We put the Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ through our rigorous SBMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance in both recording audio using the built-in microphones and playing audio through speakers.
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 (bottom right, top left)
- No jack audio output
Playback
Pros
- Vivid tone, pleasant with most audio content
- Pretty incisive
Against
- Strong lack of coherence, too much emphasis on digital processing
- Poor artifact performance
Registration
Pros
- Excellent audio zoom functionality
- Excellent performance in terms of wind noise
- Very good tonal balance, especially when using the selfie camera
Against
- Concert recordings compromised by boomy bass and inconsistent midrange
- Pretty strong compression when recording concerts
With an overall SBMARK Audio score of 138, the Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ delivered a very decent performance even though it was outperformed by other devices in the Ultra Premium segment. In our tests, we found that both playback and recording are strongly influenced by digital signal processing (DSP), which brought some positive aspects, such as very effective audio zoom and wind noise reduction, as well as good signal-to-noise ratio, but the DSP also caused some problems, including compression, exaggerated fake bass, and other artifacts. Overall, the device offers a very pleasant tone in both playback and recording, but would definitely benefit from more consistent processing.
Playback performance in terms of timbre was best when watching movies, followed by gaming and then music. Results tended to vary greatly based on tonal content. In recording, the Huawei’s timbre and envelope were better with the main camera, compared to the selfie and memo use cases. Spatial performance, however, showed some disparity in results, with a narrow soundstage during selfie videos, but a good sense of directivity when using the Memo app.
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 Mate 60 Pro+ delivered an overall pleasant, colorful and vivid tone. That said, the device appeared to apply a lot of digital signal processing (DSP), which resulted in a lack of consistency across use cases and different types of audio content. The ratio between treble, midrange and bass was generally good, but bass performance was particularly affected by the DSP, resulting in an unnatural feel and boxy sound. While the midrange sounded warm and quite pleasant, the highs were once again affected by the DSP. It was very bright and could play resonant.
The DSP had a particularly detrimental impact on dynamics, resulting in inferior results compared to some of the Mate’s competitors in this category. While attack was average, bass precision left room for improvement, especially when listening to music. Punch was consistently good across all test use cases. The device provided good stereo width, but the localizability of individual sound sources was slightly confusing, again due to the behavior of the DSP. While distance rendering was satisfactory, depth rendering was less good, with little to no perceived separation between the different instruments.
Volume was good at maximum volume and well-tuned at the minimum volume setting. The distribution of volume levels was also quite consistent. While our testers didn’t notice any particularly noticeable artifacts, the sum of the issues resulted in a below-average score for this category. The volume may fluctuate and sometimes there is some compression. Resonances were problematic at nominal and low volumes, and during gaming, a natural hand position could easily occlude the right speaker, muting it completely.
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 Huawei Mate 60 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 a drum 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 | |
| Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ | 74.9 dBA | 71.5 dBA |
| Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max | 75.1 dBA | 72.3 dBA |
| Huawei P60Pro | 71.9 dBA | 69.4 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.
The timbre of the recording was quite natural with the main camera and the highs were quite clear. The midrange slightly lacked upper-mid clarity, but the body remained natural. Tonal balance was very good when using the selfie camera, with natural mids and highs being slightly brighter than on the main camera. Treble was also good when recording with the Memo app. The signal-to-noise ratio was very good with both the main and selfie cameras, background noise could have been attenuated more with the memo app, especially in urban scenarios. However, the enclosure was clear enough for voices to be perfectly intelligible.
The breadth of the recorded soundstage was very good with the main camera and recorder apps, but much more limited when recording selfie videos. Locability was accurate across all apps and cameras. Distance rendering was also accurate, especially with the selfie camera. Recordings were quite noisy when using the main and selfie cameras, but slightly softer with the memo app. Our testers found that recording artifacts were well under control, but there was strong compression when recording at high sound pressure levels, such as at concerts. The device’s microphones were also quite sensitive to occlusions. The rendering of the background was always excellent and free of artifacts. But our testers found it to sound slightly boomy in urban conditions.
Here’s how the Huawei Mate 60 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 | |
| Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ | -25.4 LUFS | -20.2 LUFS | -18.9 LUFS | -21.4 LUFS |
| Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max | -24.9 LUFS | -22.1 LUFS | -20.5 LUFS | -19.2 LUFS |
| Huawei P60Pro | -24.5 LUFS | -19.4 LUFS | -18.9 LUFS | -20.2 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) {
[“Huawei Mate 60 Pro +”]=> string(72) “resources/Huawei/Mate60Pro+V2.2/HuaweiMate60Pro+_MicrophoneArtifacts.m4a”
[“Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max”]=> string(75) “resources/Huawei/Mate60Pro+V2.2/AppleiPhone15ProMax_MicrophoneArtifacts.m4a”
[“Huawei P60 Pro”]=> string(68) “resources/Huawei/Mate60Pro+V2.2/HuaweiP60Pro_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.
Start a new Thread