Author: dpugh007

If you love the cinematic experience when you go to the movies but not the huge ticket prices and other people chattering away, then turn your living room into a home cinema instead. You’ll just need to make sure you have the right kit, including an AV receiver.

That’s because buying yourself the best TV on the market may bring that huge cinema screen feel to your home, but it rarely brings the audio to match. That means if you want high-end sound to make the most of your 4K TV you’ll need to buy an AV receiver as well.

Keep in mind that Black Friday and Cyber Monday will likely have some AV receiver deals worth your while – though we’ve listed the best AV receivers below for various budgets if you have a certain price range in mind.

What is an AV receiver, you ask? It may sound like complex audio equipment, but it’s really just a way of controlling your AV setup. AV receivers will take the audio track from whatever TV show, movie, CD or video game you’re playing or watching, process the audio and send it through to any connected speakers you have. 

• The verdict is in! The best AV receiver in 2019 is the Onkyo TX-NR676

AVRs are the only way to power 5.1 and 7.1 speaker setups outside of a soundbar, and they also host a bevy of ports that allow you to keep all your devices connected all the time. This is important because the best AV receivers are essentially the central base that all of your entertainment equipment will need to connect to and communicate with.

Even if you have lots of other devices, this means that the transition between them will be seamless, regardless of what you’re trying to play, watch or listen to, you’ll always get an amazing entertainment experience to rival your nearest cinema screen.

How to choose the best AV receiver for you

If you have a 4K set-up at home, then you need to be on the lookout for a receiver that has a wealth of HDCP 2.2 compatible HDMI ports. If you want to get really high-tech with your set-up, and invest in multi-room streaming, you need to think about which wireless speaker system is best for you – Chromecast, Heos, or even Yamaha MusicCast. Even if that’s not something you’re interested in right now, it makes sense to future-proof your set-up.

For many people, Dolby Atmos will be the killer app. This 3D audio system is now the gold standard in immersive audio. It may be available on soundbars, but only an AV receiver offers true overhead Dolby Atmos audio. 

All you’ll need to do is decide if you want a seven or a nine-channel system. (However, that said, you may not need Dolby Atmos at all, in which case a standard 5.1 sound system will fill your surround sound needs nicely.) 

Have we convinced you that you need an AV receiver yet? The next step is figuring out which is the right one for you and luckily we’ve got a big list of all the best AV receivers you can get your hands on today. 

Best AV receivers on a budget

1. Onkyo TX-NR676
2. Sony STR-DN1080
3. Marantz NR1607

Gone are the days when buying a surround-sound-supporting receiver with multiple HDMI ports meant spending an arm and a leg. These days, you can get a great receiver with support for a surround sound setup at well under $500/£600. Like, for example, the Onkyo TX-NR676.

It’s not the only receiver in its price range with a great set of features features or a plethora of inputs, but there are few comprehensive packages that are as easy to assemble, set up and use as Onkyo’s. 

In terms of expected sound performance, Onkyo has long offered a great sound-quality, and this receiver is no different. The receiver supports DTS:X and Dolby Atmos, which helps give sound a much more immersive feel to it. 

We found that the receiver was generally great-sounding at all volumes. At low volumes, there was still plenty of clarity and detail, while higher volumes produced little distortion, which was nice to hear. Extremely tuned ears might miss a little detail in the high end at louder volumes, though the receiver still shoots well above its price range when it comes to sound quality. 

If you’re looking for a great A/V receiver and have a maximum budget of $400/£600, the Onkyo TX-NR676 is the way to go.

Read the full review: Onkyo TX-NR676

It might be late to the party, but Sony’s debut Dolby Atmos AV receiver entertains with some cool functionality. While it’s ostensibly a seven channel design (which means it can run in a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos configuration) there are also two phantom rears which create a pseudo seven channel surround soundstage. The receiver can even virtually relocate the physical position of your speakers, to create a better sonic balance.   

Build quality is commensurate with its price tag. This is no heavyweight, and the fascia looks overly fussy, but the hairline finish is a premium touch. Connectivity is good. We get six HDMI inputs, all HDCP 2.2 enabled. There are also two HDMI outputs, for combi TV and projector use. There are also two analogue AV inputs, plus a pair of stereo phonos and two digital audio inputs.  

The AVR connects via Ethernet or Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth with NFC for quick pairing, plus Airplay.  The AVR also boasts Chromecast Built-in. That’s all the main wireless boxes ticked.

Setup is helped along by the latest iteration of Sony’s Auto Calibration software, which now features a 31-band graphic EQ and a stereo calibration microphone that adjusts phase, distance and level.

Usability is average. The receiver relies heavily on its UI, which is pretty but sometimes a little frustrating.  

Performance is excellent for the price. Tonally the STR-DN1080 may not be particularly warm, but it is exciting. Movies benefit from seamless panning and pronounced dynamics. Power output is quoted at  7 x 165W into 6 ohms. The biggest surprise is the effectiveness of the phantom rears, which really do help fill out the rear surround stage. This sonic trickery positions the STR-DN1080 somewhere above a standard 5.1.2 design, but below a true nine channel amp.

Overall, this is an innovative, exciting AV Dolby Atmos receiver. Consider it a brilliant value home cinema offering.  

The latest update to the popular slimline NR line, Marantz’s Dolby Atmos enabled NR1607 packs a load of features into a low profile frame. 

Choose from either a 5.1.2 Atmos configuration, or 7.1 flatbed surround. Wireless connectivity comes via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or AirPlay.  

All seven rear-side HDMI inputs support 4K with HDCP 2.2. There’s only one HDMI output though. This is joined by two digital audio inputs (one coaxial, one digital), plus three AV analogue inputs. On the front panel, there’s another HDMI input and USB with iOS Digital Direct.  

