Samsung released the Galaxy S20 series in February 2020. This year, the company introduced a new high-end model dubbed as Galaxy S20 Ultra, which is the costliest Galaxy S series phone released so far. This device has now received the DxOMark audio test treatment and scored an above-average 69 points similar to last year’s ASUS ROG Phone 2.
Going by the overall points scored by the Galaxy S20 Ultra in DxOMark audio test, it falls behind the likes of Apple iPhone Xs Max, iPhone 11 Pro Max, Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro, and even Huawei Mate 20 X. However, it edges the company’s own Galaxy Note 10 Plus from 2019.
As per DxOMark, the S20 Ultra performs above-average, but it’s nothing extraordinary for a phone costing $1400. The speakers on the phone deliver precision and clarity in both mid-range and high-end frequencies. And thus, they produce sound with accurate distance rendering, precise localizability, and good wideness.
Also, the phone handles maximum volume and artifacts smoothly without any issue. However, the balance of the audio played is off-center, and there is a lack of intelligibility in high dynamic content at minimum volumes. Additionally, the bass frequencies are lower compared to iPhone 11 Pro Max and Mi 10 Pro.
In the recording, the phone does not perform as good as in playback. The sound picked up in selfie videos lacks high-end frequencies, and thus it is poor in distance rendering and localizability. Further, the attack and blurred envelope of the sound recorded make the backgrounds as well as voice sound unnatural and nasal, respectively.
In loud environments, aggressive low-end compression kicks in, which affects the punch and produces audible temporal artifacts. Lastly, the timbre performance is good, dynamics are modest at best, and loudness is poor indoors.
With the overall score of 69, the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra now manages to hold its own through rigorous DXOMARK Audio test suite. In the Playback test, the midrange frequencies (mids) and high ends offer precision and clarity, that contribute to accurate distance rendering, precise localizability, a good wideness. Audio plays back through the speaker’s benefits from the maximum volume, and artifacts are very well controlled. Despite being decent, meanwhile, a low-end extension could use a boost, as it impairs tonal balance as well as bass precision.
As for microphone performances, the main issue is the lack of high-end extension in selfie videos, which impairs the distance rendering, localizability, attack of recorded audio, as well as blurring the envelope and also making voices sound nasal and backgrounds less natural. , in strong high SPL (Sound Pressure Level) scenarios, an aggressive low-end compression impacts punch and as well generates audible temporal artifacts. In all other use cases, the whole timbre performance is fairly good; dynamics are well decently captured (average SNR ratio, well-preserved plosives in life videos and memos); loudness is good in most of the use cases (except for indoor scenarios), and few artifacts are observable.