Wireless speaker review - DXOMARK

128

152

115

137

111

130

141

122

133

Pros

Pleasant and natural timbre
Mostly free of artifacts
Consistent performance across different volumes

Cons

Treble can sound dull or dark
Stereophony is negligible
Lack of punch

The Sonos Move 2 is a portable speaker that as its name suggests is meant to be on the move, whether indoors or outdoors.

Its best performance in our tests was in the outdoor use case, playing music. But the speaker’s playback scored well in both our relaxing use case as well as the party use case, at both low and high volumes, attesting to its versatility.

While Sonos says that it redesigned the Move 2 by replacing the previous single tweeter with two for a higher-fidelity stereo soundstage, our testing showed that wideness was strongly limited in all use cases.

But overall, the Sonos Move 2’s audio performance should be satisfying for most types of situations.

Listen to the tested speaker’s playback performance in this comparison with its competitors:

Klipsch The Three II

Ruark Audio MRx

Sonos Move 2

Test summary

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker 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.

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at timbre, dynamics, spatial, volume, and artifacts, and explain what they mean for the user.

Timbre (128)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Playback timbre comparison

The Move 2 offered a pleasant timbre that sounded natural and warm. Tonal balance was consistent across use cases, even at maximum volume, but it lacked brilliance and high-end extension when compared to other devices. As a result, it could sound a bit dull or dark. The midrange was quite satisfying and warm, although it could sound slightly muddy in some cases, for instance in the party use case and on podcasts. Bass was pretty good regardless of the use case, and even though it could lack a bit of low-end extension and depth, it sounded powerful overall; actually a bit too much for reverberant acoustics such as in the bathroom use case. Aside from that, the performance was really satisfying for the speaker.

The main drawback in terms of timbre stemmed from the previously mentioned lack of high-end extension, and generally an upper treble region that could sound a bit dull. Even though objective measurements showed a very linear treble, the listener’s experience was slightly impaired by the lack of brightness. Tonal balance was overall pretty consistent around the device, despite a loss of brightness from the back of the speaker.

Music playback frequency response

Dynamics (115)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

Playback dynamics comparison

The dynamic envelope was quite accurate. In the low-end, bass stayed realistic in most use cases, although it sounded a bit blurry in the bathroom use case. Attack was satisfying regardless of volume, staying decently sharp both at a quiet level such as in the bedroom use case, or at high volume in the party use case. However, it could still sound snappier. The Move 2 was slightly less performant in terms of punch, sounding a little too flat or muddy in some cases. No compression was observed during the tests.

Spatial (86)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

Playback spatial comparison

The speaker’s spatial performance was average. The device is stereophonic, but wideness was strongly limited in all use cases. Conversely, it wasn’t omnidirectional enough to offset the lack of wideness. Localizability was decent in most use cases, although the precise position of some elements in the mix was sometimes a bit blurry, mostly due to the narrow image. Distance rendition was generally correct. However, content could be perceived to be a bit too far sometimes.

Playback directivity

Volume (130)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Playback volume comparison

Playback volume consistency comparison

Volume steps distribution was very consistent and smooth, resulting in an overall good performance. Loudness at max volume, however, was a bit below expectations, even though the overall performance at maximum volume was very consistent.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Sonos Move 2	89.1 dBA	86.8 dBA	82.9 dBA	79.6 dBA	85.2 dBA	78.2 dBA
Klipsch The Three II	93.2 dBA	92.7 dBA	91.1 dBA	85 dBA	92.3 dBA	86.1 dBA
Astell&Kern ACRO BE100	86.3 dBA	83.4 dBA	83.8 dBA	75.6 dBA	85.7 dBA	77.3 dBA

Artifacts (122)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

Playback artifacts comparison

Perceptually, very few artifacts were present during the evaluation, and performance was excellent. But there was some slight distortion as well as compression at maximum volume. The compression came in the form of subtle overshoots, which did not really affect the auditory experience. Objective measurements also showed some excellent results in the artifacts attribute.

Playback total harmonic distortion

The post Sonos Move 2 Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

Ruark Audio R410 Speaker test

DXOMARK — Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:22:12 +0000

We put the Ruark Audio R410 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications include:

Wireless protocols: AirPlay
Wired connectivity: HDMI (eARC); RCA; Optical
Height: 13.3 cm. Width: 56.0 cm. Depth: 29.0 cm
Weight: 9500.0 g
Speakers: Frequency response: 35Hz – 22kHz
Speaker units:
2 × Ruark 20mm silk dome tweeters,
2 × Ruark 100mm NS+ bass-mid units
Amplifier: 120W RMS Class D amplifier (0.02% THD @ 30W/CH)
Enhancements:
Adjustable bass and treble settings
Stereo+ 3D audio enhancement
Adaptive EQ provides ideal sound according to volume
Cabinet type: Tuned dual bass reflex enclosure

Test conditions:

Tested with iPhone SE
Communication protocol used: AirPlay

Ruark Audio R410

130

speaker

128

152

112

137

110

111

135

141

133

Pros

Wide stereo image
Solid low end
Very good dynamics performance at nominal and soft volumes

Cons

Excessive treble can sound harsh or sibilant
Poor artifacts performance, and multiple bugs
Lack of consistency across different volumes

The Ruark Audio R410 speaker is an integrated music system that performed generally well in our wireless speaker test, particularly in challenging acoustics.