Auto room correction is provided by Audyssey, viaa supplied microphone. It does a reasonable job EQing the receiver to the listening room.   

The 50W p/c power rating may be modest, but this little box can slam loud and hard when it needs too. The subtle, immersive 3D audio of Atmos is also well handled here; audio panning around and overhead is thoroughly engaging. 

The receiver is more than confident with two channel sources, although it lacks the sparkle of some of more expensive rivals.  While the power output is plenty good enough for smaller rooms, larger theater spaces could be a challenge. Edge past 80 on the volume gauge and the mid-range dries out. 

Overall, the NR1607 can be considered a potent slimline Dolby Atmos receiver. HDMI connectivity is class leading, and our only grumble is the solitary output, which could limit options if you want to run both a screen and a projector. 

Best AV receivers under $1,000 / £1,000

1. Yamaha RX-A880 AV receiver
2. Denon HEOS AVR

The Yamaha RX-A880 is an excellent choice for anyone looking for a powerful, affordable receiver. Not only does it sound great, but it boasts a ton of ports, support for a range of wireless standards, and works with MusicCast, too. 

If you’re looking for a receiver that boasts Dolby Atmos support and can be calibrated to your room, and have the money to spend, then the Yamaha RX-A880 is the way to go. If, however, you’d prefer to save some cash but still want support for 7.1 channels, then we recommend the Onkyo TX-NR676. 

New and improved for 2018, the RX-A880 boasts a whopping seven input HDMI ports – all of which support HDCP 2.2 as well – which solves one of the biggest issues with the receiver’s predecessor, the Yamaha RX-A860, and there are also a few other analog input ports, so even older sources should work.  

The receiver is capable of outputting audio at 110W per channel at 8Ω which is plenty of volume for those that want a powerful and loud overall sound. Even in larger rooms, this receiver should have no trouble filling the room with powerful audio, as long as you have a decent set of speakers too.

Plus, don’t forget the RX-A880 supports Dolby Atmos. If you have enough speakers to set up the full system, you’ll find that you’re intensely immersed in whatever you’re watching thanks to the Dolby features. But, even when we had just a 5.1-channel setup, we felt like we never needed to go to a cinema again.

It’s not often we see something radically different in the world of AV receivers, but this HEOS model definitely qualifies. For starters, it looks fundamentally different to the herd. There’s no front panel display. Rear connectivity has also been stripped back. Standing just 90mm tall, it’s refreshing compact.  

Build quality is superb. Only a volume knob on the extruded aluminium fascia gives the AVR game away. 

There are four HDMI inputs, and a single output, all with HDCP 2.2 support. There’s just two digital audio inputs (coaxial and optical), plus analogue stereo, 3.5mm minijack, lone USB and Ethernet LAN. Wireless connectivity covers Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.

Perhaps surprisingly, this is a 5.1 channel design and doesn’t support Dolby Atmos. Key to the receiver’s appeal is HEOS wireless speaker integration. While there is provision for wired rear speakers, the system is designed to work with wireless HEOS rears. In most systems, only the front L/C/R will be tethered. It can also partner with a dedicated wireless HEOS subwoofer. 

While a remote is supplied, it’s a basic zapper. There’s no onscreen display either. Setup and control is done through a HEOS app. 

For our audition, we partnered the AVR with a pair of HEOS 1s at the rear, and the wireless HEOS subwoofer. With speakers grouped, the package becomes a working 5.1 system. There’s no further calibration required.

The HEOS AVR may not be a powerhouse, but it’s a bright, lively listen. The receiver delivers multichannel movie soundtracks with gusto. It’s crisp and exciting, particularly when there’s plenty going on around the soundstage (try it with Edge of Tomorrow Blu-ray, then duck as the DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack unloads chaos in every corner).   

This isn’t a particularly musical AVR though. Pop and rock are entertaining enough, but throw a throw it something classical or jazzy and its spatial delineation turns a bit mushy. 

Using wireless rears can invite some problems. While latency isn’t an issue, we were aware of occasional low-level pops and fizzes.

As an ambitious reworking of the classic home theater receiver, we rate this first HEOS AVR as an qualified success. The cosmetics are admirable, and for dedicated HEOS multiroom users the wireless interactivity is a boon. Employing an app for control seems to make perfect sense, the only snag comes if your streaming audio sources are also app controlled and need to be juggled outside of the HEOS app. This may not be the future of AV receivers, but it’s a refreshing rethink nonetheless. 

• This product is only available in the US and UK at the time of this writing. Australian readers: check out a fine alternative in the Marantz NR1607 

• Looking for a great movie to put your sound system to the test? Check out our list of the best sci-fi movies.

Best AV receivers, whatever the price

1. Denon AVR-X4300H
2. Arcam FMJ AV850

If you want a no-compromise Atmos experience, then stepping up to a nine channel AV receiver is well worth the premium. With this big Denon, you can opt for 5.1.4, or 7.1.2 – and that makes a big difference to the overall performance. There’s actually processing for eleven channels if you want to add additional amplification. 

But there’s more than just wraparound audio to this beast. The H suffix denotes that it’s also HEOS multiroom compatible. It can play, or route, content to and from other HEOS connected components. Spin a CD on your Blu-ray deck, and you can Party Zone the music through both your cinema system and any connected HEOS speakers.

Build quality is stellar. The receiver has a copper plated chassis with monoblock construction. There are seven rear HDMI inputs, plus one on the front fascia. All support 4K HDCP 2.2 sources. There are also three HDMI outputs. 

There’s also a forest of other inputs, including four digital audio inputs (split between digital optical and coaxial), six analogue stereo pairs and phono (MM) turntable support. You can also stream over Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.

Power output is prodigious, at 9 x 200w into 6 Ohms. This doesn’t mean you should go super-loud, more that it can effortlessly bludgeon without strain or distortion.  

