• 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

Timbre

128

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

111

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

80

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

128

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

116

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The Devialet Mania is the French brand’s first high-fidelity portable smart speaker, and it delivered a pleasant sound signature all the way up to maximum volume. Bass was impactful and the low end impressive for a speaker this small. The Mania also managed to produce both an homogeneous 360° and stereophonic rendition, in addition to its adaptivity. However, there were some inconsistencies in the sound spectrum, which sometimes impaired tonal balance and timbre audibly.
The speaker is designed with a protruding handle to emphasize the ease of its portability. However, Depending on the acoustic conditions, the placement of the device in a room seemed to sometimes provoke an interference between the front and back speakers.
For its size, the Devialet Mania was quite loud and performed well in the outdoor as well as party and gathering use cases, particularly when placed in the center of the room. However, the speaker’s limitations became apparent when trying to play it at maximum volume.

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 these audio quality sub-scores 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.

The Devialet Mania provided a satisfying timbre overall, with some adaptive qualities, but it also had a fair share of spectrum inconsistencies. While the extension in the low-end frequencies was particularly impressive for a device of this caliber, the emphasis on bass was sometimes problematic, especially for listeners in search of realism.

Indeed, the lower spectrum went well below 80Hz with quite some strength. However, upper bass seemed to be very inconsistent and even missing, in many cases. The results were quite striking in musical content, as first harmonics –the meat of the bass — sometimes seemed non-existent. Midrange was mostly fine, and the Mania delivered an appreciable warmth. But balance seemed less consistent above 1.5kHz, with gaps in the spectrum at multiple places, which impaired clarity, and sometimes instilled a nasal sonority into the mix. These gaps were also present in upper frequencies. Whereas the high-end extension was perfectly adequate, it seemed that some upper brightness was definitely missing. This made treble sound very soft, almost dull. Fortunately, the Mania didn’t  go overboard with the low-end when listening at high volume, so it didn’t get too boomy at high-SPL, although it might sound a bit muddy due to a newfound focus on low-midrange.

Dynamics (111)

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

The Mania packed quite a punch and offered some dynamics headroom. Internal multiband processing was generally subtle, and global compression was fine most of the time. Attack was decent but not as sharp as expected, with some transient information being eaten up by the imposing low-end. Bass precision was complimented by the nice low-end extension as well as very sharp kick sounds, although compression in the bass region made sustain a bit unrealistic sometimes. Punch was generally also very good, despite inconsistencies in the upper bass and a sometimes muddy low-midrange. The sheer energy of the impactful low-end was enough to make the beat sound explosive. Only at its maximum volume did the Mania start to indulge in excessive compression, impairing bass precision, and dynamics performance as a whole.

Spatial (80)

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.

The design of the Mania was prone to some inherent confusion in terms of spatial rendition. Trying to reconcile 360° directivity with stereophony was more than a risky bet, and caveats were inherent. For the Mania, the 360° part was what worked best, with an overall consistent rendition all around the speaker — or at least on the four main axes. In practice, the speaker’s stereophony was of little significance, because it was quite narrow. Because of its symmetrical construction, front-facing loudspeakers sometimes interfered with the ones in the back, resulting in some phase issues depending on the device’s placement in the room. As a result, both localizability and distance rendition seemed very blurry and incoherent.

Volume (128)

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.

The Mania delivered quite good loudness for its size, especially on restricted frequency bands, but on full-band and when compared to other similar devices, it was relatively insufficient. Its volume steps distribution was very consistent, however.

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
Devialet Mania	83.8 dBA	83.1 dBA	83.2 dBA	78 dBA	84.7 dBA	74.8 dBA
Harman Kardon Citation 200	86 dBA	85.5 dBA	83.1 dBA	80.2 dBA	84.1 dBA	77.9 dBA
Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin	89.6 dBA	87.2 dBA	87.8 dBA	81.3 dBA	89.6 dBA	82 dBA

Artifacts (116)

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.

Very good artifacts performance overall. Some multi-band processing was noticeable, but usually not problematic. Compression became a bit excessive at maximum volume, which also produced some bass distortion.

The post Devialet Mania Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

• Wireless protocols : None
• Wired connectivity : Jack
• Height: 13.8 cm. Width: 31.8 cm. Depth: 13.6 cm
• Weight : 3000.0 g
• Speakers: dual woofers and tweeters.

Test conditions:

• Tested with Motorola WSPK
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

Sony SRS-XG300

116

speaker

Timbre

118

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

98

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

83

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

106

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

110

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The Sony SRS-XG300 is an affordable portable speaker from the company’s SRS series, providing a pleasant sound signature and a decent overall performance.

The speaker showed its versatility with good results not only in our outdoor and party use cases, and other high SPL scenarios but also in the more toned-down bedtime and relaxing use cases. Its audio performance was steady and reliable, whether plugged into an outlet or powered by its own battery.

The main drawback was the SRS-XG300’s bass performance, which was overprocessed, resulting in an unnatural fake sound that lacked impact.

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

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 (118)

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.