The speaker, with its wood-style finish that gives it a classic look, performed best in our relaxing use case, when music or other content is played at nominal and soft volumes, and it did so with a pleasantly wide stereo sound. When set to high volume, such as in a party use case, the speaker displayed a great loudness, but it struggled to keep a consistent quality across different tracks, especially when compared to the performance at lower volumes.

The R410 had a fair share of artifacts, particularly compression — and not only at maximum volume. In addition, setting up and connecting the speaker presented some quirks, which sometimes required a reset.

Listen to the tested speaker’s playback performance in this comparison with its competitors:

JBL L75ms Music System

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Ruark Audio R410

Test summary

Timbre (128)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Playback timbre comparison

The Ruark Audio R410’s timbre performance was decent overall, although tonal balance could be inaccurate, with a prominent upper treble throughout the tested use cases and minimal midrange in general. The exaggerated presence of upper treble is visible on the frequency response graph below, specifically between 9kHz and 14kHz. As a result, tonal balance sounded very bright but not very natural, and it could sound quite harsh in some cases, leading to an unpleasant listening experience.

When playing podcasts or watching movies, male voices tended to come out well, with a good amount of body. In particular, the excess treble really stood out in noisy environments. With female voices, however, sibilance tended to be exacerbated and resulted in a harsh playback rendition.

In comparison to the overwhelming upper treble presence, midrange generally sounded a bit hollow. However, bass sounded good and especially deep, thanks to a satisfying low-end extension.

The Ruark R410’s performance was great in challenging acoustics, such as reverberant rooms, as bass didn’t get too boomy or imprecise. In high-volume use cases such as Party, the low-end lost some presence in its upper region. While still deep, bass became a little bland in these cases.

The speaker is quite directional. However, when listening to the device from a side angle, timbre was still satisfying; the treble, which was a bit exaggerated, is arguably more tolerable.

Music playback frequency response

Dynamics (112)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

Playback dynamics comparison

The R410 offered a strong dynamics performance, except at higher volumes. Attack was quite sharp in most use cases, and sounded snappy. The speaker delivered good bass precision, which was particularly impressive in the bathroom use case, which tends to be unforgiving for the low-end.

The sound envelope was accurate for most content. The speaker delivered a very satisfying punch, despite lacking some low-midrange energy.

At high volume, such as in the party use case, the performance was much less satisfying. Attack became severely hindered by compression, while envelope in the low end became imprecise. Punch was also lackluster in these use cases.

Spatial (110)

Playback spatial comparison

The Ruark, from both its design and its processing, offers a very wide and satisfying stereo image. Localizability was generally very good. Distance was mostly accurate, and realistic, but performance tended to be impaired by either the exacerbated sibilants, making vocal content sound too close, or by the insufficient low midrange, which made content too distant perceptually. These drawbacks were generally minor.

Playback directivity

Volume (135)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Playback volume comparison

Playback volume consistency comparison

The speaker showed good volume performance, with volume-step distribution being very consistent and smooth. Loudness at maximum volume was excellent, but inconsistent, especially when it came to dynamics. At the other end, minimum volume was also hit by a higher noise floor in Bluetooth due to a constant background noise. The noise was not present when using other communication protocols.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Ruark Audio R410	96 dBA	97.9 dBA	94.8 dBA	88 dBA	97.4 dBA	88.3 dBA
JBL L75ms Music System	91 dBA	94.1 dBA	93.3 dBA	91.5 dBA	91.3 dBA	91.5 dBA
Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge	90.4 dBA	87.4 dBA	89.1 dBA	81 dBA	90.2 dBA	83 dBA

Artifacts (73)

Playback artifacts comparison

Artifacts performance was below average. During the evaluation, the audio stopped working a couple of times in AirPlay, and the speaker had to be reset to factory settings. The Wi-Fi setup was often buggy. In Bluetooth, a constant humming noise was present even though nothing was playing. The noise is pretty loud, which is not acceptable. At high volume, compression is noticeable, and bass hits are distorted.

Playback total harmonic distortion

The post Ruark Audio R410 Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

Sony LSPX-S3 Speaker test

DXOMARK — Thu, 21 Sep 2023 14:46:04 +0000

We put the Sony LSPX-S3 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications include:

Wireless protocols: Bluetooth
Wired connectivity: None
Height: 28.9 cm, Width: 9.4 cm, Depth: 9.4 cm
Weight: 1100g
Speakers: Tweeter (Organic glass cylinder), Woofer (Diameter 46mm)

Test conditions:

Tested with Motorola G8
Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

Sony LSPX-S3

speaker

152

137

111

141

133

Pros

Omnidirectional design
Bass boost feature provides some benefit

Cons

Underwhelming performance overall
Inconsistent treble

With below average results in almost all test categories, the Sony LSPX-S3 did not make it into the upper regions of the DXOMARK Speaker ranking. On the plus side, the omnidirectional design meant that timbre was consistent at all listening angles around the speaker, with the bass boost feature providing some help with the low end. However, our experts still found the tonal balance to be flawed, with weak treble, unclear midrange and a lack of depth.

