The brand puts it this way: “The Pulse Mini 2i powered speaker takes decades of hifi audio legacy and squeezes it into a single box. Delivering rich and detailed sound, the Pulse Mini 2i can easily fit into small living spaces, all the while providing an outstanding high-res music streaming experience.”

We put the Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Key specifications include:

• Wireless protocols : AirPlay2, others
• Wired connectivity : Jack
• Height: 17.2 cm. Width: 33.5 cm. Depth: 15.5 cm (6.8 in x 13.2 in. x 6.1 in)
• Weight : 3.6 kg (7.9 pounds)
• Speakers: Two 4 in. (102mm) woofers; two 3/4 in. (19mm) tweeters

Test conditions:

• Tested with iPhone SE (2020)
• Communication protocol used: AirPlay

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker protocol,
click here.)
The Bluesound PULSE MINI 2i falls into the Advanced category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

124

speaker

Timbre

124

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

108

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

91

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Artifacts

86

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

With an overall score of 124, the Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i lands a few spots outside the top 10 in our Advanced category of home speakers, just between the Huawei Sound X at 126 and the Sony SRS-XB43 at 122.

The Bluesound device’s main shortcoming is a lack of bass compared with other similarly priced speakers. That lack of bass impacts the MINI 2i’s rendition of punch in the dynamics attribute. On the plus side, the MINI 2i offers very large wideness and excellent performance in the volume attribute.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 124 for the Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Denon Home 250 and the Huawei Sound X.

Timbre (124)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

The Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i delivers a neutral overall sound. Characterized by good midrange as well as precise and rich treble, the tonal balance is also marked by the lack of bass and low-end extension. This results in a coldness that doesn’t improve at high volume, when the speaker sounds boxy and struggles to keep bass consistent.

Midrange is pleasant but somewhat dark, due to a shortfall of high-midrange that reduces clarity. It sounds fairly natural at loud and nominal volume, but at soft volume the tonal balance could really benefit from more high-midrange, especially for voice-based content like podcasts.

Treble sounds rich and precise across use cases, but becomes somewhat dark at loud volumes, where the device is overly midrange focused.

Worth noting here: We conduct all our tests with the device in its factory settings. We recommend setting the 2i’s wide mode to “wider” and the “Deep Bass” feature to “on” with Bass at -1 for optimal performance.

Dynamics (108)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

The Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i delivers an average dynamics performance. Across all use cases, attack is sharp, even at maximum volume despite some compression.

Lackluster sustain, resulting from the receded low-end, hinders bass precision. Because of compressed dynamics as well as a lack of low-midrange energy, the Pulse Mini 2i doesn’t have a lot of punch, especially at high volume.

Spatial (91)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

Spatial performance is a bright spot for the Bluesound speaker. Despite its small size, the device produces good wideness (with what appears to be a successful application of phase processing).

Despite that wideness, localizability and distance were the weak points in this attribute. While still decent, the scores were lower because of imprecise localizability around the center of the stereo scene, and blurry source positioning in both localizability and distance perception.

Volume (141)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Here the Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i excels. This is among the loudest speakers at maximum volume that we’ve tested, and the volume consistency was superb.

The consistency was also very good from soft to loud volumes. Playback performance is overall very consistent as well across all the volume steps.
Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i	92 dBA	95 dBA	88.7 dBA	82 dBA	91.5 dBA	83.9 dBA
Denon Home 250	89.2 dBA	84.8 dBA	86.1 dBA	81.6 dBA	85 dBA	81.1 dBA
Huawei Sound X	83.7 dBA	82.1 dBA	81.6 dBA	76.4 dBA	82.8 dBA	75.6 dBA

Artifacts (86)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

The Pulse Mini 2i performed well in the artifacts attribute. It was artifact-free for the most part across our use cases. The only noticeable artifacts appear at higher volumes, when loud, percussive instruments, such as bass drums, induce clipping. When pushed to maximum volume, performance suffers from pumping and bass distortion.

Conclusion

The Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i is a decent performer all-around, but at this price point, it should be stronger, especially in the timbre attribute. The lack of bass and low-end affected its timbre and dynamics. That said, the device is a strong performer in volume, artifacts, and spatial attributes. It will be interesting to see how this family of devices evolves and builds on the promise of this speaker.

The post Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

We put the Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Key specifications include:

• Wireless protocols: Bluetooth
• Wired connectivity: Jack
• Height: 16.4 cm (6.4 in). Width: 26.1 cm (10.2 in). Depth: 17.1 cm (6.7 in).
• Weight: 3.2 kilos (7 pounds)
• Speakers: One 4-inch (about 10 cm) woofer and two 1.5-inch (about 3.8 cm) tweeters

Test conditions:

• Tested with Android smartphone
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker protocol, click here.) The Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 falls into the Advanced category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Astell&Kern ACRO BE100

115

speaker

Timbre

115

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

104

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

71

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

130

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

97

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 earned a global score of 115, which puts it well outside the top 10 in our Advanced segment of home speakers, in the $200 to $599 price range. Its score places it between the Apple HomePod at 113 and the Harman Kardon AURA STUDIO 3 at 120. Among all the speakers we’ve tested, the Astell&Kern device is toward the bottom of the top 30.

The Astell&Kern speaker has some unusual flaws, especially in the spatial and artifacts attributes, that really affected its overall score. Some of these are linked to subpar processing. In both spatial and artifacts, an unusual “rotating” effect was observed, affecting localizability and just being a distraction. The speaker did not score well in the movie-use case in particular, in part because of this problem. It was also noted when listening to podcasts.

The device earned one of the highest scores in our database in the volume attribute — it’s quite loud and its distribution of volume steps is very consistent (though too widely spaced apart). In scored fairly well in the gathering use case as well.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 115 for the Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Harman Kardon Aura Studio 3 and the Dali Katch.