The user interface is slick, with high-res graphics guiding you through the setup routine. Auto calibration is via Audyssey.  

The Denon’s performance is outstanding in every regard. It does a fabulous job with multichannel Dolby Atmos soundtracks, both explosive and atmospheric, and is no slouch when it comes to music either.  Beneath the hood are fourth-gen SHARC DSP processors. Spatial imaging and transient attack is excellent. 

Overall, we rate this class-leading Denon as a home cinema superstar. It’s feature heavy, and massively powerful. But there’s agility behind the brawn. In short, it’s a fabulous home theater performer.

•  This product is only available in the US at the time of this writing. UK and Australian readers: check out a fine alternative in the Denon HEOS AVR 

While the Arcam AVR850 is unlikely to win any Best Value accolades – it’s unashamedly expensive for a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos design – its overarching musicality is hard to beat. This is arguably the UK audio specialist’s best sounding AV receiver to date.   

The AVR850 uses Class G power amps, conservatively rated at 100W-per-channel.

The design is understated, with a nice matte cabinet finish and big central volume knob. It tips the scales at a reassuringly heavy 16kg.  

Connectivity is good. There are seven HDMI inputs, all with HDCP 2.2 support, plus three HDMI outputs. Audio options include six analogue inputs, and six digital audio inputs.  

The really significant difference here, compared to previous Arcam home theater boxes, is the provision of Dirac Live room calibration.

Arguably the most sophisticated auto calibration technology available, it does a extraordinary job fine tuning the receiver to the listening room. Dirac tuning is not carried out by the receiver with a microphone, but via a laptop. Sounds complicated? Don’t fret. Buyers will have room calibration done by the dealer that supplies the receiver.

While Dirac is the height of sophistication, the user interface is pretty basic, just a plain text box. Arcam isn’t even trying to impress here.

Still, the receiver sounds sensational, with precise imaging that really makes the most of Dolby Atmos encoding. It’s tight and forceful with action sequences, and delicious melodious with two channel music. That feature count may look frugal for the price, but when it comes to performance, your investment will be repaid in spades.    

The Arcam AV850 may be ruinously expensive for a seven channel amplifier, but tuned with Dirac, it’s clearly a premium performer. We’re prepared to forgive it any foibles.

Image Credits: TechRadar

• Want a cheaper audio solution? Try one of our best soundbars

Powered by WPeMatico

As UHD TVs become more popular, consumers increasingly expect high-resolution content to match, whether they’re streaming from Netflix in glorious 4K, or upscaling old films on a state of the art Blu-Ray player. Visual quality clearly matters. 

But can the same be said for audio?

When you take the number of people on the hunt for fantastic televisions, audiophiles on the lookout for Hi-Res Audio seem rare by comparison. 

However, that could be about to change, with developments in the world of hi-res audio like Sony’s new LDAC technology and music-streaming websites like Tidal, making quality audio more attractive than ever. 

Here’s why, and how, Hi-Res Audio could be the upgrade that makes perfect sense for superior sonics across all your devices, including your phone.

[Update: Tidal Masters has arrived on the iOS app, so you can now listen to hi-res Tidal tracks on your iPhone.]

What is Hi-Res Audio?

Hi-Res Audio (HRA) is lossless audio capable of reproducing the full range of sound from recordings that have been mastered from better-than-CD quality music sources, a sound that closely replicates the quality that the musicians and engineers were working with in the studio at the time of recording.

Despite HRA recently gaining popularity, it isn’t new. It has actually been around for over a decade and has a growing number of dedicated fans willing to fork out a bit more cash for the privilege of listening to Hi-Fi quality tunes both at home and on the go. The difference is that it’s becoming more accessible than ever. 

Despite sounding pretty amazing, it’s not hard to understand the slow update of HRA – after all, the music files are a fair bit larger than MP3 or iTunes’ AAC so they take longer to download and can gobble storage on mobile devices like penguins tucking into a fish supper.

Compared with iTunes and Amazon MP3 files too, HRA tracks are more expensive to buy and most popular digital music vendors don’t even sell Hi-Res Audio tunes (yet).

There’s also the fact that to listen to HRA you need the right hardware and software, with most playback devices including mobile phones, portable music players and laptops not equipped as standard to get the full benefit.

Even the world’s most dominant multi-room music provider Sonos resolutely refuses to embrace Hi-Res Audio – because it says it’s not mainstream enough – but others including the likes of Bose do.

But the barriers are starting to crumble. Fuelled by increasingly more affordable storage, better-quality playback hardware and faster, more affordable broadband and 4G downloading, HRA is arguably no longer prohibitively too expensive, nor are its files too large to download and store when compared with MP3.

Of course, it’s important to choose your equipment carefully and to understand what it is that makes HRA different.

Oh, and if you’re put off by the nay-sayers who claim humans can’t hear anything beyond 20kHz just take the opportunity to listen to some HRA tracks and see – or hear – for yourself what a difference it makes.

What difference does Hi-Res Audio really make?

Let’s look at some numbers: the highest quality MP3 track has a bitrate of 320kbps, CDs are transferred at 1,411kbps and a 24-bit/192kHz file is transferred at a rate of 9,216kbps – the latter being the level now considered HRA.

The increased bit depth of HRA improves the dynamic range, basically giving you a greater breadth of things to actually hear from the recording.

The best way of describing it is to imagine looking at a beautiful countryside scene on a sunny day through a smeared window. That’s the MP3 version. 

Clean the windows and you have the CD with much greater detail and clarity. But open the window and you’ve got the Hi-Res version, where the eye can pick out pinpoint detail that you didn’t realize was missing with the windows shut.

Once you’re equipped with some decent Hi-Res gear the thing most likely to spoil the party will be poorly recorded or mastered music, like a great black cloud blocking out the sunshine.

Play your favorite tracks however and expect to be taken to unprecedented levels of enjoyment and make emotional connections you never imagined possible.