The device offered a pretty good timbre performance overall. Tonal balance was warm and pleasant despite an overall slightly muffled sound rendition. This is partly explained by a lack of high-end extension and of brightness in general. Sound rendition was sometimes tinny, especially impairing the device’s performance while rendering female voices. However, despite a lack of clarity in the upper midrange, the low-midrange rendition offered a pleasant warmth. Bass rendition was a real drawback because the low-end was very shallow, as it mostly relied on artificial bass enhancement, which made it sound quite inaccurate and unrealistic. Turning off the device’s “Mega Bass” feature did not solve this issue, and neither did turning it on to make the low-end extension deeper. At high SPL, the device still lacked bass, but midrange and treble rendition remained consistent amid less low-midrange emphasis and improved clarity.

Dynamics (98)

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

The speaker’s dynamics performance was average. Attack rendition was indirectly impaired by lackluster timbral information, such as the lack of clarity and high-end extension. This, among other factors, resulted in a lack of overall sharpness, which was especially noticeable on elements such as drums. Bass precision was hindered by the overall lack of bass and low-end extension, and even more so by the processing, which was rough around the edges. Indeed, this bass enhancement did not do justice to the dynamic envelope, exaggerating sustain quite a bit. The speaker also lacked punch in most cases.

Spatial (83)

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.

The device offered a good spatial performance overall. Some wideness is noticeable but it could be wider considering the size of the device. The speaker offers good localizability overall, but due to its lack of upper midrange clarity, some sources were hard to pinpoint. Distance rendition was very good with musical content, but it sometimes was impaired by the lack of clarity in the upper midrange. However, voices were perceived at a correct distance in  podcasts and in mainly vocal content.  The device’s front-firing speaker also limited the spatial reach at the sides and at the back of the speaker.

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.

Volume performance was very good, and the speaker is capable of a good sound at maximum volume.  Loudness levels were unaffected whether the device was plugged into a power source or running on its battery.  The only annoyance was with the volume’s first steps, which were inconsistent until 60 dBA was reached.

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 SRS-XG300	88.9 dBA	85.9 dBA	85 dBA	79.2 dBA	85.9 dBA	79.9 dBA
Sony SRS-XB33	84.2 dBA	81.1 dBA	81.9 dBA	74.1 dBA	82.3 dBA	75.8 dBA
JBL Xtreme 3	91.4 dBA	87.3 dBA	86.2 dBA	81.3 dBA	86.3 dBA	80.1 dBA

Artifacts (110)

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.

Artifacts performance was very good, with neither distortion nor pumping issues most of the time. The only exception was the lower part of the spectrum, where distortion was quite heavy and became especially noticeable at maximum volume. The speaker was not suited for movie-watching in general because of the high audio-video latency in Bluetooth mode.

The post Sony SRS-XG300 Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

• Wireless protocols: AirPlay, Wi-fi, Bluetooth
• Wired connectivity: Jack
• Dimensions: H: 216mm x  W: 790mm x D: 287mm (8.5 in x 31.1 x 11.3 in)
• Weight: 15.9 kg (35 lbs .)
• Speakers: 5 Driver design: dual 5.25-inch woofers, dual 1-inch Aluminum tweeters and a central 4-inch midrange driver Selectable sound-field expander and bass contour controlsHDMI ARC, moving magnet phono, and 3.5mm auxiliary inputs

Test conditions:

• Tested with Apple  iPhone smartphone, iOS
• Communication protocol used: AirPlay

JBL L75ms Music System

137

speaker

Timbre

127

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

123

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Volume

94

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

103

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The JBL L75ms speaker offered an excellent sound immersion experience, with best-in-class wideness and localizability that will be especially appreciated when watching movies and listening to music in a relaxing scenario. Bass precision was also excellent, with a nice low-end extension, but the lack of treble got in the way, as tonal balance sounded generally muffled.

The speaker was one of the loudest we have ever tested. Its performance at maximum volume was great, with nearly no distortion, making it very suitable for cranking up the music in a party situation, if you don’t mind some occasional compression and pumping artifacts.

Besides its great maximum volume performance, the speaker’s volume consistency could use a little fine-tuning, as it was sometimes difficult to adjust the volume precisely.

Overall, the JBL performed best in our Relaxing and Party use cases, but it even managed to sound good in the Bathroom use case, proving capable of overcoming unforgiving acoustics to some extent.

We compared the JBL L75ms, which falls into our Premium speaker category ($600+), with the Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin and the Sonos Five.

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

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 (127)

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.

The L75ms delivered a strikingly dark tonal balance in its default settings, which negatively affected the listening experience. Treble seems to be almost completely missing in all use cases, giving the speaker a muffled sonority. Midrange would sound fine by itself, but it is lacking clarity because of no treble support. As for bass, it is powerful and has a very appreciable extension in the low end. However, because of the sheer lack of high-end and treble, the slightest boominess is immediately amplified, which is the case in a lot of scenarios such as TV or Relaxing at home. The L75ms delivered a good performance at maximum volume however, although it still lacked treble.