Timbre (115)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and take into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Overall, the ACRO BE100 delivers a decent timbre performance. Characterized by an overall neutral sonority, no flaw stands out at first listen. Tonal balance benefits from a pleasant roundness but in time reveals it to be lacking in clarity and brightness, among other shortcomings. Despite its boominess, the ACRO BE100 performs fairly well in reverberant acoustics. Its timbre, round and natural, never sounds harsh or excessive even at maximum volume, but the speaker produces a tonal balance that is too muffled and muddy for most common usages: movies can sound confusing, podcasts are not very intelligible because of the lack of clarity, and music sounds somewhat incomplete.

Treble is quite lackluster overall, with receded high-end extension and a lack of strength, muffling timbre. Treble is natural in most use cases and benefits from adjustment of treble tuning. Midrange is pretty inconsistent. Negatively impacted by the lack of clarity, it sounds muddy or sometimes nasal, with a prominent low midrange. Midrange tends to become more nasal and inconsistent as volume is increased. Bass may sound boomy or boxy, but its low-end extension is unsatisfying. Despite these flaws, bass rendition is still realistic, and low-end remains clean at low and nominal volume. Low-end recedes even more at higher volumes, despite adjusting the bass tuning. (Our recommendations for tuning: Increase treble by 2 notches, and bass by 1).

Dynamics (104)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

In the dynamics attribute, the ACRO BE100 is a mixed bag. Overall, dynamics are quite compressed, and some pumping is noticeable even at nominal volume. On the other hand, attack is extremely snappy in all use cases, although at higher volumes it can be exaggerated and clipped.

Bass precision is not satisfying overall because of global compression and pumping and a lack of low-end extension impairing sustain. All in all, bass attack is overpowering compared with the poor sustain. That strong and snappy attack contributes to some powerful energy for drums, helping improve a punch performance that is otherwise pretty poor because of compression and a muddy low midrange.

Spatial (71)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

Volume (130)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

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

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
Astell&Kern ACRO BE100	86.3 dBA	83.4 dBA	83.8 dBA	75.6 dBA	85.7 dBA	77.3 dBA
Harman Kardon Aura Studio 3	84.6 dBA	81.7 dBA	82.1 dBA	78.1 dBA	81.1 dBA	77.5 dBA
Dali Katch	89.4 dBA	89.8 dBA	82.4 dBA	80.5 dBA	84.2 dBA	74.8 dBA

Artifacts (97)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

Conclusion

While the performance of the Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 was a little disappointing at this price point, it does not show the usual defects that are seen on the first models, which is encouraging for the next ones the brand produces.

The score for timbre is in average territory. Attack is a positive in the dynamics attribute, but in other regards, it struggles. It’s loud, but it is not sufficiently refined to deliver satisfying performance across a number of different use cases. It does have some interesting pluses — the ability to adjust bass and treble for one, and the option to buy a model with FM radio is another.

The post Astell&Kern ACRO BE100 Speaker test appeared first on DXOMARK.

We put the LG XBoom RP4 through our rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite to measure its performance at playing back audio. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Key specifications include:

• Wireless protocols: Bluetooth
• Wired connectivity: Jack
• Height: 51.4 cm;  width: 24.7 cm; depth: 24.7 cm (9.8 in. x 20.2 in. x 9.8 in.)
• Weight: 5.8 kilos (12.8 pounds)
• Speakers: Two — one upward-facing tweeter and one upward-facing woofer

Test conditions:

• Tested with Android smartphone
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker protocol, click here.)
The LG XBOOM RP4 falls into the Advanced category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

LG XBoom RP4

135

speaker

Timbre

132

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

119

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

100

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

89

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

99

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The LG XBoom RP4’s overall score of 135 puts in decent territory among the other Advanced segment home speakers we’ve tested. It lands right behind three devices in the top 10 that scored 136 points — the Audio Pro C10 MKII, the JBL Xtreme, and the Yamaha MusicCast 50. But the LG XBoom RP4 also ranks in the top 10 among all tested devices, regardless of price.

The RP4 was especially strong in creating consistent sound in 360 degrees, earning an excellent score in our gathering use case. It did not score as well as a device for movie viewing, in part because it is a mono speaker. Let’s take a look at the specifics.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 135 for the LG XBoom 360 is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Klipsch The Three II and the Bose Home Speaker 500.

Timbre (132)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

In general, the LG XBoom RP4 performed well in this attribute compared with other similarly priced devices. But its results revealed some interesting quirks of character.

The timbre performance of the RP4 put a line under the boom in its name. With a lack of treble and high-end extension, the device can sound “boomy” and muffled. By putting the device on the floor, you can actually improve the situation somewhat because the treble seems to travel upward.

The midrange is unclear and dark — there’s too much emphasis on the low midrange. Despite the presence of bass, the tonal balance lacks low end and extension. This is somewhat disappointing considering the dimensions and heft of the device: it weighs nearly six kilos.

In the podcast use case, female voices sound unnatural because the device makes them boomy and muffled. It suits male voices better, matching low midrange presence with enough clarity.

In a reverberant environment, like a kitchen or bathroom, the RP4 is even more boomy and muffled. While this is also true in acoustically neutral environments at high volume, tonal balance switches to a canny sonority with resonant midrange.

Dynamics (119)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

At low volume, the LG device produces an overall pleasing dynamics performance. Attack sounds slightly rounded and soft, and this weakness is accentuated by the lack of high-end extension and precision. Sustain and release of bass is non-existent, due to the lack of low-end extension. Even bass attack is inconsistent. Punch, on the other hand, is quite good, thanks to the presence of energy in the low midrange.

Spatial (100)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

The marketing material for the XBoom RP4 touts the completeness of its 360° sound, and that omnidirectional capability is easy to verify. But it is nonetheless a mono device, and thus unable to hit the higher scores in the wideness and localizability aspects of the spatial attribute.

And while the consistency of the device was pretty good in all directions, treble really varied depending on the angle of listening.

That said, distance rendering was on point.

