Vivo X100 Pro Audio test

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

Registration

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.

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:

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

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

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:

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:

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:

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” }