Dynamics (123)

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

The speaker showed a good dynamics performance overall, although it lacked consistency. Attack was generally a bit dull, and this could have been because of the lack of timbral information. As a result, transients were less audible, and sharpness was impaired. Punch was generally quite good regardless of volume, but it could be overshadowed by boominess depending on the use case and the track. Bass precision was very good overall, as bass envelope was well under control in most scenarios. This was not the case, however, at high SPL, where bass precision performance plummeted. Sustain of the low-end felt exaggerated, and attacks of bass notes were not distinct enough.

Spatial (111)

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.

Spatial performance was excellent. The L75ms outperformed all speakers previously evaluated in terms of wideness and localizability. Immersion was thus excellent and very precise. As for distance perception, performance was average. Voices were generally perceived at the correct distance, although lacking presence due to an underwhelming treble, but depending on voice type and content, results could vary greatly.

Volume (94)

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.

The L75ms was the second loudest speaker we have tested to date, missing the first spot by only a couple of decibels. However, volume step distribution was exceptionally inconsistent, with the first steps being notably too spaced out.

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
JBL L75ms Music System	91 dBA	94.1 dBA	93.3 dBA	91.5 dBA	91.3 dBA	91.5 dBA
Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin	89.6 dBA	87.2 dBA	87.8 dBA	81.3 dBA	89.6 dBA	82 dBA
Sonos Five	91.7 dBA	88.9 dBA	90.1 dBA	81.6 dBA	91.4 dBA	84.6 dBA

Artifacts (103)

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.

The speaker’s artifacts performance was quite good, with very little distortion, both objectively and perceptually, even at maximum volume. Global compression and pumping were quite noticeable at high volume, however, especially in the presence of loud bass.

The post JBL L75ms Music System Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

Overview

Key specifications include:

• Wireless protocols : Bluetooth
• Wired connectivity : Jack
• Dimensions: 350 mm x 203 mm x 188 mm (13.78 in x 8 in x 7.40 in)
• Weight: 4.25kg (9.37 lb)
• Speakers: Frequency response 45Hz/20KHz; stereo; maximum SPL: 97dB@1m; Bass Reflex Structure; 50W class D amp for woofers; 2 15W class D amps for tweeters

Test conditions:

• Tested with Motorola smartphone
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

Marshall Stanmore III

134

speaker

Timbre

137

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

119

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

83

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

87

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

92

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The Marshall Stanmore III provided a pleasant overall tonal balance, with a deep low-end and a bright treble. But its performance fell a bit behind its predecessor, the Stanmore II, mainly due to the presence of artifacts such as pumping and bass distortion at high-SPL, as well as the steepness in setting the first few volume steps.

The Stanmore III was very performant in a variety of scenarios, whether in relaxing and bedtime use cases that focus on music or podcasts at a quiet volume or in a party scenario when listening to music at maximum volume. Thanks to the Dynamics Loudness functionality, tonal balance subtly adapts to the listening volume, but it did not exactly suit our experts’ requirements for scenarios at nominal volume regardless.

Our tests showed that the speaker was least performant in kitchen and TV scenarios. Indeed, midrange was deemed a bit shy, directly affecting vocal content. A few other niggles included a higher Bluetooth latency than the Stanmore II, and bass and punch that were too volume dependent.

We compared the Marshall Stanmore III, which falls into our Advanced speaker category ($200 to $599) with the Marshall Stanmore II and the Klipsch The Three II.

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

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 (137)

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.

The Stanmore III, in its default settings, proposes a much different timbre than its predecessor the Stanmore II. With an emphasis on bass and brilliance, the tonal balance on the Stanmore III is slightly less homogeneous, but it still provides a pleasant listening experience. However, the lack of midrange does hinder the speaker’s performance in some use cases.

The speaker’s bass featured an impressive low-end extension. The smartphone app worked relatively well when setting the speaker’s parameters for the room, but when the Stanmore III was placed near a wall, boominess persisted to some extent, and it was particularly excessive in the TV use case. Bass performance seemed better when the speaker was placed farther away from any wall, as observed in the Lounge, Outdoor, and Party use cases.

Treble was generally very bright, featuring excellent high-end extension. While it is the upper treble that makes the Stanmore III stand out from other devices, it might be a bit excessive in some cases because it doesn’t sound very natural and could even become slightly aggressive at higher levels. But in some use cases, such as TV or Bedroom, the upper treble is quite useful.

Ultimately, the midrange is the speaker’s main weakness because it is too quiet in the default setting. This becomes a noticeable problem with vocal content, such as podcasts and movies, as voices sound disembodied and the intelligibility of the dialog is impaired.

Overall, the sound signature steers away from the warm and “analog” timbre of the Stanmore II. With a few user adjustments, the Stanmore III is capable of presenting a very pleasant tonal balance, but where it stands now in its default settings, the usage is limited.

Dynamics (119)

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

Similarly to the timbre attribute, the Stanmore III’s dynamics performance left our testers with some mixed impressions.

Attack rendition was overall very clear, and sharp, in all use cases.