In terms of dynamics, attack was weak, punch was insufficient and our testers noted a lack of bass precision. The speaker is monophonic by design, leading to a diminished localizability of individual sound sources, which also sounded too distant in our tests. In addition, unwanted artifacts, such as compression, pumping and distortion were quite noticeable.

Listen to the tested speaker’s playback performance in this comparison with its competitors:

Sony LSPX-S3

Apple HomePod (2nd Gen)

Sonos Era 100

Test summary

Timbre (93)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Playback timbre comparison

Please note that for the purpose of this test, the bass boost function was activated. In this configuration, timbre was not unpleasant overall, but tonal balance was flawed. Treble was insufficient and weak, with a particularly severe lack of information between 5 kHz and 10 kHz. This said, high-end extension was satisfactory. Our lab measurements also highlighted an unusual resonant boost at around 16kHz. This boost disappeared at louder volumes, meaning treble sounded increasingly muffled with volume. Because of a lack of upper midrange presence, midrange was unclear, and the low midrange could sound slightly muddy. This, combined with the lack of treble, resulted in a loss of intelligibility of vocal content, such as podcasts. The bass boost function provided a nice low-end extension, but with a noticeable lack of strength. Upper bass did sound slightly inconsistent, too, leading to a low end that was not quite satisfactory. Given that the speaker is perfectly omnidirectional, timbre performance was consistent across all listening angles.

Music playback frequency response

Dynamics (78)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

Playback dynamics comparison

The dynamics performance left some room for improvement as well. Attack was weak across all use cases and volume settings, and bass precision was not quite satisfactory either. While bass notes appeared to have a decent attack, sustain was not realistic, despite bass boost being enabled. It was too quiet at best. As for punch, it was deemed insufficient. This could be explained by the muddiness of low midrange, which also lacked support from upper bass. Some pumping and excessive compression also took a toll on Punch.

Spatial (80)

Playback spatial comparison

The LSPX-S3 is omnidirectional, with the loudspeaker firing on a vertical axis. It is also monophonic, thus making the assessment of wideness or stereo balance irrelevant. Localizability was inherently diminished by these properties as well. Distance rendition was generally not up to par. Its improper timbre resulted in vocal content sounding too distant.

Playback directivity

Volume (72)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Playback volume comparison

Playback volume consistency comparison

Volume performance was quite underwhelming. Volume step distribution was quite inconsistent, with a stall in the first three steps, and a jump between the 4th and 5th steps, making proper tuning of the volume for quiet listening difficult. Our testers also found the maximum volume to not be nearly loud enough, even when considering the speaker’s small dimensions.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Sony LSPX-S3	74.7 dBA	71.8 dBA	72.1 dBA	67.5 dBA	73.8 dBA	66.8 dBA
Apple HomePod (2nd Gen)	79.8 dBA	77.8 dBA	78.4 dBA	71.8 dBA	79.5 dBA	74.1 dBA
Sonos Era 100	87.2 dBA	85 dBA	81.7 dBA	76.2 dBA	84.9 dBA	75.4 dBA

Artifacts (75)

Playback artifacts comparison

In line with the results in other categories, artifacts performance was below average. In our tests, the Sony suffered from quite strong compression and pumping, even at nominal volume. Distortion was quite noticeable as well, especially at high volume levels. Objective measurements showed strong peaks of THDN (Total Harmonic Distortion Plus Noise) in multiple zones, namely between 100Hz and 200Hz, with an additional peak at 250Hz. THDN was also unusually high from 2kHz upwards.

Playback total harmonic distortion

The post Sony LSPX-S3 Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

Yamaha WS-B1A Speaker test

Lars Rehm — Thu, 21 Sep 2023 14:45:02 +0000

We put the Yamaha WS-B1A through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications include:

Wireless protocols: Bluetooth
Wired connectivity: None
Height: 10.5 cm, Width: 8.8 cm, Depth: 8.8 cm
Weight: 490.0 g
Speakers: 1 loudspeaker (55mm) + 2 passive radiators

Test conditions:

Tested with Motorola G8
Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

Yamaha WS-B1A

speaker

152

137

111

141

133

Pros

Voice presence
Pretty loud for its size

Cons

Aggressive timbre
Underwhelming in almost every attribute

In our DXOMARK Speaker test, the Yamaha WS-B1A performance was not among the best, with subpar results across nearly all test categories and use cases. Our experts noted the nice voice presence and good loudness at maximum volume. However, volume step distribution was very inconsistent. Timbre was unpleasant, with an inconsistent tonal balance, dynamics results were poor, due to a weak attack and lack of sustain. The monophonic speaker meant that there was no wideness nor stereo balance to assess. Our testers also noticed compression and distortion among other unwanted artifacts.