How can I stream/download Hi-Res Audio?

There are more options for streaming and downloading HRA than ever, and while these subscriptions and files will cost more than standard audio, the difference in quality is astounding. 

Click through the gallery below to see some of the best places to stream and download HRA:

What equipment do I need to play Hi-Res Audio?

Choosing the right file type/streaming service for you really depends on how you listen to your music. For example, an Apple Mac can play most HRA files in iTunes but it won’t accept FLAC. 

For this you need audio player software like VLC, which is free to download and, according to Home Theatre Review, it’s “capable of 24/96 and 24/192 native Hi-Res output”.

If you’re looking for something less ‘bare-bones’, check out Audivarna Plus, which costs $74 (about £55 / AU$100) and comes with Tidal, Qobuz, and other Hi-res streaming services integrated. 

Using a PC? Check out JRiver Media Center, which costs around $60 (£45 / AU$80) and works on Windows, Linus, and Mac OS. 

If you’re taking your music on the go, you’ll need a Hi-Res supporting smartphone or portable music player. The Samsung Galaxy S9, S9 Plus and Note 9 all support HRA, as well as Dolby Atmos.

iPhones unfortunately don’t support Hi-Res Audio out of the box, but you can get around this by downloading a Hi-Res Audio app like Onkyo Music and using an external DAC (digital-to-analogue converter).

DACs (digital-to-analogue converters)

Any device that outputs music contains a DAC in some form. This is what allows your digital music file to be converted to the analogue signal that ends up driving your speakers or headphones.

But in order to get the most out of your music, you’ll want to buy an external DAC to replace the low-quality audio chip contained within your device. This will need to be ‘asynchronous’ if you want your hi-res audio to really sing.

Without an asynchronous DAC the chances are you’ll have timing errors, or jitter, present in your audio.

Good examples include the Chord Mojo ($599 / £399 / AU$899), which bypasses the computer’s built-in DAC and converts the files to analogue at high resolution to massively improve your computer’s tinny output. For smartphones like the iPhone, try the Chord Hugo 2 .

Portable music players

If your phone doesn’t support Hi-Res Audio, you could get yourself a portable music player. While MP3 players aren’t as popular as they were a decade ago, that doesn’t mean the technology is outdated.

In fact, modern MP3 players do a significantly better job at storing your entire music library at a higher bitrate than your 2009 iPod Shuffle ever could. One of the best portable music players is the Onkyo DP-X1A, which supports a range of music formats, including FLAC, OGG, WAV, MP3, ALAC, and more.

 In terms of hardware, the device has two chipsets, one to power the overall device, and one to handle the DAC and amplifier – resulting in a noise-free experience.

It’s by no means cheap however, and the $799 (£559 / AU$649) price tag may be enough to put off even the most seasoned audiophile. 

If you’re looking for something cheaper, you could try the HiFiMan SuperMini. With a price tag of $399 (£400 / AU$399), it doesn’t have any onboard storage – you’ll have to buy a microSD card separately. It does, however, support a pretty huge range of audio formats, including FLAC, DSD, WAV, MP3, and AIFF, and audio with a sample rate of up to 192kHz.

HRA Headphones

If you’re taking your Hi-Res Audio out and about, you’ll of course need a fantastic pair of headphones. Currently, our favorite pair are the Sony WH-1000XM3, a dominant noise-cancelling pair of headphones that can beat out anything Bose has with both arms behind its back. 

That’s because, while Bose has done a tremendous job working out its noise-cancellation algorithm over the years, Sony has spent that time perfecting audio playback while simultaneously creating an adaptability algorithm that doesn’t just create a single sterile sound barrier, but multiple kinds that can adapt to whatever situation you’re in. 

Beyond being exceptional at keeping external noises at bay, Sony’s headphones are Hi-Res Audio-ready, sporting aptX, aptX HD and LDAC codecs, plus offer will offer Google Assistant support right on-board. If you need a headphone that can live up to any challenge and excel in any environment, these are them.

They are a bit more expensive than your average non-noise cancelling headphone at $349 (£300 / AU$499), but they do make great commuting headphones.

If you do most of your music listening at home, you could try some open-back cans like the Grado GW100 Wireless headphones. 

The GW100s feature an open-back design, which means the grilles are completely exposed on the outside of the earcups, allowing the drivers to direct sound both in and out of the cups. 

In closed cup headphones, this sound is trapped inside the cup, which is fantastic for noise isolation, but can lead to a narrow soundstage that makes it feel as if your music is coming directly from your own head – not exactly a natural mode of listening. 

• The best headphones of 2019

In contrast, the free movement of sound in and out of the cups of open-backed headphones means the soundstage feels far wider, as if you’re listening to a musician play in a normal room. This is heightened by the supra-aural design of the GW100s, which further reduces the closed-off feeling you can get from closed-back headphones. 

With the GW100s, the effect of the open-backed design is to deliver a stunningly natural representation of your music, with a warm, expansive soundstage – and with aptX Bluetooth, the audio is of high quality.  

Again, they aren’t cheap at $249.99 (£199.95 / AU$365), but they are less expensive than the Sony WH-1000MX3s.

HRA stereo speakers

Now onto speakers; while there are lots of fantastic smart speakers on the market right now, you can’t beat a stereo speaker setup for high quality sound.

You can of course spend $4000 dollars on our favorite stereo speakers, the Definitive Technology BP9080xs. Right off the bat we want to make it clear that this stereo pair is a luxury item that is made only for the most avid audiophile on the market – most of us will likely be looking for something a little cheaper.

One fantastic set of stereo speakers is the KEF LSX Wireless System, which is available at a recommended retail price of $1099 (£1000 / AU$1895). When we tested them, we were impressed by the separation among the different frequencies , and the well-balanced sound.