Bass precision was actually quite good in “anechoic” settings such as the Party and Outdoor use cases, despite a blurry bass attack in high-SPL uses. In other use cases, however, bass rendition was unrealistic as envelope didn’t sound natural. This may be an indication that room acoustics do have an impact on the performance despite the calibration functionality, and the Stanmore III is probably not suited for all room types.

As with bass precision, punch was very good in loud use cases, especially in anechoic settings. However, the lack of low-midrange energy quickly took a toll on the overall punchiness for most use cases.

Spatial (83)

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.

Spatial performance was average. The Stanmore III’s stereo scene rendition was narrow and limited by the dimensions of the speaker, just like on its predecessor. Even though our testers expected some lack of wideness, they did not expect the Stanmore III’s blurry localizability. Sound sources were relatively hard to pinpoint in the sound scene; since stereophony is limited, localizability is more reliant on timbre information, and this is where it fell short. As for distance rendition, it was generally accurate, but somewhat inconsistent: the emphasis on upper treble would bring some elements to the foreground, while the lack of midrange would push some to the background.

Volume (87)

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

While the maximum volume performance of the Stanmore III was relatively similar to that of the Stanmore II in terms of loudness (and thus excellent), volume consistency was less convincing. Measurements showed steep jumps in the first few volume steps, which made setting the volume with precision a tedious task.

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
Marshall Stanmore III	94.3 dBA	91.6 dBA	89.9 dBA	82.7 dBA	91.6 dBA	83.7 dBA
Marshall Stanmore II	96.9 dBA	94.2 dBA	91.8 dBA	85.3 dBA	93.1 dBA	84.3 dBA
Klipsch The Three II	93.2 dBA	92.7 dBA	91.1 dBA	85 dBA	92.3 dBA	86.1 dBA

Artifacts (92)

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.

The Stanmore III presented a few artifacts. Distortion was rare, but it occurred on loud bass transients, and bass in general. Compression and pumping were heard in loud use cases. Our measurements showed that Bluetooth latency was also a bit high compared to the Stanmore II.

The post Marshall Stanmore III Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

The brand puts it this way: “The Pulse Mini 2i powered speaker takes decades of hifi audio legacy and squeezes it into a single box. Delivering rich and detailed sound, the Pulse Mini 2i can easily fit into small living spaces, all the while providing an outstanding high-res music streaming experience.”

We put the Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i 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.

Key specifications include:

• Wireless protocols : AirPlay2, others
• Wired connectivity : Jack
• Height: 17.2 cm. Width: 33.5 cm. Depth: 15.5 cm (6.8 in x 13.2 in. x 6.1 in)
• Weight : 3.6 kg (7.9 pounds)
• Speakers: Two 4 in. (102mm) woofers; two 3/4 in. (19mm) tweeters

Test conditions:

• Tested with iPhone SE (2020)
• Communication protocol used: AirPlay

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 Bluesound PULSE MINI 2i falls into the Advanced category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

124

speaker

Timbre

124

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

108

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

91

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Artifacts

86

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

With an overall score of 124, the Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i lands a few spots outside the top 10 in our Advanced category of home speakers, just between the Huawei Sound X at 126 and the Sony SRS-XB43 at 122.

The Bluesound device’s main shortcoming is a lack of bass compared with other similarly priced speakers. That lack of bass impacts the MINI 2i’s rendition of punch in the dynamics attribute. On the plus side, the MINI 2i offers very large wideness and excellent performance in the volume attribute.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 124 for the Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Denon Home 250 and the Huawei Sound X.

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.

The Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i delivers a neutral overall sound. Characterized by good midrange as well as precise and rich treble, the tonal balance is also marked by the lack of bass and low-end extension. This results in a coldness that doesn’t improve at high volume, when the speaker sounds boxy and struggles to keep bass consistent.

Midrange is pleasant but somewhat dark, due to a shortfall of high-midrange that reduces clarity. It sounds fairly natural at loud and nominal volume, but at soft volume the tonal balance could really benefit from more high-midrange, especially for voice-based content like podcasts.

Treble sounds rich and precise across use cases, but becomes somewhat dark at loud volumes, where the device is overly midrange focused.

Worth noting here: We conduct all our tests with the device in its factory settings. We recommend setting the 2i’s wide mode to “wider” and the “Deep Bass” feature to “on” with Bass at -1 for optimal performance.

Dynamics (108)

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

The Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i delivers an average dynamics performance. Across all use cases, attack is sharp, even at maximum volume despite some compression.

Lackluster sustain, resulting from the receded low-end, hinders bass precision. Because of compressed dynamics as well as a lack of low-midrange energy, the Pulse Mini 2i doesn’t have a lot of punch, especially at high volume.

Spatial (91)

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.

Spatial performance is a bright spot for the Bluesound speaker. Despite its small size, the device produces good wideness (with what appears to be a successful application of phase processing).

Despite that wideness, localizability and distance were the weak points in this attribute. While still decent, the scores were lower because of imprecise localizability around the center of the stereo scene, and blurry source positioning in both localizability and distance perception.