Listen to the tested speaker’s playback performance in this comparison with its competitors:

Yamaha WS-B1A

JBL Charge 5

Sony SRS-XB33

Test summary

Timbre (80)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Playback timbre comparison

In our tests, the Yamaha WS-B1A did not deliver a pleasant timbre. The slightly inconsistent tonal balance was most likely caused by internal processing, but the resonant and harsh treble rendition was the speaker’s main issue across several use cases and all volume settings. A questionable boost just above the 10kHz range was accompanied by frequency notches slightly below, resulting in blurriness. The harshness issues were emphasized at higher volumes, making for a fairly unpleasant listening experience. Midrange left a lot to be desired in terms of body and warmth. The low midrange was noticeably weaker when compared to the higher midrange frequencies, resulting in a thin and somewhat hollow sound. Our experts also noted a complete lack of bass, especially when playing at low volumes, which had a significant negative impact on the overall experience. The rendition felt incomplete, lacking depth, especially when compared to the excessive and harsh treble mentioned previously.

Music playback frequency response

Dynamics (71)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

Playback dynamics comparison

The dynamics performance was very underwhelming. Attack was weak across all use cases and volume settings, and its impact was further diminished by underlying compression issues, as well as excessive upper treble, which was prone to distortion. A lack of sustain resulted in an incorrect low-end rendition in terms of envelope and the lack of low-end extension, combined with dull low midrange energy, resulted in a weak punch rendition.

Spatial (76)

Playback spatial comparison

In our tests, the WS-B1A was not perfectly omnidirectional, with a polar pattern showing more treble at the front of the speaker. These measurements were also verified in perceptual evaluation. The speaker is also monophonic, making the assessment of wideness or stereo balance irrelevant. This also means localizability of individual sound sources was poor. On the plus side, distance rendition was mostly accurate, but vocal content could sound too close.

Playback directivity

Volume (48)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Playback volume comparison

Playback volume consistency comparison

The Yamaha’s performance in the volume category was very poor. Volume step distribution was extremely inconsistent, with a plateau across the first three steps and a ceiling across the last five steps. The 4th and 5th steps were too spaced out, making it difficult to set a proper volume level for quiet listening. The maximum volume was decently loud for a device of the Yamaha’s dimensions.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Yamaha WS-B1A	84 dBA	83.8 dBA	79.6 dBA	78.6 dBA	80.8 dBA	73.9 dBA
JBL Charge 5	72.2 dBA	69.3 dBA	69.9 dBA	61.4 dBA	71.6 dBA	63.7 dBA
Sony SRS-XB33	84.2 dBA	81.1 dBA	81.9 dBA	74.1 dBA	82.3 dBA	75.8 dBA

Artifacts (79)

Playback artifacts comparison

In terms of unwanted audio artifacts, the Yamaha’s performance was below average. Sound quality was strongly affected by compression, especially at high volume volumes. Our testers also noticed distortion, especially on upper frequencies, which induced harsh sibilance. Objective measurements also showed a fairly high THDN (Total Harmonic Distortion plus Noise) value in the low end above 70dB.

Playback total harmonic distortion

The post Yamaha WS-B1A Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

Polaroid P4 Bluetooth Speaker test

DXOMARK — Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:34:08 +0000

We put the Polaroid P4 Bluetooth Speaker through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications include:

Wireless protocols : Bluetooth
Wired connectivity : Jack
Height: 32.2 cm. Width: 39.5 cm. Depth: 14.0 cm
Weight : 2680g
Speaker: ≥ 75dB (A), 60Hz-20KHz

Test conditions:

Tested with Motorola G8
Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

Polaroid P4 Bluetooth Speaker

117

speaker

117

152

103

137

111

106

141

133

Pros

Good timbre performance at maximum volume
Pretty snappy attack

Cons

Harsh treble
Lack of low-end and low midrange
Excessive compression

In our DXOMARK Speaker test, the Polaroid P4 delivered a surprisingly good performance at maximum volume. In combination with the pretty loud maximum volume level this makes it a good option for use at outdoor parties and similar occasions, despite some limitations such as excessively harsh and aggressive treble, as well as high levels of compression across all volume levels, which had a negative impact on the listening experience.

Listen to the tested speaker’s playback performance in this comparison with its competitors:

Polaroid P4 Bluetooth Speaker

Sonos Era 100

Sony SRS-XG300

Test summary

Timbre (117)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Playback timbre comparison

In our tests, Polaroid’s P4 speaker delivered a very bright but thin tonal balance, with an upper treble that sounded a bit harsh and even slightly resonant on some tracks. Looking at the frequency response graph, multiple notches can be seen in the upper spectrum, inducing an inconsistent treble rendition for the listener. Treble was however far less problematic in vocal-centric use cases, for example, when watching movies or listening to podcasts. Additionally, treble was less aggressive at a lower volume — at the expense of bass.

Midrange also sounded a bit thin and inconsistent. Our experts noticed a lack of clarity from upper midrange, which induced blurriness. Conversely, low midrange was also deemed slightly insufficient; especially at low volume. This lack of body is emphasized by the low-end of the spectrum, which lacked strength a lot.