If you’re really looking after the pennies, check out the Edifier R1280T speakers. These compact desk/bookshelf style speakers back an impressive sonic punch and look good doing it, all while keeping the price tag under $100 (£90 / AU$140) for the pair.

HRA Streamers and Hi-Fi Systems

If you’re really dedicated to high quality audio, you could invest in a state of the art Hi-Fi system like the Ruark R5, which features a multi-format CD player, DAB/FM and internet radio tuners, as well as support for aptX HD Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi streaming.

 You can even hook it up to your turntable thanks to a dedicated RIAA turntable input, or charge your devices using the USB playback/charging port.

There’s no word yet on an official release date, but Ruark says the R5 will be available to buy in the next few months for £999 (around $1300 / AU$1800 based on current conversion rates.)

Another option is to get yourself a dedicated music streamer like the Cambridge Audio CXN. 

A review of the streamer by What Hi-Fi? says “All digital inputs on the CXN are capable of playing high-resolution files of up to 24-bit/192kHz, and they can be upsampled to 384kHz, too. That includes the USB type B input for your laptop, and the optical and coaxial inputs. There’s also a pair each of RCA and balanced XLR outputs, along with two digital outputs.”

Like the Ruark M5, it doesn’t come cheap at $899.99 (£700 / around AU$1275), so you might want to stick to streaming from your laptop, smartphone, or tablet – which, thanks to the increasing accessibility of Hi-Res Audio, can still sound fantastic.

• First look: Sony 360 Reality Audio

Powered by WPeMatico

You’ve heard of Beats headphones – whether you’ve used its products or not. 

Founded by rapper Dr Dre and record producer Jimmy Iovine in 2006, Beats has been a power player in the world of consumer audio since its inception, fast becoming a market leader in terms of sales alongside the likes of Sony, Sennheiser, Skullcandy, and Bose. 

Beats’ enormous market share is likely what attracted tech giant Apple to the company, which acquired Beats in 2014 for an astonishing $3 billion. 

So how has that acquisition changed Beats as a company, and more importantly, the quality of its headphones? We spoke to Beats President, Luke Wood about the company’s first true wireless earbud, the Powerbeats Pro, which he tells us is “the culmination of the full integration of [Beats and Apple] working together from a technological standpoint.”

“We thought we were pretty good until we got to Apple, and then we started learning what ‘good’ really was”, he admits between sips of green tea. 

What was Apple doing that Beats wasn’t? “Apple had so much incredible discipline and rigor around product quality” Wood says.

Does that mean Beats headphones were sub-par in the past? They’ve certainly been dealt their fair share of criticism for being too bass-heavy, too brash, and ultimately unsuitable for any true discerning audiophile. 

• Powerbeats Pro price, release date, and everything you need to know

Turning down the bass

That bass-heaviness didn’t just spring up out of thin air. Bass has been creeping up in the balance of popular music genres for decades now, infiltrating the charts through disco, funk, soul, hip-hop and R&B in the late 20th century.

Then, the 2000s saw in an explosion of dancehall and grime traditions into mainstream popularity, particularly in the UK and the US. Nowadays, chest-thumping sub-bass lines are present in even the most saccharine pop songs. 

In short, bass was everywhere, and Beats wanted in.

“Hopefully people will respect the fact that we learned and grew.”

“No one was making headphone products to articulate the bottom end” Wood says – but he concedes that Beats’ reputation for overly bass-heavy products was “absolutely taken into consideration” when creating the new PowerBeats Pro. 

Since then, Wood says Beats has “got better and learned the tools of [its] trade” in the years after it released its first studio headphones in 2008. 

“Hopefully people will respect the fact that we learned and grew.”

“Sonically, they’re super dope”

It’s clear that Wood is extremely excited by the PowerBeat Pro true wireless headphones as he explains the inner workings of their all-new “pistonic drivers” and improved acoustic housing.

“Sonically, they’re super dope”, he says giddily, “a beautiful acoustic instrument”. Does that mean the new buds boast a better sonic balance than previous models?

Wood thinks so, describing the company’s “evangelical, almost zealot approach to sound”.

“We’re trying to religiously get back to articulating the album as it would have sounded in the studio”, he explains.

It’s not only about the sound quality; first and foremost, the PowerBeats Pro are a pair of true wireless workout earbuds. As such, they’re water-resistant, and are designed to fit snugly and comfortably in your ear, no matter how vigorous your training session gets. 

And, like the new Apple AirPods (2019), they’re powered by Apple’s new H1 chip, which offers fast connection times and hands-free Siri voice control – the Powerbeats Pro are unmistakably an Apple product through and through.

Looking to the future

It’s been rumored that the Apple AirPods 2 will be a health and fitness device as well as a pair of true wireless earbuds, after Apple filed a patent for biometric sensors that would allow them to monitor the user’s heart rate. Is this something Beats would consider for future fitness earbuds?

Wood thinks it’s unlikely. “We never want to labor customers with a bunch of useless, borderline avant-garde tech”.

“If you have a smartwatch that’s giving you all that information, do you really need to replicate that in your headphones?” he asks. Perhaps it is necessary, if you’re claiming to have made the “number one fitness headphones in the world”.

Whether Wood’s position on biometric sensors would change should Apple start using this kind of ‘avant garde tech’ in its own headphones remains to be seen, but it’s clear that his company has benefited immensely from its acquisition by the tech giant. 

As he puts its, it has allowed Beats to “take advantage of [Apple’s] great research and development and innovation, and put it into our products”. Ultimately, to what extent Beats and Apple’s partnership has been successful won’t become clear until the Powerbeats are released next month – but we’re excited to find out.

• Apple AirPods 2 release date, news, and features

Powered by WPeMatico

If you have a smart speaker in your home, you probably interact with an AI-enabled voice assistant fairly regularly – and chances are you’re speaking to what sounds like a woman. 

