We put the Vivo
In this review, we’ll break down how it performed in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview


Key audio specifications include:

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

Playback

Pros

  • Decent tone at nominal volume
  • Good spatial performance

Against

  • The timbre lacks bass support
  • Quite unpleasant timbre at maximum volume
  • Distortion and clipping at maximum volume

Registration

Pros

  • Very good timbre in both urban and domestic scenarios, natural and accurate audio rendering
  • Distance performance quite good in most use cases
  • Wind noise reduction quite good especially with main camera recordings, preserving intelligibility even in high winds

Against

  • Slight deficiency of upper treble and treble extension, especially noticeable in urban scenarios, affecting overall clarity and brightness
  • Limited range with the selfie camera
  • No audio zoom function

With a SBMARK Audio score of 134, the Vivo X100 Pro delivered fairly average performance in our tests. Distortion was noticeable when playing audio at high volumes, but our audio experts liked the solid tonal performance when playing at nominal volume, despite the lack of bass extension. The recording performance was overall very constant and the timbre transmitted by the microphones was considered particularly pleasant and natural. Thanks to effective wind noise reduction, the X100 Pro performed very well when recording in windy conditions, but the Vivo is one of the few Ultra-Premium phones not to offer an audio zoom function.

In playback tests, the X100 Pro performed better for gaming, but results were close when listening to music or watching movies. Recording scores were higher when using the Memo app. Selfie videos were about the same level, but main camera videos and meeting room recordings fell slightly lower.

Test summary

About SBMARK audio tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone audio reviews, SBMARK engineers perform a series of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled laboratory conditions.
(For more details on our playback protocol, click here; for more details on our recording protocol, click here.)

The following section brings together key elements of our comprehensive testing and analysis performed in SBMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations in the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

How the audio playback score is composed

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

In our tests, the Vivo X100 Pro delivered an overall decent tone, with great treble extension and a decent midrange but only average bass. Dynamic performance was good, thanks to decent attack and good bass precision and power. The built-in speakers offered a good sense of spaciousness in all use cases. Thanks to the wide stereo soundstage, even individual sound sources were easy to locate. Both distance and depth rendering were quite accurate.

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

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

Recordings of smartphones playing some of our music tracks at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment using 2 microphones in AB configuration, at 30 cm

Here’s how the Vivo X100 Pro performs in playback use cases compared to its competitors:

Playing use case scores

The Timbre score represents the quality with which a phone reproduces sound across the entire audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance and volume dependence. It is the most important attribute for reproduction.

Frequency response of music playback

A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, measuring the loudness of each frequency output by the smartphone when playing a pure sine wave in an anechoic environment.

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, such as how accurately a bass note or the sound of the drum’s impact is reproduced.

Secondary attributes of spatial tests include identifying the location of a specific sound, its positional balance, distance, and amplitude.

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

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

Hip Hop Classic
VivoX100Pro 76.1 dBA 72.8 dBA
Xiaomi13T 74.2 dBA 70.4 dBA
GooglePixel8 74.8 dBA 70.1 dBA

The following graph shows the gradual changes in volume going from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume increases match user expectations:

Music volume consistency

This line graph shows the relative volume of playback versus the user-selected volume increment, measured at different volume increments with correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded on-axis at 0.20 meters.

The Artifacts score measures the extent to which the sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less noticeable the sound disturbances will be. Distortions may occur due to the sound processing in the device and the quality of the speakers.

Total harmonic distortion during playback (maximum volume)

This graph shows total harmonic distortion and noise in the audible frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device playing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the device’s maximum volume.

How the score of the audio recording is composed

SBMARK engineers test recording by evaluating recorded files on reference audio equipment. These recordings are made in our laboratories and in real-life conditions, using apps and default settings.

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

The recorded sound stage was quite large with the main camera but noticeably reduced when recording a selfie video, as on many smartphones. Remote performance was good in all use cases. In our real-life tests recordings were perceived as nice and loud with the main camera and memo apps, but slightly quieter with the front camera. That said, our lab measurements showed slightly weaker loudness performance. On the plus side, the Vivo is particularly resistant to high sound pressure levels, which can occur at noisy events, such as concerts. Unwanted artifacts were controlled well during recording, with only some slight clipping on screaming vocals and very subtle compression on recordings at high sound pressure levels. The background was quite natural, thanks mainly to a balanced midrange. However, a little more presence in the upper spectrum would have been welcome.

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

Recording use case scores

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

Video frequency response of life

A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, measuring the loudness of each frequency captured by the smartphone while recording a pure sine wave in an anechoic environment.

The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, such as how accurately a voice’s plosives (p, tek, for example) are reproduced. The score also considers the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), such as how loud the main voice is compared to the background noise.

Secondary attributes for spatial testing include identifying the location of a specific sound, its positional balance, distance, and amplitude on recorded audio files.

Directivity of registration

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

The loudness score represents how well the audio on recorded files is normalized and how well the device handles noisy environments, such as electronic concerts, during recording.

Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); For reference, we expect volume levels to be above -24 LUFS for recorded content:

Encounter Videos about life Selfie videos Memorandum
VivoX100Pro -26 LUFS -23.6 LUFS -21.5 LUFS -24.5 LUFS
Xiaomi13T -28.7 LUFS -20.9 LUFS -19.3 LUFS -22.8 LUFS
GooglePixel8 -26.1 LUFS -20.8 LUFS -18.9 LUFS -19.9 LUFS

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

In this audio comparison you can hear how this smartphone handles wind noise compared to its competitors:

matrix(3) {
[“Vivo X100 Pro”]=> string(65) “resources/Vivo/X100ProV2.2/VivoX100ProV22_MicrophoneArtifacts.m4a”
[“Xiaomi 13T”]=> string(69) “resources/Vivo/X100ProV2.2/XiaomiXiaomi13TV22_MicrophoneArtifacts.m4a”
[“Google Pixel 8”]=> string(66) “resources/Vivo/X100ProV2.2/GooglePixel8V22_MicrophoneArtifacts.m4a” }

Recordings of a speech sample with light background noise, exposed to a turbulent wind of 5 m/s

Background evaluates how naturally the various sounds around a voice blend together in the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, but should provide context to the surrounding environment.

Let's talk about "Vivo X100 Pro Audio test" with our community!
Start a new Thread

Philip Owell

Professional blogger, here to bring you new and interesting content every time you visit our blog.