Volume (89)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

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

	Correlated Pink Noise	Uncorrelated Pink Noise	Hip-Hop	Classical	Latin	Asian Pop
LG XBoom RP4	87.3 dBA	84.4 dBA	82.3 dBA	77.7 dBA	83 dBA	75.9 dBA
Klipsch The Three II	93.2 dBA	92.7 dBA	91.1 dBA	85 dBA	92.3 dBA	86.1 dBA
Bose Home Speaker 500	84 dBA	81.9 dBA	82.3 dBA	78.2 dBA	83.2 dBA	75.4 dBA

Artifacts (99)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

Overall the device scored well in the artifacts attribute, although there is a tendency to produce distortion, especially at the low end.

Conclusion

The LG XBoom RP4 performs best in settings where it is at lower volume and in an acoustically neutral space. That’s perfect for a dinner party, a quiet gathering with friends, or listening to music in a relaxing setting.

The post LG XBoom RP4 Speaker review: Ideal for gathering with its 360° sound appeared first on DXOMARK.

To check all this and much more, we put the Bose SoundLink Flex through our rigorous DXOMARK Speaker test suite. In this review, we will break down how it fared at audio playback in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Key specifications include:

• Dimensions: 20.1 cm (7.92″) x 9 cm (3.55″) x 5.2 cm (2.05″)
• Weight: 0.6 kg/1.3 lbs
• Speakers: One driver, two passive radiators
• Connectivity: Bluetooth (no 3.5 mm jack)
• IP67 certification (dust-tight and waterproof)
• Battery life up to 12 hours

Test conditions:

• Tested with Motorola HSPK for music and Xiaomi Mi TV Box S for movies
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker protocol, click here.) The Bose SoundLink Flex falls into the Essential category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Bose Soundlink Flex

125

speaker

Timbre

126

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

107

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

95

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

57

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

105

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

With an overall score of 125, the Bose SoundLink Flex ranks third in our Essential Speaker database, right behind the JBL Charge 5 at 127, and the Sonos One, at 129.

Thanks to an impressively well-balanced sound, clear treble, precise midrange, and impactful punch, Bose’s latest portable—and super rugged—speaker is particularly well suited for the outdoors, or listening to a podcast in the kitchen. It is also IP67 certified and rather unbothered by highly reverberant acoustics, which makes it suitable for listening to music in the morning shower.

That all said, when loud volumes are reached, things start to fall apart: low-end, which was already lacking at nominal volume due to the device’s size, becomes severely recessed, heavy pumping emerges, and treble exhibits noticeable distortion. Additionally, the speaker’s maximum volume isn’t quite up to par with other devices sharing similar dimensions. In other words, the SoundLink Flex is not the best candidate if you want to host a party or if you want a very quiet listening time before going to bed, because the speaker’s first volume steps do not ensure full intelligibility.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 125 for the Bose Soundflink Flex is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the JBL Charge 5 and the Sony SRS-XB33.

Timbre (126)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

The SoundLink Flex’ Timbre sub-score places it in the top 3 of all the essential speakers we’ve tested to date. Considering its size, Bose’s latest portable speaker does indeed, as promised, deliver a surprisingly well-balanced, clear and “open” sound.

Despite a slight lack of high-end extension, treble remains fairly well reproduced and precise. Midrange frequencies are also clear and precise, which allows vocals to pop with a rich and full sound. When the back of the speaker is placed against a hard surface, such as a wall, midrange is even enhanced compared to the other frequency ranges (bass/treble).

Voice-oriented contents such as podcasts exhibit a particularly midrange-focused tonal balance. Therefore, voices can lack fullness, brilliance, and clarity. Low-end frequencies are generally lacking, which is all but surprising in view of the device’s dimensions. Fortunately, Bose didn’t try to overcompensate with virtual bass (which, more often than not, brings unwanted resonances and distortion). At loud volumes, the lack of bass and low-end extension becomes more problematic, amplifying the midrange-centric frequency response. This can result in a somewhat aggressive rendering.

Finally, it is interesting to note that in strongly reverberant environments such as a bathroom, the SoundLink Flex’s timbre performance remains remarkably consistent and harmonious.

Dynamics (107)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

As for dynamic attributes, despite its size, the speaker is capable of delivering enjoyable punch—precise and powerful, without ever becoming invasive. Attack is average, with a fairly sharp restitution of transients.

Bass precision, on the other hand, suffers from the lack of low-end extension: while attack remains quite precise, sustain is always cut short. Additionally, at maximum volume, the whole sound envelope is impaired by pumping.

Spatial (95)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

Because of the speaker’s monophonic architecture (and compact dimensions), wideness is nil, and localizability is inherently compromised. On the other hand, distance rendering is realistic: regardless of the use case, voices sound at the right distance from the listener.

Volume (57)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Volume is certainly not a strong point for Bose’s SoundLink Flex. To begin with, the distribution of volume steps across the listening levels isn’t consistent enough; while the first ones are essentially useless, the last three are capped, as shown in the following graph:

Further, the maximum reachable volume isn’t loud enough, even when taking into account the device’s size. Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

Artifacts (105)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

At the exception of discreet static noise at low volumes, from soft to nominal volumes, audio played back by the SoundLink Flex is fairly clean. That said, at loud and maximum volumes, heavy pumping comes into play, treble distortion appears, and upper frequencies as a whole become quite aggressive.

Conclusion

For the most part, the Soundlink Flex keeps its promises. The speaker does indeed deliver a rich, clear and well-balanced sound at nominal volume, and makes a great nomad speaker, able to adapt to many acoustic environments. This, along with its very robust build, makes it an interesting outdoors companion, which can also be used in the bathroom, the kitchen, or generally when relaxing at home. But its shortcomings at loud volume prevents the Flex from being a viable option for partying on the go.

The post Bose SoundLink Flex Speaker review: A well-balanced, compact, and rugged speaker appeared first on DXOMARK.