Volume (141)

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.

Here the Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i excels. This is among the loudest speakers at maximum volume that we’ve tested, and the volume consistency was superb.

The consistency was also very good from soft to loud volumes. Playback performance is overall very consistent as well across all the volume steps.
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
Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i	92 dBA	95 dBA	88.7 dBA	82 dBA	91.5 dBA	83.9 dBA
Denon Home 250	89.2 dBA	84.8 dBA	86.1 dBA	81.6 dBA	85 dBA	81.1 dBA
Huawei Sound X	83.7 dBA	82.1 dBA	81.6 dBA	76.4 dBA	82.8 dBA	75.6 dBA

Artifacts (86)

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.

The Pulse Mini 2i performed well in the artifacts attribute. It was artifact-free for the most part across our use cases. The only noticeable artifacts appear at higher volumes, when loud, percussive instruments, such as bass drums, induce clipping. When pushed to maximum volume, performance suffers from pumping and bass distortion.

Conclusion

The Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i is a decent performer all-around, but at this price point, it should be stronger, especially in the timbre attribute. The lack of bass and low-end affected its timbre and dynamics. That said, the device is a strong performer in volume, artifacts, and spatial attributes. It will be interesting to see how this family of devices evolves and builds on the promise of this speaker.

The post Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

We put the Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 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.

Key specifications include:

• Wireless protocols: Bluetooth
• Wired connectivity: Jack
• Height: 16.4 cm (6.4 in). Width: 26.1 cm (10.2 in). Depth: 17.1 cm (6.7 in).
• Weight: 3.2 kilos (7 pounds)
• Speakers: One 4-inch (about 10 cm) woofer and two 1.5-inch (about 3.8 cm) tweeters

Test conditions:

• Tested with Android smartphone
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

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 Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 falls into the Advanced category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Astell&Kern ACRO BE100

115

speaker

Timbre

115

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

104

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

71

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

130

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

97

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 earned a global score of 115, which puts it well outside the top 10 in our Advanced segment of home speakers, in the $200 to $599 price range. Its score places it between the Apple HomePod at 113 and the Harman Kardon AURA STUDIO 3 at 120. Among all the speakers we’ve tested, the Astell&Kern device is toward the bottom of the top 30.

The Astell&Kern speaker has some unusual flaws, especially in the spatial and artifacts attributes, that really affected its overall score. Some of these are linked to subpar processing. In both spatial and artifacts, an unusual “rotating” effect was observed, affecting localizability and just being a distraction. The speaker did not score well in the movie-use case in particular, in part because of this problem. It was also noted when listening to podcasts.

The device earned one of the highest scores in our database in the volume attribute — it’s quite loud and its distribution of volume steps is very consistent (though too widely spaced apart). In scored fairly well in the gathering use case as well.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 115 for the Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Harman Kardon Aura Studio 3 and the Dali Katch.

Timbre (115)

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

Overall, the ACRO BE100 delivers a decent timbre performance. Characterized by an overall neutral sonority, no flaw stands out at first listen. Tonal balance benefits from a pleasant roundness but in time reveals it to be lacking in clarity and brightness, among other shortcomings. Despite its boominess, the ACRO BE100 performs fairly well in reverberant acoustics. Its timbre, round and natural, never sounds harsh or excessive even at maximum volume, but the speaker produces a tonal balance that is too muffled and muddy for most common usages: movies can sound confusing, podcasts are not very intelligible because of the lack of clarity, and music sounds somewhat incomplete.

Treble is quite lackluster overall, with receded high-end extension and a lack of strength, muffling timbre. Treble is natural in most use cases and benefits from adjustment of treble tuning. Midrange is pretty inconsistent. Negatively impacted by the lack of clarity, it sounds muddy or sometimes nasal, with a prominent low midrange. Midrange tends to become more nasal and inconsistent as volume is increased. Bass may sound boomy or boxy, but its low-end extension is unsatisfying. Despite these flaws, bass rendition is still realistic, and low-end remains clean at low and nominal volume. Low-end recedes even more at higher volumes, despite adjusting the bass tuning. (Our recommendations for tuning: Increase treble by 2 notches, and bass by 1).

Dynamics (104)

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

In the dynamics attribute, the ACRO BE100 is a mixed bag. Overall, dynamics are quite compressed, and some pumping is noticeable even at nominal volume. On the other hand, attack is extremely snappy in all use cases, although at higher volumes it can be exaggerated and clipped.

Bass precision is not satisfying overall because of global compression and pumping and a lack of low-end extension impairing sustain. All in all, bass attack is overpowering compared with the poor sustain. That strong and snappy attack contributes to some powerful energy for drums, helping improve a punch performance that is otherwise pretty poor because of compression and a muddy low midrange.

Spatial (71)

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.

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.

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
Astell&Kern ACRO BE100	86.3 dBA	83.4 dBA	83.8 dBA	75.6 dBA	85.7 dBA	77.3 dBA
Harman Kardon Aura Studio 3	84.6 dBA	81.7 dBA	82.1 dBA	78.1 dBA	81.1 dBA	77.5 dBA
Dali Katch	89.4 dBA	89.8 dBA	82.4 dBA	80.5 dBA	84.2 dBA	74.8 dBA

Artifacts (97)

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.

