We subjected the Google Pixel 6 Pro to our rigorous SBMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance both when recording sound using its built-in microphones, and when playing audio through its speakers.
In this review, we’ll break down how it fared across a variety of tests and several common use cases.
Overview
Key audio specs include:
- Two speakers (one bottom right, side focus and one top, front focus)
- Three microphones
- Audio zoom
- USB Type-C headphone input (without 3.5mm jack)
Reproduction
Pros
- Deeper low-end extension and stronger low-mid range than the Pixel 6, which also helps the punch feel
- The tonal balance remains quite identical at low volumes
- The natural hand position does not block any speakers
versus
- The center is shifted to the right when listening to music.
- Dynamics are compromised by strong compression at maximum volume.
- The stereo does not follow the rotation of the phone while listening to music (only when watching movies).
- Numerous artifacts detected
Registration
Pros
- Good tonal balance in all use cases
- Relatively free of artifacts, even when recording in noisy environments
- The volume of the recordings is very good, while remaining clean.
versus
- Limited amplitude and poorer localizability in life videos
- Lower spatial results in selfie videos
Google Pixel 6 Pro outperforms its predecessors and offers very good performance compared to all phones in our Audio ranking.
Google’s flagship of 2021 is doing pretty well in all use cases. In the recording area, the Google Pixel 6 Pro improves dramatically and produces above-average results, with harmonious tonal balance, accurate dynamic attributes and prowess in high SPL scenarios, making it a good choice for concert recording, filming of video selfies and sending reminders.
Test summary
Learn 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 assessment under controlled laboratory conditions.
(For more details on our reproduction protocol, click here; for more details on our registration protocol, click here.)
The following section collects the key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyzes 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 under real-life conditions, using apps and default settings.
In playback, the Google Pixel 6 Pro is quite suitable for gaming thanks to its excellent spatial characteristics (localizability, width and distance rendering), natural midrange, correct volume results, and speakers that are quite difficult to occlude from the user’s hands. As for the drawbacks, the phone produces poor spatial results when playing music or watching a movie and suffers from aggressive compression, which is particularly problematic at high volumes. It also offers a mid-range focused frequency response lacking both high-end and low-end, which still remains more pleasing than the standard Google Pixel 6.
Hear about the playback performance of the smartphone tested in this comparison with some of its competitors:
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
Recordings of smartphones that play some of our music at 60 LAeq in an anechoic environment from 2 microphones in AB configuration, at 30 cm
Here’s how the Google Pixel 6 Pro fares in playback use cases compared to its competitors:
Playback of use case scores
The Timbre score represents how well a phone reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance and volume dependence. It is the most important attribute for reproduction.
The Google Pixel 6 Pro does an average job of accurately reproducing tones, including fairly smooth mids and clear, precise highs. They hear hissing, but sound less aggressive than the standard Pixel 6.
Overall, tonal balance is a bit subtle and midrange focused, and slightly muted when playing content with heavy bass. While the low-end extension isn’t as deep and the low-mid range isn’t as present as you’d hope, they are still better than the 6. Furthermore, the low-frequency information manages to remain audible thanks to the deliberately added harmonics. If you want to know more about this technique, you can check out our article on the evolution of smartphone audio.
At low volumes, the Pixel 6 Pro’s tonal balance remains fairly constant, while it varies significantly at maximum volume due to over-compression. In this case, the otherwise perceptible low-end information tends to disappear completely.
Music playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted 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 the precision with which a bass note or the impact sound of drums is played.
All dynamic attributes are highly dependent on volume. At low and nominal volumes, the attack is only slightly attenuated, the bass is precise and the punch is relatively punchy. However, at high volumes, the attack and bass envelope are crushed by aggressive compression, which completely stifles all punchy efforts, except when watching movies.
These numerous temporal artifacts are particularly evident in rich, loud music. Lighter musical genres (less compressed and less dense, harmonically speaking) are less affected by this poorly adapted compression.
Secondary attributes for spatial tests include identifying the position of a specific sound, its positional balance, distance and amplitude.
The Google Pixel 6 Pro gets a below-average spatial under-score due to its rather tight and heavily unbalanced stereo scene, which is noticeably shifted to the right side of the device (in landscape mode), except when gaming! Note that this imbalance is modifiable in the settings menu at a great price: the left side becomes harmonically very rich, while the right side sounds almost empty. It goes without saying that the result also sounds very asymmetrical, but in a different way. Also, the orientation of the audio only follows the rotation of the phone when watching a movie, not when playing music.
The rendering of the distance is realistic (especially in films, where the voices are particularly early, therefore very intelligible) and the localizability of the sound sources within the field is quite precise. In terms of use cases, the games are doing better and, by far, thanks to the excellent localizability, balance and breadth.
The volume score represents the overall volume of a smartphone and how the volume gradually increases and decreases based on user input.
The volume attributes are all in line with the goal: the volume levels are distributed consistently, the lowest level leaves the audio intelligible, and the volume at maximum volume is very satisfying.