Huawei’s second Bluetooth speaker can count on a rugged design, an IP67 certification (dust-tight and waterproof), and up to 26 hours of battery life. On the audio side of things, the Huawei-Devialet duo promises to “fill every corner of the party” with “powerful bass and singing treble” thanks to a dual “push-push” passive radiator architecture, a silk dome tweeter, and a full-range driver.

We put the Huawei Sound Joy through our rigorous DXOMARK  Speaker test suite. In this review, we will break down how it fared at audio playback in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Key specifications include:

• Speakers: one 50 mm full-range speaker, one 19 mm tweeter, two passive radiators
• Weight: 680 g (1.5 lbs)
• Dimensions: 7.3 cm (2,9″) x 20.2 cm (8″) x 7.3 cm (2,9″)
• Connectivity: Bluetooth (no 3.5 mm jack)
• Three microphones
• IP67
• Up to 26 hours of battery life

Test conditions:

• Tested with Motorola for music, Xiaomi Mi TV Box S for movies
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth for both music and movies

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker protocol, click here.) The Huawei Sound Joy falls into the Essential category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Huawei Sound Joy

103

speaker

Timbre

110

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

97

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

67

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

84

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

57

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The global score of 103 earned by the Huawei Sound Joy puts it toward the bottom in the database of all the speakers tested to date, yet still significantly better than the Baidu Xiaodu Smart Speaker Ultimate Edition at 48, or even the HomePod Mini at 98.

Its performance is mainly hamstrung by severe inconsistencies in the frequency response, such as excessive upper bass and treble on one hand, and recessed low-end and low midrange on the other. The result can also often sound aggressive, even at low volumes. Additionally, the maximum volume isn’t on target for its size, and heavy distortion is noticeable on bass frequencies, which also impairs dynamic attributes (punch and bass precision). Finally, note that the Sound Joy is a monophonic speaker. However, Huawei’s second speaker is capable of delivering fairly sharp attack and good upper midrange reproduction, allowing voices to cut through the background, thus remaining quite intelligible.

In terms of use cases, its shortcomings prevent the speaker from being a viable choice for partying, friendly gatherings, listening to podcasts before going to bed, or watching movies. On the other hand, thanks to its IP67 certification, its ruggedness, its battery life and the good vocal intelligibility it ensures, it can be an option for a kitchen, a bathroom or an outdoor use.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 103 for the Huawei Sound Joy is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Sonos Roam and the Sony SRS-XB33.

Timbre (110)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and take into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

In most use cases, the Huawei Sound Joy exhibits a fairly unbalanced frequency response: low-end extension and low midrange are both lacking, whereas upper bass and treble are prominent. The emphasis put on the upper bass results in a fairly “boxy” sound, and the exacerbated treble induces an aggressive tone. Additionally, a substantial loss of upper frequencies is noticeable when listening to the device from the sides, which, on the other hand, softens the overall harshness of the sound.

When watching movies, if the speaker lacks both high- and low-end extension, it ensures a reliable midrange reproduction allowing voices to stand out from the background. That said, the excess of upper bass and the amount of bass distortion still impair the overall performance in this use case by making low-frequency sound effects sound blurry and quite unpleasant.

At low volumes, not only does the sonority remain aggressive despite a slight lack of high-end extension, it also becomes nasal due to a lack of bass and low-midrange. Finally, when listening to music at louder volumes, due to the contrast between the excessive treble and the lacking midrange, the device sounds even more aggressive and unnatural.

Dynamics (97)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

From soft to nominal volumes, attack remains fairly sharp. Bass precision and punch, on the other hand, are severely affected by the heavy bass distortion, making all lower-frequency contents sound blurry and unnatural. At louder volumes, sustain is impaired by both dynamic compression and distortion. This makes attack feels disproportionate in comparison to sustain, which makes the sound envelope as a whole sound unrealistic.

Spatial (67)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

In the spatial category, the Huawei Sound Joy mainly suffers from the device’s monophonic rendering. Localizability is expectedly quite poor, although it gets better if the listener stands closer to the speaker.

Distance rendering and directivity (the device’s ability to evenly distribute sound at 360°) are average. All in all the speaker’s spatial sub-scores make it a valid option for kitchen and bathroom use, but not for a friendly gathering or watching movies.

Volume (84)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

The Huawei Sound Joy’s maximum volume isn’t up to par with other devices of similar size and construction. Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

On another note, incrementation steps aren’t consistently distributed across the volume scale: as shown in the graph below, the two uppermost volume steps are capped.

Artifacts (57)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

In the artifacts domain, the Huawei Sound Joy earns one of the lowest sub-scores of all the speakers we’ve tested to date, only one point higher than the lowest-scoring device in the category, the Apple HomePod. This is essentially due to the excessive distortion the speaker generates on bass frequencies across all use cases and listening levels. Additionally, at louder volumes, treble distortion also rears its ugly head, inducing a particularly aggressive sonority.

While they aren’t as bad, temporal artifacts are also problematic in that at loud volume, punch and attack are both impaired by excessive compression.

Conclusion

The collaboration with Devialet was more fruitful on the Sound Joy’s predecessor, the Sound X. This time around, sound reproduction is impaired by excessive bass distortion, significant lack of tonal balance, underwhelming volume performances, and a monophonic rendering. That all said, with its dust-tight and waterproof build along with its sharp frequency response allowing vocal content to cut through the background noise surrounding the listener, the Sound Joy can be a good companion for your everyday activities, whether for singing along in the shower, checking out cooking podcasts, or listening to a talk-show on the go.

The post Huawei Sound Joy Speaker review: A rugged performance appeared first on DXOMARK.

