We subjected the Google Pixel 7 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 (top center and bottom right)
- No audio output Jack
Reproduction
Pros
- Good and clear tonal balance, consistent timbre at all volume levels
- Good spatial performance, excellent in all sub-attributes
- Audio artifacts well under control
versus
- The midrange can sound sly and almost a bit aggressive, depending on the content
- Lack of low-end extension
- Slightly blurred bass due to exaggerated sustain
- The minimum volume could be fine-tuned as it is extremely quiet
Registration
Pros
- Good tonal balance
- Good dynamic performance
- Good spatial performance, with accurate and realistic distance restitution
versus
- Poor signal-to-noise ratio with the memo app
- Mono recordings with clipboard app
- Ineffective wind noise reduction, pumping effect
With a score of 137, the Google Pixel 7 Pro achieved a mid-ranking position in our SBMARK Audio ranking. Overall performance was in line with previous Pixel models, but there were areas of sound enhancement in all attributes, which prevented the 7 Pro from challenging the best phones for consumption and audio recording.
While consuming audio content, Google’s flagship offered a clear tonal balance, with consistent timbre across all volume levels. The soundstage was made expansive and it was easy to spot individual instruments or voices within it. Furthermore, the sound reproduced through the Pixel’s speakers was almost free of artifacts. On the downside, some mid-range content may seem crafty, and our testers noted a lack of low-end extension and slightly fuzzy bass. At the minimum volume settings, the Pixel was very quiet, making it difficult to consume audio files with soft elements, such as classical music.
As a recording device, the Pixel 7 Pro worked best with the main and front cameras. Since the memo app records in mono by default and offers a poor signal-to-noise ratio means the device isn’t the best choice for office use cases. That said, the Pixel 7 Pro’s recordings offered a good tonal and dynamic balance, as well as realistic distance rendering. The wind noise reduction, on the other hand, was overall slightly disappointing and induced a pumping effect.
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.
On playback, the Pixel 7 Pro provided a clean tonal balance with decent treble. However, mid-range is an important area for improvement on the Pixel 7 Pro due to the lack of low-mid range and too prominent mid-high range. As a result, the phone sounds sly and almost aggressive. In dynamic tests, the testers found the attack to be good, with accurate transients. Bass accuracy was slightly blurry but overall still OK. Punch was good at nominal volume but was slightly compromised by compression at maximum volume setting.
The Pixel 7 Pro performed well in spatial attribute, with good amplitude and localizability of individual sound sources in the scene. The rendering from a distance was also good, with the voices perceived at the right distance. Only the feeling of depth left room for improvement. At the maximum setting, the Google phone delivered good volume, but the minimum volume was too low and would have benefited from the fine-tuning. The sonic artifacts were handled very well overall, with only moderate compression and distortion at maximum volume.
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 7 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.
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.
Secondary attributes for spatial tests include identifying the position of a specific sound, its positional balance, distance and amplitude.
The volume score represents the overall volume of a smartphone and how the volume gradually 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 | |
| Google Pixel 7 Pro | 73.1 dB | 68 dBA |
| Apple iPhone 14 | 74.8 dBA | 71.9 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.
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.
The recording performance of the Pixel 7 Pro was as good as in playback. Recordings came with natural sounding timbre and great tonal balance that was mostly free of resonances or artifacts. It was especially good for recording in a quiet environment and for recording with the selfie camera. When recording loud content, tonal balance remained good, but our testers noted a slight lack of low-end extension.
Dynamic performance was good overall, but varied by use case. The enclosure was clean, with sharp explosives in all use cases, even at high sound pressure levels, but when recording soft vocals in front of a noisy background, the vocal content was nearly drowned out, making the Pixel 7 Pro less suitable for recording, for example, in an office environment.
The sound recorded with the main camera had good amplitude, and the distance rendering was accurate and realistic. When using the audio zoom function, the background sound was filtered out well. However, the localizability of individual sound sources was only average, and recordings with the memo app were mono. The recording volume was great and the volume consistency remained excellent, even when using the audio zoom. In terms of audio recording artifacts, there was a slight distortion on the noisy elements of the scene, such as screaming voices. On the plus side, wind noise was improved over the Pixel 6 Pro and the background tone balance was nice and natural.
Here’s how the Google Pixel 7 Pro fares in recording use cases 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.
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.
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.
Secondary attributes for spatial tests include locating the position of a specific sound, its positional balance, distance and amplitude on recorded audio files.
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.
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 7 Pro | -29.8 LUFS | -19.2 LUFS | -17.1 LUFS | -22.4 LUFS |
| Apple iPhone 14 | -23.8 LUFS | -22.5 LUFS | -20.5 LUFS | -18.7 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.
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.
Start a new Thread