Conclusion

While the performance of the Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 was a little disappointing at this price point, it does not show the usual defects that are seen on the first models, which is encouraging for the next ones the brand produces.

The score for timbre is in average territory. Attack is a positive in the dynamics attribute, but in other regards, it struggles. It’s loud, but it is not sufficiently refined to deliver satisfying performance across a number of different use cases. It does have some interesting pluses — the ability to adjust bass and treble for one, and the option to buy a model with FM radio is another.

The post Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

We put the LG XBoom RP4 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.

Key specifications include:

• Wireless protocols: Bluetooth
• Wired connectivity: Jack
• Height: 51.4 cm;  width: 24.7 cm; depth: 24.7 cm (9.8 in. x 20.2 in. x 9.8 in.)
• Weight: 5.8 kilos (12.8 pounds)
• Speakers: Two — one upward-facing tweeter and one upward-facing woofer

Test conditions:

• Tested with Android smartphone
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

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 LG XBOOM RP4 falls into the Advanced category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

LG XBoom RP4

135

speaker

Timbre

132

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

119

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

100

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

89

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

99

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The LG XBoom RP4’s overall score of 135 puts in decent territory among the other Advanced segment home speakers we’ve tested. It lands right behind three devices in the top 10 that scored 136 points — the Audio Pro C10 MKII, the JBL Xtreme, and the Yamaha MusicCast 50. But the LG XBoom RP4 also ranks in the top 10 among all tested devices, regardless of price.

The RP4 was especially strong in creating consistent sound in 360 degrees, earning an excellent score in our gathering use case. It did not score as well as a device for movie viewing, in part because it is a mono speaker. Let’s take a look at the specifics.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 135 for the LG XBoom 360 is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Klipsch The Three II and the Bose Home Speaker 500.

Timbre (132)

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.

In general, the LG XBoom RP4 performed well in this attribute compared with other similarly priced devices. But its results revealed some interesting quirks of character.

The timbre performance of the RP4 put a line under the boom in its name. With a lack of treble and high-end extension, the device can sound “boomy” and muffled. By putting the device on the floor, you can actually improve the situation somewhat because the treble seems to travel upward.

The midrange is unclear and dark — there’s too much emphasis on the low midrange. Despite the presence of bass, the tonal balance lacks low end and extension. This is somewhat disappointing considering the dimensions and heft of the device: it weighs nearly six kilos.

In the podcast use case, female voices sound unnatural because the device makes them boomy and muffled. It suits male voices better, matching low midrange presence with enough clarity.

In a reverberant environment, like a kitchen or bathroom, the RP4 is even more boomy and muffled. While this is also true in acoustically neutral environments at high volume, tonal balance switches to a canny sonority with resonant midrange.

Dynamics (119)

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

At low volume, the LG device produces an overall pleasing dynamics performance. Attack sounds slightly rounded and soft, and this weakness is accentuated by the lack of high-end extension and precision. Sustain and release of bass is non-existent, due to the lack of low-end extension. Even bass attack is inconsistent. Punch, on the other hand, is quite good, thanks to the presence of energy in the low midrange.

Spatial (100)

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.

The marketing material for the XBoom RP4 touts the completeness of its 360° sound, and that omnidirectional capability is easy to verify. But it is nonetheless a mono device, and thus unable to hit the higher scores in the wideness and localizability aspects of the spatial attribute.

And while the consistency of the device was pretty good in all directions, treble really varied depending on the angle of listening.

That said, distance rendering was on point.

Volume (89)

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.

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
LG XBoom RP4	87.3 dBA	84.4 dBA	82.3 dBA	77.7 dBA	83 dBA	75.9 dBA
Klipsch The Three II	93.2 dBA	92.7 dBA	91.1 dBA	85 dBA	92.3 dBA	86.1 dBA
Bose Home Speaker 500	84 dBA	81.9 dBA	82.3 dBA	78.2 dBA	83.2 dBA	75.4 dBA

Artifacts (99)

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.

Overall the device scored well in the artifacts attribute, although there is a tendency to produce distortion, especially at the low end.

Conclusion

The LG XBoom RP4 performs best in settings where it is at lower volume and in an acoustically neutral space. That’s perfect for a dinner party, a quiet gathering with friends, or listening to music in a relaxing setting.

The post LG XBoom RP4 Speaker review: Ideal for gathering with its 360° sound appeared first on DXOMARK.