We put the Teufel Boomster through our rigorous DXOMARK testing protocol to see how it measures up in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Key specifications include:

• Speakers: two tweeters, two midrange speakers and one woofer
• Weight: 3.75 kg (8.27 lbs)
• Dimensions: 37 cm (14.4″) x 18 cm (7.1″) x 14,8 cm (5.8″)
• Connectivity: Bluetooth 5 (aptX), 3.5 mm jack, and both FM and digital radios (DAB+ and antenna)
• Remote control
• IPX5
• 18 hours of battery life (at nominal volume)

Test conditions:

• Tested with Motorola G8 for music, Xiaomi Mi TV Box S for movies
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth for music, 3.5 mm jack for movies

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker protocol, click here.) The Bang & Olufsen Beosound Level falls into the Advanced category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Teufel Boomster

139

speaker

Timbre

139

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

118

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

88

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

98

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

114

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The Teufel Boomster’s overall score of 139 makes it one of the best performers in our Advanced Speakers ranking, right between two weighty competitors (and second iterations as well): the Marshall Stanmore II and the Klipsch The Three II.

Teufel’s latest Boomster model offers a non-neutral yet pleasant tonal balance, articulate treble, precise and powerful dynamics, realistic distance rendering, and a very good maximum volume. Additionally, the sound reproduction is almost free from sonic artifacts, from soft to nominal volumes. All these strengths make it a suitable companion for many situations, from listening to music or podcasts before going to bed, to entertaining a small group of friends, or simply kicking back at home.

Its front-firing conception, as well as the noticeable compression that arises at louder volumes, can be a problem if you want to use it outdoors or for a party, however, if you don’t need sound to be evenly distributed at 360° and don’t mind dynamics to be less powerful, the speaker remains otherwise adapted to high SPL use cases. On another note, don’t expect a whopping sound field wideness or particularly precisely localizable elements if you’re standing far from the speaker. Finally, note that the Teufel Boomster exhibits a fairly boomy sonority regardless of the listening level, and rather inconsistent volume steps.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 139 for the Teufel Boomster is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Klipsch The Three II and the Audio Pro C10 MKII.

Timbre (139)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Overall, Teufel’s rejuvenated Boomster reveals a pleasant, albeit non-neutral, tonal balance: while both low- and high-end frequencies are emphasized (resulting in generous bass and slightly exacerbated brilliance), low midrange sounds a bit hollow. When watching movies, a slight excess of treble can occasionally induce a harsher sonority, compensated by a great midrange performance ensuring precise and intelligible vocal reproduction, as well as deep and powerful low-frequency sound effect rendering.

At low volumes, the speaker suffers from a lack of clarity on high-pitched instruments and voices (inducing a somewhat muffled sonority), and from a slight excess of bass, giving it a “boomy” feel across all listening levels and all use cases. Due to its front-firing architecture, these two shortcomings are exacerbated when listening off-axis.

When listening at louder volumes, the opposite occurs: treble becomes slightly excessive, and both bass and midrange are on the lacking side.

Dynamics (118)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

From soft to nominal volumes, the latest Boomster delivers sharp and impactful dynamics: attack is snappy, bass is very precise, and punch is very powerful. Dynamic envelope is rather well preserved when listening from behind the speaker, despite the obvious loss of sharpness

That all said, at loud volumes, punch is severely hamstrung by the compression algorithm. Further, when watching movies, bass precision is impaired by the excessive boominess of lower frequencies (low mediums and bass).

Spatial (88)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

Due to its front-firing design, the Teufel Boomster is unable to evenly distribute sound at 360°, hence a low sub-score for the outdoor and party use cases. Besides, it generates a fairly narrow scene, unless the listener stands fairly close to the device (under 1m). Localizability follows the same logic. Distance rendering, on the other hand, is very realistic.

Volume (98)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

Teufel’s 2021 Boomster delivers such an elevated maximum volume that it comes pretty close to being the loudest device we’ve tested. Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

However, as shown in the graph below, the volume step distribution isn’t homogeneous enough across all listening levels. For instance, audio is still completely muted at the first volume step.

Artifacts (114)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

Except for an upper bass resonance slightly impairing the device’s intelligibility (regardless of the listening volume), and noticeable compression at maximum volume, the speaker is perfectly free from perceivable artifacts, whether spectral, temporal or noise-related.

In other words, partying is the only situation significantly impaired by undesirable sounds; all other use cases are fairly unaffected by artifacts.

Conclusion

With its flattering tonal balance, detailed and impactful dynamics, excellent maximum volume and almost no perceivable artifacts, the Boomster’s second iteration has managed to land directly in the top five of all the advanced speakers we’ve tested to date — besides keeping most of its manufacturer’s promises. The speaker is particularly well-suited for an outdoor use if you’re not hung up on 360° sound, as well as a small indoor gathering, relaxing at home, and even listening to music or podcasts before going to bed. That said, you should be aware that, keeping in line with its name, the speaker delivers a fairly boomy sound. Also, it compresses dynamics at louder levels, and offers a much better spatial performance from up close — which might make it suitable for watching movies in a cozy living room, but not in a Beverly-Hills-mansion-like situation.

The post Teufel Boomster Speaker review: Powerful, impactful, and almost artifacts-free appeared first on DXOMARK.

The 3.3 kg portable speaker is equipped with five Class D-amplified speakers — two 0.8-inch tweeters, a 2-inch full-range speaker and a pair of 4-inch woofers — and offers WiFi connectivity with multi-room capabilities, Spotify Connect, Apple AirPlay2, Chromecast, Bluetooth, and an optical as well as a 3.5 mm jack input. With all that, the Beosound Level claims to deliver a “flawless listening experience in beautiful, portable form” that adapts to the speaker’s orientation: “dynamic bass” when laid flat, “unmatched clarity” when upright or “an enveloping soundstage” when placed on a wall. Additionally, the speaker features an active room compensation to also adapt to the space’s acoustics for a “clear, detailed listening experience at all times.”