All in all, timbre didn’t allow for a consistent rendition of musical content, especially in regard to mix fidelity. The tonal balance was more enjoyable at maximum volume (despite the harshness), but movies and podcasts were indubitably the best suited use cases to offset the drawbacks mentioned.

Music playback frequency response

Dynamics (103)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

Playback dynamics comparison

Results for the dynamics performance were slightly below average for the Polaroid P4. Most importantly, excessive compression was observed during perceptual evaluation (see artifacts section for more details). This had a detrimental impact on envelope accuracy. Attack was pretty snappy in most use cases but was held back by distortion, which impaired transients. Fairly frequent overshoots made attack of the bass notes stand out too much from the sustain, which was naturally weak due to an inherent lack of low-end. This resulted in a less convincing bass precision performance. Punch was severely impaired by the excessive compression as well, in addition to a lack of low midrange and low end support.

Spatial (87)

Playback spatial comparison

The speaker has interesting properties in terms of directivity, as it is front-firing but with an asymmetrical design and an open back. Upper frequencies were especially directive according to our measurements, meaning the Polaroid P4 would sound noticeably less bright when listening from the sides or the rear. Given the aforementioned harshness of treble, this would not necessarily be a bad thing, at least in perceptual evaluation. However, despite midrange being more consistent around the speaker, this also means tonal balance would differ a lot depending on where the listener is situated, which ultimately holds back the potential use for parties or gatherings.

The speaker is essentially monophonic and the asymmetrical design resulted in audio sometimes being slightly off-centered. Localizability of individual sound sources in the scene was blurry across most use cases. Distance rendition was decent but not perfectly realistic when compared to other speakers in this class, as voices could sound a bit too close due to the upper treble emphasis.

Playback directivity

Volume (106)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Playback volume comparison

Playback volume consistency comparison

Volume performance was pretty good, with a satisfying loudness maximum volume and a pretty consistent volume-step distribution. This said, the volume curve could have been smoother, with the first few steps being quite steep.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Polaroid P4 Bluetooth Speaker	91.1 dBA	88.8 dBA	85.6 dBA	78.4 dBA	86.6 dBA	79.2 dBA
Sonos Era 100	87.2 dBA	85 dBA	81.7 dBA	76.2 dBA	84.9 dBA	75.4 dBA
Sony SRS-XG300	88.9 dBA	85.9 dBA	85 dBA	79.2 dBA	85.9 dBA	79.9 dBA

Artifacts (87)

Playback artifacts comparison

Compression was the most noticeable audio artifact on the P4. It induced overshoots and pumping at nominal volume and louder. Distortion was noticeable in treble frequencies at nominal volume, as it can be seen on the THD graph. Our experts also noticed bass distortion at maximum volume, for example when playing music at a party or similar use cases.

The metallic back grid can resonate when excited by certain frequencies at loud volume.

Playback total harmonic distortion

The post Polaroid P4 Bluetooth Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

Soundcore Motion X600 Speaker test

DXOMARK — Thu, 11 May 2023 12:10:58 +0000

We put the Soundcore Motion X600 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications include:

Wireless protocols : Bluetooth (with LDAC support)
Wired connectivity : Jack
Height: 12.0 cm. Width: 30.0 cm. Depth: 8.1 cm
Weight : 1980.0 g
Speakers: 5 Audio drivers and 3 amplifiers

Test conditions:

Tested with Sony Xperia
Communication protocol used: Bluetooth LDAC

Soundcore Motion X600

132

speaker

124

152

112

137

108

111

136

141

112

133

Pros

Exceptionally good spatial features, especially wideness, thanks to the “immersive spatial audio” feature
Versatile tonal balance, with good brightness and deep low-end extension if all options are enabled
Excellent maximum volume and volume consistency
Very clean, very few artifacts

Cons

Underwhelming timbre when used in default, without any options activated
Dynamics performance is not up to par with other attributes
Lack of upper bass / low midrange if EQ stays untouched

The Soundcore Motion X600 is a portable speaker that sounds bigger than it looks, boasting features such as “immersive spatial audio,” a bass boost, as well as a 9-band custom graphic EQ. Such versatility allows one to customize the speaker’s sound to their preference.

Our audio experts put the Motion X600 to the test and found that this speaker excels with its diverse features enabled. Thanks to its wide and immersive sound stage, the Soundcore is among the best- performing speakers in the Spatial attribute. Despite the speaker’s small size, it effortlessly reached the second spot in Volume at the time of writing.

Without its features activated, the base sound from the speaker could at times be underwhelming, amid a limited dynamics performance. But the range of choices to personalize the speaker’s sound in order to overcome a few shortfalls makes this an extremely versatile device for all types of situations and environments.

Overall, the Motion X600 earns an impressive score of 132 in our Wireless Speaker test. At the time of writing, it is our current top score in the Essential price segment (<$200), and even outshines many speakers from the Advanced price segment.