Your voice assistant may have even been given a woman’s or feminine-sounding name, like Alexa, Cortana, or Siri, depending on which brand you bought your smart speaker from. Sure, some of these voice assistants can be configured to have a male-sounding speaking voice, including Google Assistant and Siri, but most smart speaker users are interacting with virtual women. 

At face value that may not sound like a problem – but society’s equating of women with voice assistants could have some worrying societal implications. 

In May 2019, a groundbreaking report by UNESCO suggested that the default use of female-sounding voice assistants in our smart home gadgets and smartphones perpetuates sexist attitudes towards women.

The report, titled I’d Blush if I Could, takes its name from Siri’s former default response to being called a ‘bitch’ by users – and criticizes the fact that Apple’s Siri, Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, and Microsoft’s Cortana, are “exclusively female or female by default, both in name and in sound of voice”.

Sympathetic and agreeable

So, why do voice assistants sound like women? Julia Kanouse, CEO of the Illinois Technology Association, explains that the companies behind these voice assistants based their choices on consumer feedback. 

She explains: “Research shows that women women’s voices tend to be better received by consumers, and that from an early age we prefer listening to female voices”. 

Indeed, in an interview with Business Insider, the head of Amazon’s Smart Home division, Daniel Rausch, explained that his team “carried out research and found that a woman’s voice is more sympathetic”. 

So far, so plausible – and as Kanouse concedes, the use of female-sounding voice assistants is clearly grounded in research. 

However, the choices made by voice assistant creators could have far-reaching consequences for women at home, and in the workplace.

“The use of female voice assistants may reinforce the stereotype that we prefer to tell a woman what to do, rather than a man,” says Kanouse.

“Only recently have we started to see men move into what were traditionally viewed as female roles, and, conversely, see women fight to ensure these roles (such as flight attendants, nurses, paralegals, executive administrators) are seen as more than ‘just an assistant’.”

This progress could potentially be undone by the proliferation of female voice assistants, according to UNESCO. Its report claims that the default use of female-sounding voice assistants sends a signal to users that women are “obliging, docile and eager-to-please helpers, available at the touch of a button or with a blunt voice command like ‘hey’ or ‘OK’”. 

It’s also worrying that these voice assistants have “no power of agency beyond what the commander asks of it” and respond to queries “regardless of [the user’s] tone or hostility”. These may be desirable traits in an AI voice assistant, but what if the way we talk to Alexa and Siri ends up influencing the way we talk to women in our everyday lives?

One of UNESCO’s main criticisms of companies like Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft is that the docile nature of our voice assistants has the unintended effect of reinforcing “commonly held gender biases that women are subservient and tolerant of poor treatment”. 

This subservience is particularly worrying when these female-sounding voice assistants give “deflecting, lackluster or apologetic responses to verbal sexual harassment”. 

While Kanouse doesn’t think this has led to overt cases of sexual discrimination, she does believe it creates “a level of unconscious bias”, adding that “the prevalence of female voice assistants may feed into subconscious biases against women in the workplace and home, making it more difficult for women to overcome these obstacles”. 

• Are smart speakers really safe for children?

Should voice assistants be gender-neutral?

One solution could be to make voice assistants sound gender-neutral – and it’s something that’s entirely possible, as demonstrated by the makers of Q, the world’s first gender-neutral voice assistant. 

Speaking to NPR, Julia Carpenter, an expert on human behavior and emerging technologies who worked on the project, explained that one of the team’s goals was to “contribute to a global conversation about gender, and about gender, technology, and ethics, and how to be inclusive for people that identify in all sorts of different ways”. 

To create the voice of Q, the team recorded “dozens of people”, including those who identify as male, female, transgender, and nonbinary, although in the end they chose just one voice, and pitch-altered it until it sounded neither male nor female.

You can hear what Q sounds like in the video below.

The result, while perhaps a little more synthetic-sounding than Alexa or Siri, is a truly inclusive voice assistant for everyone – and the goal is to convince tech giants to adopt Q as a third option for their assistants.

Sadly, this isn’t likely – after all, brands like Apple, Google and Amazon are notoriously rigid when it comes to the design of their products, and we can’t see them agreeing to use the same voice as their rivals.

Diversity is key

So, instead of making voice assistants sound homogenous, could the answer lie in making them super-diverse?

This diversity doesn’t have to be focused on gender either; why can’t our voice assistants have regional accents? Why couldn’t they sound young or old, use slang, or pidgin-English?

The news that the BBC is working on a voice assistant called Beeb, which will understand all the diverse regional accents of the UK, has stoked hopes that it will also speak with some of these accents. 

Dr Matthew Aylett, Chief Scientific Officer at speech technology company Cereproc, thinks this could set Beeb apart from the other voice assistants on the market. 

“No other organization could boast of the resonance and importance of voice compared to the BBC,” he says, explaining that choosing a synthetic voice to represent the organization is “a big challenge”.

Discussing brands like Apple, Google, and Amazon he explains that, “in many cases decision-makers are choosing a default, neutral, well-spoken female voice without even considering that this is a major design decision”.

And the BBC could be in the perfect position to challenge this. With its encouragement of participation from its vast audience, Aylett believes that the use of a diverse voice for Beeb “could lead to some ground-breaking new perspectives on voice interaction”.

Aylett thinks the BBC could even call on this audience to select well-loved BBC presenters and create an amalgamated voice from the results – imagine how soothing a David Attenborough / Joanna Lumley hybrid could be.

However, Aylett doesn’t think that global voice assistant developers will support third-party diversity from the likes of the BBC, or be “courageous enough to offer much diversity themselves”. 

Why? Well, the teams behind our most popular voice assistants just aren’t that diverse themselves. 

Women to the front

According to UNESCO, Alexa’s sexism problem is largely down to the lack of women in the room when tech companies are designing their voice assistants. 