We put the Bang & Olufsen Beosound Level through our rigorous DXOMARK  Speaker test suite to measure its performance at playing audio back through its speakers. In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Key specifications include:

• Speakers: two 2 cm (0.8″) tweeters, one 5 cm (2”) full-range speaker, and two 10 cm (4“) woofers
• Weight 3.3 kg (7.3 lbs)
• Connectivity: Bluetooth, WiFi, Chromecast, AirPlay2, optical and 3.5 mm jack
• Google Assistant
• IP54 (dust and splash resistant)
• 16 hours of battery life
• Stereo pair capable

Test conditions:

• Tested with iPhone
• Communication protocol used: AirPlay2

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker protocol, click here.) The Bang & Olufsen Beosound Level falls into the Premium category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Bang & Olufsen Beosound Level

124

speaker

Timbre

128

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

106

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

89

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

67

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

101

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

Its overall score of 124 puts the Bang & Olufsen Beosound Level at the bottom of our premium speaker rankings, right between two advanced speakers: the Sony SRS-XB43 and the Huawei Sound X.

The speaker is fairly suited for listening to music while relaxing at home thanks to a colorful and lively timbre restitution with enhanced bass, clear midrange, and rich lower treble. Bedtime music or podcasts are also possible because timbre at softer listening levels doesn’t differ too much from nominal volume, despite a more obvious lack of low midrange.

On the other hand, playback as a whole is too dependent on internal processing, and becomes unreliable at higher volumes: the frequency response becomes even more unbalanced with inconsistent bass, hollow midrange, and occasionally aggressive treble. Dynamics are rather underwhelming, and spatial attributes are strongly hamstrung by a cross-talk issue or a phase processing. Volume characteristics aren’t on target either due to inconsistently distributed volume steps before maximum volume; it isn’t as loud as its other premium competitors, and the speaker exhibits very noticeable temporal artifacts such as classic compression and pumping.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 124 for the Bang & Olufsen Beosound Level is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge and the Bang & Olufsen Beosound Balance.

Timbre (128)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

The Bang & Olufsen Beosound Level turns a good timbre restitution overall: the tonal balance is characterized by enhanced bass, clear midrange, and rich lower treble. While the frequency response is certainly not flat, it is nevertheless pleasing, colorful and musical.

That said, the bass sounds processed, which induces occasional resonances. This doesn’t get better as the listening level increases; at higher volumes, the speaker struggles to keep bass consistent and reliable. What’s more, it falls short when it comes to low-end extension.

Midrange frequencies are clear, natural, and pleasant but can sound somewhat hollow, due to a lack of low midrange. The midrange also proves to be quite inconsistent; at softer volumes, the lack of low midrange is exacerbated, and at louder volumes, its “hollowness” extends to higher frequencies thus becoming more obvious.

Finally, treble could be brighter if less emphasis was put on lower treble — which can often sound a bit resonant and tinny, and even slightly aggressive at loud volumes — and more emphasis was cast on the upper treble and high-end extension.

Dynamics (106)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

While attack isn’t as sharp as expected, and punch is rather weak, bass precision is the most impaired attribute due to multiple resonances, especially at loud volumes, and an exaggerated bass sustain. As a whole, the sound envelope appears to be affected by the Beosound Level’s dynamic processing (compression).

Spatial (89)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

The spatial sub-score is heavily impaired by what appears to be a crosstalk issue (audio leaking from one channel to the other), or an ill-adapted phase processing. This results in an unrealistic stereo scene, highly dependent on both the audio content, and the listener’s position.

The speaker’s spatial performance is otherwise rather good. The localizability of the elements within the mix is fairly precise in spite of these shortcomings, and distance rendering is adequate.

Volume (67)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

The maximum level delivered by the Beosound Level is a bit subpar compared to other speakers sharing the same dimensions. Here are a few sound pressure levels (SPL) we measured when playing our sample recordings of hip-hop and classical music at maximum volume:

But what really hinders the speaker’s sub-score in this category is its very peculiar volume steps distribution, as seen in the graph below, where the maximum volume is reached well before the last volume step!

Artifacts (101)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

While compression remains fairly discreet at nominal volume, it becomes really obvious at louder volumes. Overwhelming compression and pumping appear, which utterly crush the dynamic range, and it even takes a toll on the speaker’s timbre.

Bass distortion, not systematically problematic when it is adequately handled, is less tolerated when it is inconsistent, which is the case with the Beosound Level. And in addition to overwhelming compression and pumping, some distortion is also noticeable at high volumes.

Conclusion

While the Bang & Olufsen Beosound Level certainly has numerous aesthetic and design arguments, its audio performance is not up to par compared to its premium competitors. The Beosound Level is relatively well suited for listening to music when relaxing at home (and probably in the garden, too, by means of its 16-hour battery and IP54 certification) thanks to a rich and colorful timbre restitution, but its performance in the other categories (dynamics, spatial, volume, and artifacts) and especially at louder volumes is strongly impaired by an ill-adapted compression algorithm and a strange stereo field rendition, leaving much to be desired.

The post Bang & Olufsen Beosound Level Speaker review: Good for listening to music while relaxing appeared first on DXOMARK.

This is an expensive and large speaker; it weighs 6.5 kilos and is 65 centimeters long, taking up a good bit of real estate on a cabinet or bookshelf. It’s set up to stream in a variety of ways, including AirPlay 2, Bluetooth aptX, Spotify Connect and its own app, Music B&W. The hardware consists of two double-dome 1-inch tweeters, two 3.5 inch midrange drivers and one 6-inch subwoofer, powered by 240 watts of Class D amplification. Let’s see how it performed under our rigorous Audio tests.

Key specifications include:

• Dimensions: 650 x 210 x 194 mm (25.5 x 8.75 x 7.6 inches)
• Weight 6.5 kg (14 lbs)
• Speakers: HF 2x 25mm (1”) double dome tweeters; MF 2x 90mm (3 1⁄2”) FST midrange; LF 1x 150mm (6”) subwoofer
• Connectivity: Bluetooth 5.0, AirPlay2

Test conditions:

• Tested with iPhone SE
• Communication protocol used: AirPlay2 for both music and movies

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker protocol, click here.) The Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin falls into the Premium category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin

146

speaker

Timbre

135

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

131

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

110

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

103

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

110

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin doesn’t quite reach the high mark set by its brand sibling, the B&W Formation Wedge, which has our top score in the premium category at 160. But it’s currently in third, just ahead of the Bang & Olufsen Beosound Balance and the Google Home Max.