To check all this and much more, we put the Bose SoundLink Flex through our rigorous DXOMARK Speaker test suite. In this review, we will break down how it fared at audio playback in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Key specifications include:

• Dimensions: 20.1 cm (7.92″) x 9 cm (3.55″) x 5.2 cm (2.05″)
• Weight: 0.6 kg/1.3 lbs
• Speakers: One driver, two passive radiators
• Connectivity: Bluetooth (no 3.5 mm jack)
• IP67 certification (dust-tight and waterproof)
• Battery life up to 12 hours

Test conditions:

• Tested with Motorola HSPK for music and Xiaomi Mi TV Box S for movies
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

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 Bose SoundLink Flex falls into the Essential category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Bose Soundlink Flex

125

speaker

Timbre

126

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

107

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

95

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

57

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

105

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

With an overall score of 125, the Bose SoundLink Flex ranks third in our Essential Speaker database, right behind the JBL Charge 5 at 127, and the Sonos One, at 129.

Thanks to an impressively well-balanced sound, clear treble, precise midrange, and impactful punch, Bose’s latest portable—and super rugged—speaker is particularly well suited for the outdoors, or listening to a podcast in the kitchen. It is also IP67 certified and rather unbothered by highly reverberant acoustics, which makes it suitable for listening to music in the morning shower.

That all said, when loud volumes are reached, things start to fall apart: low-end, which was already lacking at nominal volume due to the device’s size, becomes severely recessed, heavy pumping emerges, and treble exhibits noticeable distortion. Additionally, the speaker’s maximum volume isn’t quite up to par with other devices sharing similar dimensions. In other words, the SoundLink Flex is not the best candidate if you want to host a party or if you want a very quiet listening time before going to bed, because the speaker’s first volume steps do not ensure full intelligibility.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 125 for the Bose Soundflink Flex is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the JBL Charge 5 and the Sony SRS-XB33.

Timbre (126)

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.

The SoundLink Flex’ Timbre sub-score places it in the top 3 of all the essential speakers we’ve tested to date. Considering its size, Bose’s latest portable speaker does indeed, as promised, deliver a surprisingly well-balanced, clear and “open” sound.

Despite a slight lack of high-end extension, treble remains fairly well reproduced and precise. Midrange frequencies are also clear and precise, which allows vocals to pop with a rich and full sound. When the back of the speaker is placed against a hard surface, such as a wall, midrange is even enhanced compared to the other frequency ranges (bass/treble).

Voice-oriented contents such as podcasts exhibit a particularly midrange-focused tonal balance. Therefore, voices can lack fullness, brilliance, and clarity. Low-end frequencies are generally lacking, which is all but surprising in view of the device’s dimensions. Fortunately, Bose didn’t try to overcompensate with virtual bass (which, more often than not, brings unwanted resonances and distortion). At loud volumes, the lack of bass and low-end extension becomes more problematic, amplifying the midrange-centric frequency response. This can result in a somewhat aggressive rendering.

Finally, it is interesting to note that in strongly reverberant environments such as a bathroom, the SoundLink Flex’s timbre performance remains remarkably consistent and harmonious.

Dynamics (107)

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

As for dynamic attributes, despite its size, the speaker is capable of delivering enjoyable punch—precise and powerful, without ever becoming invasive. Attack is average, with a fairly sharp restitution of transients.

Bass precision, on the other hand, suffers from the lack of low-end extension: while attack remains quite precise, sustain is always cut short. Additionally, at maximum volume, the whole sound envelope is impaired by pumping.

Spatial (95)

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.

Because of the speaker’s monophonic architecture (and compact dimensions), wideness is nil, and localizability is inherently compromised. On the other hand, distance rendering is realistic: regardless of the use case, voices sound at the right distance from the listener.

Volume (57)

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.

Volume is certainly not a strong point for Bose’s SoundLink Flex. To begin with, the distribution of volume steps across the listening levels isn’t consistent enough; while the first ones are essentially useless, the last three are capped, as shown in the following graph:

Further, the maximum reachable volume isn’t loud enough, even when taking into account the device’s size. Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

Artifacts (105)

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.

At the exception of discreet static noise at low volumes, from soft to nominal volumes, audio played back by the SoundLink Flex is fairly clean. That said, at loud and maximum volumes, heavy pumping comes into play, treble distortion appears, and upper frequencies as a whole become quite aggressive.

Conclusion

For the most part, the Soundlink Flex keeps its promises. The speaker does indeed deliver a rich, clear and well-balanced sound at nominal volume, and makes a great nomad speaker, able to adapt to many acoustic environments. This, along with its very robust build, makes it an interesting outdoors companion, which can also be used in the bathroom, the kitchen, or generally when relaxing at home. But its shortcomings at loud volume prevents the Flex from being a viable option for partying on the go.

The post Bose SoundLink Flex Speaker review: A well-balanced, compact, and rugged speaker appeared first on DXOMARK.

Huawei’s second Bluetooth speaker can count on a rugged design, an IP67 certification (dust-tight and waterproof), and up to 26 hours of battery life. On the audio side of things, the Huawei-Devialet duo promises to “fill every corner of the party” with “powerful bass and singing treble” thanks to a dual “push-push” passive radiator architecture, a silk dome tweeter, and a full-range driver.