This is an issue that affects the entire industry, with just 7% of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) patents generated by women across G20 countries; UNESCO says the overuse of female-sounding voice assistants is “a powerful illustration of gender biases coded into technology products, pervasive in the technology sector and apparent in digital skills education”. 

The solution? We need more women in the STEM (Science Technology, Engineering, and Maths) industries, and that, says UNESCO, requires “recruiting, retaining, and promoting women in the technology sector” – after all, how can our voice assistants effectively represent their users if a huge percentage of those users have no say in their development?

Whatever the answer is, it’s clear that we need more choice when it comes to the voices in our smart speakers. As Kanouse says, “whether it’s a male voice, or gender-neutral, or a mimicked recording of someone famous like Morgan Freeman for example, there are creative solutions that these companies could implement that would ensure we aren’t reinforcing gender stereotypes”. 

She adds: “Making that switch could be a very powerful statement from these influential companies”. 

“And wouldn’t it be fun to tell Morgan Freeman what to do every day?”

• Want to know more about Amazon’s smart speakers? Check out our reviews: Echo | Echo Dot | Echo Plus | Echo Show | Echo Spot

Powered by WPeMatico

Smart speakers with A.I. assistants are constantly listening to the world around them, waiting for commands while soaking in whatever dialogue is within earshot—some of which is actually screened by employees at Google and Amazon. 

Unfortunately, that means Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri are constantly recording the conversations of users of all ages, including your kids.

As you might expect, that doesn’t sit right with a lot of people. Parents and advocacy groups have voiced their issues with the ability of Alexa and her ilk to record kids without explicit consent, not to mention the lack of an easy ability to purge that data at will. In June, a lawsuit was filed in Seattle federal court that alleges that Amazon specifically is violating child privacy laws in at least eight U.S. states by capturing audio from millions of children.

Amazon, for its part, denies any wrongdoing. And the company has gone a bold step further by recently releasing a new Echo Dot Kids Edition, a candy-coated, rainbow-plastered version with extra parent-pleasing perks such as a free subscription to its FreeTime content service and replacements for damaged units.

As appealing as that might sound for parents, are devices like the Amazon Echo and Google Home really as kid-friendly as their makers want you to believe? We asked a couple of kids’ tech experts for their take.

Convenience at the expense of privacy

By their very nature, smart speakers have to constantly be listening with their far-field microphones to be useful. If you had to go up to your Echo and press a button every time you had a question, needed to set a reminder, or wanted to ask about the weather, would you even use it half as much? Would you even need it at all, given the myriad smartphones, tablets, and computers that might be in your home?

“These devices collect information that can be helpful in carrying out the simple demands for which the devices were intended, but it is important to understand that this information can be stored and possibly shared or hacked.”

It’s part and parcel of owning a smart speaker, but according to Dr. Pamela Roggeman, academic dean of the University of Phoenix College of Education, many parents aren’t adequately aware of the unseen downsides of that kind of unfettered data collection.

“Parents have been inundated with advice on how they should nurture a healthy relationship between their kids and technology for years now, but not much of that discussion has included technology that kids are accessing without their parents’ consent, or even awareness such as smart assistants/speakers that quietly ‘listen’ to the room,” says Roggeman. “These devices collect information that can be helpful in carrying out the simple demands for which the devices were intended, but it is important to understand that this information can be stored and possibly shared or hacked.”

Amazon and Google need to do better

The tide may be turning on that front, as efforts such as the aforementioned lawsuit draw more attention to privacy concerns with smart speakers: The Amazon Echo and other similar devices quickly became commonplace in millions of homes, but there’s growing pushback to the idea that such constant “surveillance” is worth the provided benefits and convenience.

Deral Heiland, internet of things (IoT) research lead at technology security firm Rapid7, believes that such devices provide a learning experience for children and that included parental tools should be harnessed to make them as kid-friendly as possible. However, he also says that Amazon must be able to rapidly tackle concerns and put parents’ minds at ease.

“The issues pointed out by privacy and safety advocates are concerning. Amazon should immediately address these issues,” says Heiland. “Consumers should have full control of their personal data and voice recordings and have the ability to remove/purge this data at will. If some data is needed for improving the product, this data should then be immediately anonymized to prevent associating. 

“Also, while this data is in Amazon hands, they must take all actions necessary to protect that data from unauthorized access. This should apply to all IoT technology, whether it’s an Amazon product or not. Privacy issues are important and must be addressed to consumer’s satisfaction.”

“With children-based technology, extra precautions should be taken by both Amazon and parents … Amazon must work harder and faster to make their products capable of keeping children safe, protect their privacy, and not expose them to anything that is inappropriate.”

No product will ever be perfect, and there are lessons to be learned along the way—but Heiland’s takeaway is that Amazon must be extra-careful when it comes to kids’ technology.

“With children-based technology, extra precautions should be taken by both Amazon and parents,” he says. “Like any product, our good intentions will often fail, but when it does there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water, figuratively speaking. Amazon must work harder and faster to make their products capable of keeping children safe, protect their privacy, and not expose them to anything that is inappropriate.”

Can smart speakers be ‘kid-proof’?

Continued advocacy for privacy enhancements and changes may ultimately result in action, but whether or not that happens, Roggeman suggests that parents consider the full picture of what they’re bringing into their homes. 

“The easiest way to kid-proof the smart speaker is one of the hardest things to do: get up out of your recliner and push the ‘mute’ button on the device.”

If you’re comfortable with the potential privacy tradeoff and feel pretty confident that there’s no real danger, that’s entirely your decision to make. On the other hand, if you’re left feeling uneasy about the situation, are the perks really worth it?

“The easiest way to kid-proof the smart speaker is one of the hardest things to do: get up out of your recliner and push the ‘mute’ button on the device,” she says. “But this is counterintuitive for why the device was purchased in the first place.”