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 | |
| Google Pixel 6 Pro | 73 dBA | 69 dBA |
| Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max | 72.4 dBA | 69.5 dBA |
| Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos) | 74.1 dB | 70.2 dBA |
The graph below shows the gradual changes in volume from minimum to maximum. We expect these changes to be consistent across the range, so that all volume levels match user expectations:
Music volume texture
This line graph shows the relative playback volume versus the user-selected volume step, measured at different volume levels with correlated pink noise in an anechoic box recorded on axis at 0.20 meters.
The Artifacts score measures the extent to which sound is affected by various types of distortion. The higher the score, the less noise you notice. Distortion can occur due to the sound processing in the device and the quality of the speakers.
As explained in the section on dynamics, compression is really problematic. In addition to often inducing pumping, it emphasizes the harshness coming from the mid frequencies. Additionally, the speakers sometimes produce unwanted clicks when resuming music playback after being paused. Distortion is only noticeable at high volumes, but in all frequency ranges.
Total harmonic distortion reproduction (maximum volume)
This graph shows the total harmonic distortion and noise in the audible frequency range.
It represents the distortion and noise of the device reproducing our test signal (0 dB Fs, Sweep Sine in an anechoic box at 40 cm) at the maximum volume of the device.
How the score of the audio recording is composed
SBMARK engineers test the recording by evaluating recorded files on reference audio equipment. These recordings are performed in our labs and in real-life conditions, using apps and predefined settings.
In recording tests, the pro version of the Pixel 6 withstood noisy environments: with high SPL, very good dynamics, rather harmonious tonal balance, immersive spatial attributes in real videos (videos shot in landscape mode with the rear cameras) and very few artifacts make it a decent choice for concert shooting. The selfie videos and reminders are also quite satisfying. However, the microphones cannot handle screaming voices or wind properly.
Here’s how the Google Pixel 6 pro fares in use case registration compared to its competitors:
Record of use case scores
The Timbre score represents how well a phone captures sounds across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble and tonal balance. It is the most important attribute for registration.
As a recording device, the Google Pixel 6 Pro offers great stamp capture. Despite a slight lack of high-end and low-end extension, the tonal balance remains homogeneous, the highs are clear, the mids are consistent – which allows the voices to sound naturally – and the bass is present.
Life video frequency response
A 1 / 12th octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the smartphone when recording a pure sine wave in an anechoic environment.
When recording in noisy environments, however, if the tonal balance remains relatively clean, the high mids can become slightly too prominent.
The Dynamics score measures the accuracy of changes in the energy level of sound sources, such as how accurately the explosives of a voice (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.
Google’s latest flagship also guarantees a correct capture of dynamics: regardless of the app used, the signal-to-noise ratio is correct and the envelope is precise. When recording in noisy environments, explosives and transients are clear; our simulated electronics gig scenario fares even better across all use cases, followed by reminders and selfie videos.
Secondary attributes for spatial tests include locating the position of a specific sound, its positional balance, distance and amplitude on recorded audio files.
In the recording space category, life videos are better due to good localizability and realistic distance acquisition due to midrange coherence. Selfie videos, as with many other devices, show a much more restricted scene. The items are well centered and remain precisely localizable.
Directivity of registration
Smartphone directivity graph when recording test signals using the camera app, with the main camera. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) on the angle of incidence of the sound source. (Normalized to the 0 ° angle, in front of the device.)
The volume score represents the normalization level of the audio on the recorded files and how the device handles noisy environments, such as electronic concerts, during recording.
The nominal volume is a bit lower than the Google Pixel 6, but overall it’s still satisfactory.
Here are the sound levels recorded in the audio and video files, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale); as a reference, we expect loudness levels to be higher than -24 LUFS for recorded content:
| Match | Life video | Selfie video | Memo | |
| Google Pixel 6 Pro | -27.5 LUFS | -19.6 LUFS | -17.6 LUFS | -20 LUFS |
| Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max | -25.5 LUFS | -22.7 LUFS | -20.1 LUFS | -18.2 LUFS |
| Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos) | -28.8 LUFS | -21.7 LUFS | -21.2 LUFS | -23.9 LUFS |
The Artifacts Score measures the extent to which recorded sounds are affected by various types of distortions. The higher the score, the less noise you notice. Distortions can occur due to the sound processing in the device and the quality of the microphones, as well as user handling, such as the way the phone is held.
Very few artifacts are perceptible in the recorded audio. That said, and despite Google’s claims, the microphones are very sensitive to wind. Also, on screaming vocals, there is a slight clipping and in high SPL scenarios, the compression is particularly active on the high lows, but nothing too problematic.
Compared to the competition, the Pixel 6 Pro is highly sensitive to wind noise. In this audio comparison, you can hear how this smartphone handles wind noise compared to its competitors:
Recordings of a voice sample with light background noise, facing a turbulent wind of 5 m / s
Background evaluates how naturally the various sounds around a voice blend into the video recording file. For example, when recording a speech at an event, the background should not interfere with the main voice, but should provide context for the surrounding environment.
Despite a slight lack of bass and a rather nasal tonal balance, the background in life videos is quite clean and natural, like in selfie videos.
Start a new Thread