We put the Huawei Sound Joy through our rigorous DXOMARK  Speaker test suite. In this review, we will break down how it fared at audio playback in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Key specifications include:

• Speakers: one 50 mm full-range speaker, one 19 mm tweeter, two passive radiators
• Weight: 680 g (1.5 lbs)
• Dimensions: 7.3 cm (2,9″) x 20.2 cm (8″) x 7.3 cm (2,9″)
• Connectivity: Bluetooth (no 3.5 mm jack)
• Three microphones
• IP67
• Up to 26 hours of battery life

Test conditions:

• Tested with Motorola for music, Xiaomi Mi TV Box S for movies
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth for both music and movies

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 Huawei Sound Joy falls into the Essential category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Huawei Sound Joy

103

speaker

Timbre

110

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

97

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

67

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

84

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

57

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The global score of 103 earned by the Huawei Sound Joy puts it toward the bottom in the database of all the speakers tested to date, yet still significantly better than the Baidu Xiaodu Smart Speaker Ultimate Edition at 48, or even the HomePod Mini at 98.

Its performance is mainly hamstrung by severe inconsistencies in the frequency response, such as excessive upper bass and treble on one hand, and recessed low-end and low midrange on the other. The result can also often sound aggressive, even at low volumes. Additionally, the maximum volume isn’t on target for its size, and heavy distortion is noticeable on bass frequencies, which also impairs dynamic attributes (punch and bass precision). Finally, note that the Sound Joy is a monophonic speaker. However, Huawei’s second speaker is capable of delivering fairly sharp attack and good upper midrange reproduction, allowing voices to cut through the background, thus remaining quite intelligible.

In terms of use cases, its shortcomings prevent the speaker from being a viable choice for partying, friendly gatherings, listening to podcasts before going to bed, or watching movies. On the other hand, thanks to its IP67 certification, its ruggedness, its battery life and the good vocal intelligibility it ensures, it can be an option for a kitchen, a bathroom or an outdoor use.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 103 for the Huawei Sound Joy is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Sonos Roam and the Sony SRS-XB33.

Timbre (110)

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

In most use cases, the Huawei Sound Joy exhibits a fairly unbalanced frequency response: low-end extension and low midrange are both lacking, whereas upper bass and treble are prominent. The emphasis put on the upper bass results in a fairly “boxy” sound, and the exacerbated treble induces an aggressive tone. Additionally, a substantial loss of upper frequencies is noticeable when listening to the device from the sides, which, on the other hand, softens the overall harshness of the sound.

When watching movies, if the speaker lacks both high- and low-end extension, it ensures a reliable midrange reproduction allowing voices to stand out from the background. That said, the excess of upper bass and the amount of bass distortion still impair the overall performance in this use case by making low-frequency sound effects sound blurry and quite unpleasant.

At low volumes, not only does the sonority remain aggressive despite a slight lack of high-end extension, it also becomes nasal due to a lack of bass and low-midrange. Finally, when listening to music at louder volumes, due to the contrast between the excessive treble and the lacking midrange, the device sounds even more aggressive and unnatural.

Dynamics (97)

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

From soft to nominal volumes, attack remains fairly sharp. Bass precision and punch, on the other hand, are severely affected by the heavy bass distortion, making all lower-frequency contents sound blurry and unnatural. At louder volumes, sustain is impaired by both dynamic compression and distortion. This makes attack feels disproportionate in comparison to sustain, which makes the sound envelope as a whole sound unrealistic.

Spatial (67)

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.

In the spatial category, the Huawei Sound Joy mainly suffers from the device’s monophonic rendering. Localizability is expectedly quite poor, although it gets better if the listener stands closer to the speaker.

Distance rendering and directivity (the device’s ability to evenly distribute sound at 360°) are average. All in all the speaker’s spatial sub-scores make it a valid option for kitchen and bathroom use, but not for a friendly gathering or watching movies.

Volume (84)

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.

The Huawei Sound Joy’s maximum volume isn’t up to par with other devices of similar size and construction. Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

On another note, incrementation steps aren’t consistently distributed across the volume scale: as shown in the graph below, the two uppermost volume steps are capped.

Artifacts (57)

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.

In the artifacts domain, the Huawei Sound Joy earns one of the lowest sub-scores of all the speakers we’ve tested to date, only one point higher than the lowest-scoring device in the category, the Apple HomePod. This is essentially due to the excessive distortion the speaker generates on bass frequencies across all use cases and listening levels. Additionally, at louder volumes, treble distortion also rears its ugly head, inducing a particularly aggressive sonority.

While they aren’t as bad, temporal artifacts are also problematic in that at loud volume, punch and attack are both impaired by excessive compression.

Conclusion

The collaboration with Devialet was more fruitful on the Sound Joy’s predecessor, the Sound X. This time around, sound reproduction is impaired by excessive bass distortion, significant lack of tonal balance, underwhelming volume performances, and a monophonic rendering. That all said, with its dust-tight and waterproof build along with its sharp frequency response allowing vocal content to cut through the background noise surrounding the listener, the Sound Joy can be a good companion for your everyday activities, whether for singing along in the shower, checking out cooking podcasts, or listening to a talk-show on the go.

The post Huawei Sound Joy Speaker review: A rugged performance appeared first on DXOMARK.