The Zeppelin scored extremely well in our “relaxing” use case across attributes, and turned in a strong showing in the “party” case as well. With a strong dynamics performance and powerful bass even at low volume, it provides a pleasant listening experience while also being able to deliver some quality sound at higher volumes. The tonal balance is natural, underpinned by that deep bass and enriched with warm midrange. The dynamics performance adds to the overall quality listening experience., 

One of the rare downsides to the device is that the treble can be a bit dull, and overpowered by the bass. This can have in impact on the intelligibility of voices, which could have an impact on its value as part of a movie-viewing experience. The spatial performance was solid, though we expected more wideness considering the physical shape of the Zeppelin, which allows significant separation of speakers.

As for artifacts, there was some pumping and compression noted at high volumes.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 146 for the Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin  is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge and the Bang & Olufsen Beosound Balance.

Timbre (135)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

The Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin delivered a good overall timbre performance. The tonal balance is natural, with deep bass and warm midrange. The main drawback was a lack of treble, and clarity in general. With deep low-end extension, bass is a strong point in the Zeppelin. In fact, while powerful and realistic, the bass can also be a bit intrusive. Upper bass presence could be stronger at higher volumes, while lower bass is heavier in the tonal balance, but overall it doesn’t sound too processed or exaggerated.

Midrange is quite neutral, although a bit unclear overall. The lack of upper midrange can produce a nasal sound with some contents, or it can even seem somewhat muddy. While noticeable at all volumes, it was less of an issue as the device nears maximum level; clarity was adequate.

Treble is also rendered correctly at maximum volume, although this is not the Zeppelin’s strength. Brightness is in general insufficient, and treble is quite dull, darkening the tonal balance. This darkness and muddiness become an issue when it comes to the intelligibility of voices, which is a drawback in the movie-viewing use case. It’s too bad because the device’s power and deep low-end are otherwise great for that scenario.

All that said, the tonal balance is overall pleasing and natural, just a tad on the dark and bland side.

Dynamics (131)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

The Zeppelin, like the B&W Formation Wedge, is very strong in dynamics. The standout performance here was almost surprising considering the dull and bland tonal balance. The device delivers a very snappy attack, even at high volume and especially at a soft volume.

Bass precision thrives from the good envelope accuracy, although it was slightly impaired by compression in some occasions, mostly at high volume. As a whole, bass rendition was realistic .

Punch was no exception, thanks to that powerful low end and low midrange energy. In some cases, overwhelming bass, muddy tonal balance, or compression at high volumes could get in the way of the impact of punch.

Spatial (110)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

The B&W Zeppelin delivers a good performance in the spatial attribute. For stereo balance and distance rendition, the device is close to flawless.

Considering the dimensions of the device, with room to separate speakers, we expected a very strong showing for wideness, and while the wideness was really good, it could have been better.

Localizability was somewhat of a weak point here. While still correct, the score was lower than it could have been. Sources on the sides of the stereo image are easier to pinpoint than sources at the center or around the center of the stereo image — where localizability is less precise.

Volume (103)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

The measured maximum volume of the Zeppelin was quite good, but the device lost points for volume consistency. Instead of seeing a steady progression of volume steps of relatively equal measure, there were four really big first steps and then much smaller ones toward the top of the range.

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

Artifacts (110)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

The artifacts performance of the Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin is about average. No artifacts appear at nominal volume, but as volume increases, compression, pumping, and harmonic distortion begin to emerge.

In most cases, it isn’t obtrusive, but at very loud volume on some contents, bass-induced pumping can be quite overwhelming, and some internal physical vibrations could impair the listening experience.

Conclusion

The Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin is a top performer in this price range. With its performance, it establishes itself among the top handful of wireless speaker options in our database. With fulsome bass, a good overall tonal balance, and excellent dynamics, it will please many listeners. It’s probably not the best choice if you’re looking for an audio companion for your movie nights, but overall it checks all the boxes as an all-around winner. If you want to take a deeper dive into your options, check out our  our Wireless Speaker ranking or our Best wireless speakers article.

The post Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin Speaker review: Strong showing from a familiar form appeared first on DXOMARK.

This being a Klipsch, it also proudly boasts of state-of-the-art sound, with two 2 1/4” full-range drivers and a 5.25” long-throw woofer. As the brand describes it, “Bi-amplified for audio resolution, the Three II offers an unrivaled sound experience to transport you into the recording studio with the musicians.”  Let’s see how this classically styled, front-firing Klipsch device fares in our rigorous DXOMARK Audio testing protocol.

Key specifications include:

• Dimensions: 13.7 x 7 x 8 in. (34.82 x 17.78 x 20.3 cm).
• Weight 10.32 lbs (4.7kg)
• Speakers: Two 2 1/4” (57.15mm) full range drivers, one 5.25” (133.4mm) long-throw woofer, and two 5.25” (133.4mm) dual opposed passive radiators
• Connectivity: Bluetooth, 3.5mm jack, phono pre-amp / RCA analog, USB Type B

Test conditions:

• Tested with Motorola G8 for both music and movies
• Communication protocol used: Bluetooth for both music and movies

About DXOMARK Wireless Speaker tests: For scoring and analysis in our wireless speaker reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluation under controlled lab conditions. This article highlights the most important results of our testing. Note that we evaluate playback using only the device’s built-in hardware. (For more details about our Speaker protocol, click here.) The Klipsch The Three II falls into the Advanced category of devices in the DXOMARK Speaker rankings.

