Huawei P50 Pro Battery test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
https://www.dxomark.com/huawei-p50-pro-battery-test/feed/ 0 Charging Time Charging Time Charging Time BATTERY BATTERY Light Usage Moderate Usage Intense Usage BATTERY BATTERY Wired Wireless Wired Wireless Wired Wireless
Oppo Find X5 Audio test https://www.dxomark.com/oppo-find-x5-audio-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/oppo-find-x5-audio-test/#respond Thu, 07 Apr 2022 15:12:48 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=109124 We put the Oppo Find X5 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 [...]

The post Oppo Find X5 Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
We put the Oppo Find X5 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 Oppo Find X5 provides an average audio performance for an ultra-premium device. Its strengths in playback were in listening to music and watching movies, helped by the default activation of Dolby SFX, which brings clarity and brightness to sounds in all use cases. As a recording device, the Oppo did better in memo and meeting room recordings, but when used in conjunction with the camera to record selfies or life videos, the audio scored a little lower.


Key audio specifications include:

  • Stereo speakers, top front-firing, bottom side-firing
  • Hi-Res audio
  • Dolby Atmos
  • 3D audio recording

Oppo Find X5
63
audio
56

89

62

81

52

88

70

85

81

96


73

91

64

81

57

78

69

99

88

97

43

60

Playback

Pros

  • Decent spatial performance
  • Few artifacts throughout normal usage

Cons

  • Poor timbre, with lack of bass and treble
  • Unsatisfactory dynamics performance

Recording

Pros

  • Mostly clean from artifacts
  • Good SNR in all use cases

Cons

  • Dark, even muffled tonal balance in most use cases
  • Dynamics lack sharpness and precision
  • Narrow stereo image, especially in selfie video

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.

[glossary_exclude]Playback[/glossary_exclude]

61

Oppo Find X5

86

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
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.

The playback performance on the Oppo Find X5 was average in timbre, dynamics, spatial and artifacts. The lack of bass and treble brought out all the imperfections of the midrange and resulted in an overall poor timbre performance.  Dynamics was also hampered by the lack of bass. Not only was the low-end lackluster, but it was also quite blurry, affecting bass precision performance. In addition, punch was pretty weak. Spatial performance to be decent, with a perfectly centered stereo sound that provided average wideness in a landscape orientation and good localizability of individual sounds. Unfortunately, the stereo sound does not rotate when the phone is held upside down in landscape orientation. The attribute with the highest score was artifacts, mainly because there were so few of them in playback in most use cases, except in gaming, where speakers were easily occluded.

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

Oppo Find X5
Sony Xperia 1 MK3
Vivo X70 Pro Plus
Here is how the Oppo Find X5 performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
[glossary_exclude]Use-cases scores[/glossary_exclude]


[glossary_exclude]Timbre[/glossary_exclude]

56

Oppo Find X5

89

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Dynamics[/glossary_exclude]

62

Oppo Find X5

81

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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.


[glossary_exclude]Spatial[/glossary_exclude]

52

Oppo Find X5

88

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Volume[/glossary_exclude]

70

Oppo Find X5

85

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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
Oppo Find X5 75.5 dBA 71.3 dBA
Sony Xperia 1 III 74.2 dBA 67.9 dBA
Vivo X70 Pro+ 72.4 dBA 73.8 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


[glossary_exclude]Artifacts[/glossary_exclude]

81

Oppo Find X5

96

[glossary_exclude]Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G[/glossary_exclude]

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.


[glossary_exclude]Recording[/glossary_exclude]

69

Oppo Find X5

86

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]
How Audio Playback 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.

The Oppo Find X5’s recording performance was better than Playback. Artifacts outperformed the other attributes in Recording because sounds were clear and free of artifacts even at loud volume.  The lack of clarity in tonal balance affected the device’s  spatial performances. Despite a decent amount of bass,   low-end extension was lackluster, even more so in the electronic concert use case. The selfie and memo recordings showed better timbre performances, with clearer tonal balance and more pronounced high midrange. The stereo scene was particularly narrow in selfie videos. Envelope rendition was deemed inaccurate, but all use cases showed a good signal-to-noise ratio. The lack of clarity in tonal balance and unnatural sound affected background audio, even in the absence of artifacts.

Here is how the Oppo Find X5 performs in recording use cases compared to its competitors:

[glossary_exclude]Use-cases scores[/glossary_exclude]


[glossary_exclude]Timbre[/glossary_exclude]

73

Oppo Find X5

91

[glossary_exclude]Honor Magic3 Pro+[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Dynamics[/glossary_exclude]

64

Oppo Find X5

81

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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 Sound-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), for example how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.


[glossary_exclude]Spatial[/glossary_exclude]

57

Oppo Find X5

78

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 4S Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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


[glossary_exclude]Volume[/glossary_exclude]

69

Oppo Find X5

99

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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
Oppo Find X5 -23.4 LUFS -20 LUFS -18.1 LUFS -18.4 LUFS
Sony Xperia 1 III -30.5 LUFS -22.4 LUFS -20.2 LUFS -21.3 LUFS
Vivo X70 Pro+ -23.1 LUFS -18 LUFS -16.7 LUFS -18.6 LUFS


[glossary_exclude]Artifacts[/glossary_exclude]

88

Oppo Find X5

97

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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.

Listen for artifacts in this extract, which has been recorded in a busy home environment:


[glossary_exclude]Background[/glossary_exclude]

43

Oppo Find X5

60

[glossary_exclude]Black Shark 5 Pro[/glossary_exclude]

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 Oppo Find X5 Audio test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
https://www.dxomark.com/oppo-find-x5-audio-test/feed/ 0 AUDIO AUDIO
Oppo Find X5 Display test https://www.dxomark.com/oppo-find-x5-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/oppo-find-x5-display-test/#respond Thu, 07 Apr 2022 14:21:01 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=110456 We put the Oppo Find X5 through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance. Here’s a look at how it did. Overview Key display specifications: 6.55 inches OLED Dimensions: 160.3 × 72.6 × 8.7 mm Resolution: 2400 x 1080 pixels, 402ppi Aspect ratio: 20:9 Refresh rate: 120 Hz Pros Readable in most [...]

The post Oppo Find X5 Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>
We put the Oppo Find X5 through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance. Here’s a look at how it did.

Overview

Key display specifications:

    • 6.55 inches OLED
    • Dimensions: 160.3 × 72.6 × 8.7 mm
    • Resolution: 2400 x 1080 pixels, 402ppi
    • Aspect ratio: 20:9
    • Refresh rate: 120 Hz
Oppo Find X5
94
display
75

76

86

91

62

91

86

87

79

85

84

86