Listen to the tested speaker’s playback performance in this comparison with its competitors:

Soundcore Motion X600

Marshall Stanmore III

JBL Charge 5

Test summary

Timbre (124)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Playback timbre comparison

The Soundcore Motion X600 offers multiple options to customize its timbre to one’s liking. The bass boost accentuates the lower spectrum and seemingly extends its depth, the “immersive spatial audio” also changes timbre quite drastically, and finally, the Soundcore app has a 9-band graphic EQ that is completely configurable. For the purpose of perceptual evaluation, the EQ feature stayed deactivated. The “spatial” and “bass” features, however, were tested on diverse content and stayed on for most of the tests.

Without either of those options, the Motion X600 seemed to lack brightness and air, as well as upper bass, or bass in general. The “bass” button perceptually extended the low-end and effectively boosted sub-bass, but it didn’t seem to affect upper bass and low midrange. As a result, the frequency region between 100Hz and 300Hz sounded a bit empty in both scenarios. In some rare cases, the bass boost could be a bit boomy (as in the bathroom use case) or prominent, overshadowing the upper spectrum (especially if no other option is enabled). Nevertheless, in most use cases, the bass boost was beneficial to timbre because it brought great depth to it.

The “spatial” feature brought life to a previously dull treble, making it much clearer and brighter. Upper midrange was also impacted both directly and indirectly, as it became objectively more homogeneous, while the enhanced treble breathed a bit more air into it. On the other hand, this mode induced some subtle resonances in treble, which would make it sound a bit metallic or harsh. This was, however, very negligible compared to the upsides that the “spatial” feature brought to the table.

Listening to the Motion X600 at high or maximum volume showed good consistency of its tonal balance. Shortcomings such as the lack of upper bass / low midrange, or treble harshness, did not seem to be exacerbated at high SPL. All in all, tonal balance was very satisfying, with no downside that could not be fixed by the very versatile 9-band EQ. Still, the Soundcore’s default timbre (without the options) is somewhat underwhelming and could be improved.

Music playback frequency response

Dynamics (112)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

Playback dynamics comparison

Although its performance in the Dynamics area was generally satisfying, the Motion X600 is not quite up there.

Attack sharpness was fine at nominal or high volume, but it tended to be slightly blurred out when the “spatial” feature was enabled, or somewhat crushed by compression when loud bass was present and the boost was active. Whether or not the features were enabled, attack sounded a bit dull at soft volume.

Bass precision was quite good in most use cases, especially with the bass boost enabled. A slight lack of sustain held back the performance, but envelope was accurate, even at high SPL (even though compression may come into play).

The Motion X600 was not the punchiest speaker, as its low midrange / upper bass region lacked energy. Additionally, compression hindered its ability to really shine. However, the device still managed to perform decently, thanks to the “bass” feature’s sub bass boost, which brought back a bit of “oomph” in elements such as drums, making the low-end impactful.

Spatial (108)

Playback spatial comparison

The Soundcore Motion X600 performed exceptionally well in spatial, thanks to its immersive audio feature. Its performance, notably in wideness, was comparable to larger, more expensive speakers.

Distance rendition was directly enhanced by the “spatial” feature, as it allegedly transformed the stereophonic sound scene into a 3-channel up-mix; perceptually, voices coming from the center tended to stand out much more than without the option, and they were perceived to be extremely close by.

With or without the feature enabled, the speaker presented a flawless stereo balance. Its directivity score was also surprisingly good, as its timbre and volume consistency around the sides and back was better than similar speakers.

Wideness was overwhelmingly great for a speaker of this size. The “immersive spatial audio” feature seemed very effective at enhancing the wideness of the sound stage beyond the speaker’s physical dimensions, without weakening the center.

Localizability was also very good, especially considering the processing behind wideness enhancement, which didn’t impair localizability too much.

Playback directivity

Volume (136)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Playback volume comparison

Playback volume consistency comparison

The speaker’s volume performance was excellent. Maximum volume was undeniably loud for a speaker of this size and price range. Volume consistency was excellent, and better than most speakers in comparison.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Soundcore Motion X600	89.6 dBA	86.3 dBA	85.1 dBA	77.9 dBA	84.9 dBA	79.6 dBA
JBL Charge 5	72.2 dBA	69.3 dBA	69.9 dBA	61.4 dBA	71.6 dBA	63.7 dBA
Marshall Stanmore III	94.3 dBA	91.6 dBA	89.9 dBA	82.7 dBA	91.6 dBA	83.7 dBA

Artifacts (112)

Playback artifacts comparison

The Soundcore managed artifacts very well. Some compression was noticeable when the bass option was enabled, even at nominal volume. However, it didn’t get too extreme at high volume or even maximum volume. Some bass distortion was also highlighted by the THD+N measurements and could be heard at high volume with some bass-heavy contents. Otherwise, the experience was mostly free of artifacts.