Test summary

Klipsch The Three II

137

speaker

Timbre

139

152

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (152)

Dynamics

122

137

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (137)

Spatial

86

111

Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge

Best: Bowers & Wilkins Formation Wedge (111)

Volume

108

141

Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i

Best: Bluesound Pulse Mini 2i (141)

Artifacts

78

133

Sonos Five

Best: Sonos Five (133)

The Klipsch The Three II has an overall score that puts it among the better home speakers we’ve tested, especially in our Advanced category. The device scored well in timbre and dynamics, and had decent scores for the spatial and volume attributes. In artifacts, its score was below average.

The Three II is fairly volume dependent in a variety of ways. At nominal volumes, the Klipsch device is a solid performer with a pleasingly rich low end and an accurate and clear high-end, and it’s also very strong on dynamics. But the qualities of its timbre and dynamics shift as the volume goes up or down. At high volume, it especially suffers; this isn’t a speaker for loud house parties, and it’s not ideal for fans of electronic music or hip-hop. This is also where the device produces some unfortunate artifacts.

Sub-scores explained

The DXOMARK Speaker overall score of 137 for the Klipsch The Three II is derived from a range of sub-scores. In this section, we will take a closer look at these audio quality sub-scores and explain what they mean for the user, and we will show some comparison data from two of the device’s competitors, the Marshall Stanmore II and the Audio Pro C10 MKII.

Timbre (139)

DXOMARK timbre tests measure how well a speaker reproduces sound across the audible tonal range and takes into account bass, midrange, treble, tonal balance, and volume dependency.

Overall, the Three II scores well in timbre, putting it in the upper group of all the devices we’ve tested, and especially well among other speakers in its price point. That said, the timbre performance has some interesting peculiarities. The Klipsch device has a “hi-fi” type of tonal balance — the low end is generous and the high-end extension is very brilliant and precise, while the midrange sounds slightly hollow. Although this type of tonal balance is not exactly flat, in the sense of having good representation through the range of frequencies, it is not at all unpleasant when listening to music at a nominal level.

There are a few resonances in the low-end extension that are noticeable but not disturbing. However, this means that if you put the device on top of a hollow piece of furniture — say a low cabinet for example — it will create a kind of bass reflex that would inevitably increase bass distortions.

There is a substantial loss of upper content when listening from the sides of the device, but that’s not surprising because it’s front-firing.

In the TV-viewing use case, the tendencies of the Three II are emphasized, which means that the tonal balance seems hollow, lacking in low-midrange warmth, especially on voice-oriented content, and high-mids tend to be slightly harsh. This does detract from the pleasure of movie viewing.

At low volumes, the Klipsch device sounds slightly muffled and lacks clarity on high-pitched instruments and voices. A lack of low end is also noticeable.

The Klipsch The Three II is out of its depth when playing electronic or hip-hop music and loud volumes. Highs become harsh, and heavy distortions destroy the low end. The limits of the hardware become evident as well as the speaker membrane vibrates in an unusual way.

Dynamics (122)

Our dynamics tests measure how well a device reproduces the energy level of a sound source, taking into account attack, bass precision, and punch.

The Three II scores well in dynamics overall. At nominal volumes, the speaker delivers sharp attack and good bass precision. Punch is also powerful. Surprisingly, the dynamics components hold up well even when listening from behind the device, except for bass precision, which tends to become somewhat blurry.

As with timbre, the Klipsch lost some points in the television viewing scenario. Saturation in the highs induces a lack of sharpness in attack, and too much low end impairs the punch, which becomes muddy and weak.

At loud volumes, the attack remains sharp while distortions in the low frequencies impair bass precision, and as with timbre, the problems arise mainly in electronic and hip-hop music.

Spatial (86)

Our spatial tests measure a speaker’s ability to reproduce stereo sound in all directions, taking into account localizability, balance, wideness, distance, and directivity. Please note that wideness is 0 on mono speakers and on speakers that cannot deliver a significant stereo effect.

Klipsch The Three II earns some credit here for delivering a bit of stereo sound, even if the listener has to be pretty close to the device to perceive it. This means localizability is also better up close. Voices are perceived right at the device’s position, producing a good score for distance. This also holds true for the movie viewing use case; if you’re close to the device wideness and localizability will be optimal.

In the kitchen use case, where the clatter of cookery is competing with the Klipsch, the device still turns in a good distance performance; voices cut through the environmental noise to sound close by.

At soft volumes, voices tended to sound veiled; that drew down the distance score.

Volume (108)

Our volume tests measure both the maximum loudness a speaker is able to produce and how smoothly volume increases and decreases based on user input.

The Klipsch device was a mixed bag in the volume attribute. It tended to lack clarity at low volumes and is heavily impaired by distortions and hardware flaws at loud volumes.

The first couple volume steps are minimal, and beyond a certain point, the last ones are as well.

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

Artifacts (78)

Our artifacts tests measure how much source audio is distorted when played back, along with such other sound artifacts as noise, pumping effects, and clipping. Distortion and other artifacts can occur both because of sound processing and because of the quality of the speakers.

The Klipsch The Three II did not score very well in the artifacts attribute for a device at this price point. It doesn’t have a lot of artifacts, but the ones it does have are disturbing.

The most evident is bass distortions at loud volume; the Three II is not the best choice for a loud house party.

Saturations in the high-end when watching movies can also become annoying — and more so if you’re a “Fast and Furious” fan versus a lover of genteel rom-coms. The Three II doesn’t do well with explosions and breaking glass.

Conclusion

As long as you don’t push it out of its comfort zone, the Klipsch The Three II produces high quality sound, especially at nominal volumes. For general use, it’s going to please its listeners with its rich low end, precise high end, and solid dynamics performance.

For those thinking of buying a home speaker for wild parties at high volumes, or those looking for a companion for movie watching, there are better choices, and you should have a look at our Wireless Speaker Advanced ranking or our Best wireless speakers article to get a broader sense of what’s out there.

The post Klipsch The Three II Speaker review: Pleasing performer at nominal volumes appeared first on DXOMARK.