Playback total harmonic distortion

The post Soundcore Motion X600 Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

Apple HomePod (2nd Gen) Speaker test

DXOMARK — Tue, 04 Apr 2023 12:24:56 +0000

We put the Apple HomePod (2nd Gen) through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications include:

Wireless protocols: AirPlay
Wired connectivity: None
Height: 16.8cm, Width: 14.2cm, Depth: 14.2cm
Weight: 2300.0 g
Speakers: 4-inch high-excursion woofer, array of five horn-loaded tweeters, each tweeter with its own neodymium magnet

Test conditions:

Tested with iPhone WSPK
Communication protocol used: AirPlay

Apple HomePod (2nd Gen)

113

speaker

123

152

137

111

115

141

111

133

Pros

360° sound rendition as advertised
Strong bass
Very consistent volume step distribution

Cons

Inconsistent and aggressive treble, very weak midrange
Poor dynamics performance
360° directivity aside, not much to offer in terms of spatial performance

The second generation of Apple’s HomePod made very few improvements over its predecessor. The speaker scored points with its strong bass and consistent 360° sound rendition, but it fell short in many other test categories. For example, treble sounded aggressive, and the overall tonal balance left room for improvement, with a very weak midrange. Dynamic performance was poor as well, with our experts particularly noticing a lack of punch.

Listen to the tested speaker’s playback performance in this comparison with its competitors:

Apple HomePod (Gen 2)

Harman Kardon Citation 200

Sonos One

Test summary

Timbre (123)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Playback timbre comparison

The HomePod (2nd Gen) delivered a timbre performance that was close to the first-generation model. While bass and treble were rendered strongly, there was a very noticeable lack of midrange. Treble was especially prominent at nominal volume, and, due to a lot of resonance, sounded slightly aggressive and almost piercing in most use cases, especially with musical content. When watching movies or listening to podcasts, the aggressive treble translated into sibilance and harshness. Treble could sound bright with the right content, but it never sounded rich in our tests.

These perceptual observations were confirmed by objective measurements, which showed resonances and notches. Midrange could be described as lackluster, sounding hollow. Our measurements showed a lack of information between 500Hz and 1500Hz, but resonance was also noticeable in the upper midrange. This might be down to the lack of a dedicated midrange speaker.

Bass was strong, with deep low-end extension. Particularly demanding content could make the bass sound “fake,” but in most use cases it did not sound boomy. Upper bass was slightly underwhelming as well, lacking information in some use cases, for example when watching movies. The 2nd Gen HomePod performed relatively well in reverberant room acoustics, thanks to its adaptive equalization. Bass did not become boomy in such conditions, but the “fake bass” effect and bass distortion became more and more intrusive at higher volumes. Treble resonances, on the other hand, reduced with increasing volume, making treble less aggressive. Midrange stayed lackluster, however, with a canny resonance in the upper midrange, even at maximum volume.

Tonal balance was identical across all angles, making for full 360° rendition.

Music playback frequency response

Dynamics (92)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

Playback dynamics comparison

Dynamics performance was not one of the HomePod’s strengths. Attack was rendered poorly across all volume levels, sounding either crushed or rounded. The speaker also lacked bass precision as it often happens when bass is rendered “artificially.” The HomePod did not sound boomy, but its bass was blurry, as well as impaired by distortion and compression, especially at higher volumes. Punch was underwhelming too, lacking energy in the low midrange and upper bass.

Spatial (79)

Playback spatial comparison

In our tests, the HomePod (2nd Gen) was almost perfectly omnidirectional, delivering consistent performance across all listening angles. This resulted in a good directivity score, and the speaker was able to deliver consistent results at various locations. However, the lack of stereophony (and thus wideness) is obviously a tradeoff, especially considering the emphasis on immersivity advertised on the official website. Localizability of individual sound sources was not great either. In addition, a weak midrange rendition and inconsistent treble did not allow for a realistic distance rendition of vocal content. Voices seemed both too far away (lack of midrange) and too close (sibilance) at the same time. As a result, not only did the HomePod fail to deliver the immersive experience that was promised in the marketing material, it also wasn’t able to convince our experts on other spatial-related aspects.

Playback directivity

Volume (115)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Playback volume comparison

Playback volume consistency comparison

In terms of loudness at the maximum volume setting, the HomePod (2nd Gen) slightly underperformed but was an improvement over the first-generation model. However, what it lacked in loudness it made up for in volume consistency, thanks to a very smooth volume steps curve.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Apple HomePod (2nd Gen)	79.8 dBA	77.8 dBA	78.4 dBA	71.8 dBA	79.5 dBA	74.1 dBA
Harman Kardon Citation 200	86 dBA	85.5 dBA	83.1 dBA	80.2 dBA	84.1 dBA	77.9 dBA
Sonos One	85.6 dBA	83.7 dBA	79.5 dBA	75.5 dBA	81.8 dBA	74.4 dBA

Artifacts (111)

Playback artifacts comparison

Overall handling of unwanted audio artifacts was average. Objective measurements showed a moderate amount of distortion. The speaker’s perceptual evaluation highlighted bass distortion and treble resonances, as well as some pumping at higher volume levels.

Playback total harmonic distortion

The post Apple HomePod (2nd Gen) Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

Sonos Era 100 Speaker test

DXOMARK — Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:02:24 +0000

We put the Sonos Era 100 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications include:

Wireless protocols: AirPlay
Wired connectivity: Jack
Height: 18.25cm, Width: 12.0cm, Depth: 13.0cm
Weight: 2000g
Speakers: Three class-D digital amplifiers, two angled tweeters, one midwoofer

Test conditions:

Tested with iPhone WSPK
Communication protocol used: AirPlay 2 within the Sonos app

Sonos Era 100

144

speaker

142

152

124

137

100

111

125

141

122

133

Pros

Well-rounded speaker with good performance across all attributes
Very clean bass, good low midrange warmth
Consistent and solid dynamics performance
Homogeneous rendition all around the speaker

Cons

Severe notch at around 3.2 kHz induces a lack of clarity
Bass can sound slightly compressed at high volume.

In our DXOMARK Speaker test, the Sonos Era 100 proved to be a well-rounded option and delivered great performance across all use cases. It consistently offered a pleasant tonal balance at all volume levels and adapted nicely to any room, even with demanding acoustics. Bass was clean and had a nice roundness to it, and midrange offered pleasant warmth as well. Dynamics performance was solid across the board, with sharp attack, precise bass and good punch for the speaker’s small dimensions. While the stereo rendition did not offer great wideness, it was still a plus point over monophonic options. In addition, the Era 100’s sound quality was pretty consistent at all listening angles around the speaker, making it an unexpected alternative to true 360° speakers. Volume step distribution was very consistent as well.

Listen to the tested speaker’s playback performance in this comparison with its competitors:

Harman Kardon Citation 200

Sonos Era 100

Sonos One

Test summary

Timbre (142)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Playback timbre comparison

The Era 100’s timbre performance was excellent, with a natural tonal balance in most use cases. Bass was precise and had good presence, and treble and midrange sounded rich and warm across all use cases. The only noticeable drawback was an occasional lack of clarity.

While treble was overall great, we did observe some inconsistencies, with some frequencies lacking around 3.2 kHz. Midrange was satisfyingly warm but sometimes failed to sound really clear, which can be attributed to the aforementioned treble inconsistencies. Bass was well controlled and powerful, without smothering the higher frequencies. However, it would have been even better with some additional low-end extension.

At higher sound pressure levels, bass was slightly less powerful than expected but remained mostly free of distortion. It is worth noting that according to Sonos, the speaker comes with an adaptive equalization feature called TruePlay, which uses the speaker’s microphone to better adjust the equalizer to the room’s acoustics. For our tests, the microphone was enabled, and the Era 100 seemed to perform well across a variety of locations, even in reverberant acoustics.

With the two tweeters located on the left and right side of the front panel, the listening experience was clearly the best when placing the speaker directly in front of the listener. However, it also performed surprisingly well when listening from either side, with only a slight loss of treble.

Music playback frequency response

Dynamics (124)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

Playback dynamics comparison

Dynamics performance was very good. Attack sounded sharp across all use cases, and bass was very precise, except at high volume, where slight compression became noticeable. Punch was very good all around, even at the lowest and highest volume levels.

Spatial (100)

Playback spatial comparison

Even though Sonos does not claim 360° sound rendition for the Era 100, the speaker provided a surprisingly consistent tonal balance and volume across all listening angles, almost rivaling true omnidirectional speakers. Wideness was not great, but the Era 100 offered a very satisfying balance between directivity and stereophony. Localizability and distance perception were both accurate and realistic in our tests.

Playback directivity

Volume (125)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Playback volume comparison

Playback volume consistency comparison

The volume performance was good overall. Loudness at maximum volume was very decent for a device of the Era 100’s size, and volume steps very consistent from the lowest to the highest level.

Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Sonos Era 100	87.2 dBA	85 dBA	81.7 dBA	76.2 dBA	84.9 dBA	75.4 dBA
Sonos One	85.6 dBA	83.7 dBA	79.5 dBA	75.5 dBA	81.8 dBA	74.4 dBA
Harman Kardon Citation 200	86 dBA	85.5 dBA	83.1 dBA	80.2 dBA	84.1 dBA	77.9 dBA

Artifacts (122)

Playback artifacts comparison

Unwanted audio artifacts were well under control. Aside from some light distortion and compression at high volume, none were noticeable during perceptual testing. Objective measurements showed a pretty severe notch at around 3.2 kHz, indicating that the crossover could be badly tuned. This translates into a lack of clarity in perceptual testing. However, in objective measurements, THD+n peaks are noticeable at this frequency, lowering the score.

Playback total harmonic distortion

The post Sonos Era 100 Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

Devialet Mania Speaker test

DXOMARK — Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:13:45 +0000

We put the Devialet Mania through our rigorous DXOMARK Wireless Speaker test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications include:

Wireless protocols : WiFi, Bluetooth
Wired connectivity : Jack
Height: 19.3 cm. Width: 17.6 cm. Depth: 13.9 cm
Weight : 2300.0 g
Speakers: 4 Aluminium full-range drivers AND 2 woofers.

Test conditions:

Tested with iPhone SE
Communication protocol used: Jack

Devialet Mania

130

speaker

128

152

111

137

111

128

141