And for all that Amazon and other companies might do to make their smart speakers safer for kids, Heiland suggests that there’s no foolproof solution to every dilemma—and that children are uniquely poised to find their way around such restrictions anyway.

“‘Kid-proof’ is an oxymoron. Place any technology in front of a child and say, ‘You are not allowed to do this or that,’ and watch what happens,” he says. “I find children to be some of the most amazing hackers, capable of always finding ways around controls and restrictions. So good luck with this one. Maybe Amazon needs to hire a few to test their tech security controls.”

• Here’s how to protect yourself online in 2019

Powered by WPeMatico

Apple’s latest operating system (OS) for Macs and MacBooks, macOS Catalina, has been released, but what about its follow-up, macOS 10.16?

You can be pretty sure that Apple is already hard at work on macOS 10.16, which will likely release in 2020.

In fact, it’s a pretty safe bet that the macOS 10.16 release date will be September or October 2020.

We can make that prediction based on the release date of previous versions of macOS. macOS 10.15 (Catalina), launched in October 2019, while macOS 10.14 (Mojave) launched September 2018.

So, we’re still a long way off macOS 10.16’s release date, but if you can’t wait to find out what Apple has in store for its future operating system, this guide will gather up all the macOS 10.16 news and rumors we’ve found, along with a list of what we want to see in macOS 10.16.

While you wait for the launch of macOS 10.16, make sure your Mac or MacBook is running macOS Catalina. Check out our how to download macOS Catalina guide for advice.

If you’re having issues, check out our macOS Catalina problems: how to fix the most common issues guide for help.

Cut to the chase

• What is it? macOS 10.16, successor to macOS 10.15 Catalina
• When is it out? Likely September or October 2020
• How much will it cost? Nothing. Apple software updates are always free

macOS 10.16 release date

We don’t know the official macOS 10.16 release date, and we’re unlikely to hear anything from Apple until well into 2020. Still, we can at least make a guess, and in our opinion it’s very likely that the macOS 10.16 release date will be September or October 2020.

As we mentioned above, we’re reasonably confident in this prediction as Apple has been sticking to a yearly release schedule for its macOS updates, with recent macOS releases happening in either September or October every year.

Going by previous macOS releases, we could see an official unveiling of macOS 10.16 at Apple’s WWDC event in June 2020. WWDC (World Wide Developers Conference) is (as the name suggests), aimed at software developers, and this is where Apple usually shows off its upcoming macOS (and iOS) operating systems.

In previous years, a new version of macOS is announced, along with a rough release date. Apple also usually releases an early beta version of the software not long after, allowing developers and other brave users to test out the software and help spot any problems or bugs before the eventual release.

While this doesn’t mean Apple will definitely stick to this sort of schedule for macOS 10.16, we’d be surprised if it deviated too far.

macOS 10.16 news and rumors

We’ve not heard any rumors about macOS 10.16 just yet, but as soon as we do we’ll add them here.

When it comes to Apple rumors in general, we’ve been hearing a lot about a likely MacBook Pro 16-inch, which would be a larger version of Apple’s iconic MacBook Pro laptops with a new and improved keyboard.

The latest rumor suggests that the MacBook Pro 16-inch could come in 2020,. If that’s true, there’s a change that it could come with macOS 10.16 already installed.

Even if it launches before macOS 10.16 comes out, it should be free to upgrade to macOS 10.16 when the operating system does release.

macOS 10.16: what we want to see

So, with macOS 10.16 still some time away, what would we like to see in the next version of Apple’s operating system?

A stable release

The release of a new operating system can sometimes bring issues, and while Apple has certainly had more luck than Microsoft in this regard (recent Windows 10 updates have caused more problems than they’ve fixed), we’ve also seen a fair number of macOS Catalina problems since its launch as well.

People have been having issues with downloading and installing macOS Catalina, others can’t use their mouse, or check emails, plus plenty more.

So, we’d love it if Apple really took its time with macOS 10.16, thoroughly testing it and making sure that it’s free from as many bugs and issues as possible. Of course, a major OS update is always going to have a few issues, but we’d love it if everyone could upgrade to macOS 10.16 without worrying that it might break something.

Better AirPod support

You can use your AirPods with your Mac already, but there’s plenty of scope for better AirPod support in macOS 10.16, especially with the new AirPod Pros out.

Current support is a little basic, and the setup procedure could be refined to make it even easier to connect your AirPods to your Mac, and this is something we hope Apple addresses in macOS 10.16.

Check out our guide on how to connect AirPods to a Mac to find out the current way of doing things.

An exciting new look and interface

We like the look of macOS already, but while it’s tempting to argue that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, we would like Apple to be a bit more adventurous.

For all the stick we give Microsoft about its Windows 10 updates, at least it tries new things when it comes to the interface. It’s slowly been tweaking the look of Windows 10 with each new release, and for the most part we like what it’s done.

Maybe it’s time for Apple to have a bold new vision for macOS.

Ray tracing support

We’d also love to see ray tracing support in macOS 10.16. While ray tracing is primarily associated with improving the graphics of the best PC games at the moment (and therefore not of interest to Mac owners), it’s also a vital tool for creatives who want to create and render 3D scenes and animations with realistic lighting.

These creatives often rely on Macs and MacBooks, so to include ray tracing support would be a big boon to them – especially as rivals such as the Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition feature Nvidia RTX graphics chips that can handle ray tracing.

• This is the new Mac Pro for 2019

Powered by WPeMatico

It could be argued that the original Apple AirPods popularized the true wireless earbud format, and despite an initial disdain for what was considered an unusual-looking design and high price point, they have become one of the most popular true wireless earbud models. 

Now Apple has released the new Apple AirPods (2019), which come with an optional wireless charging case, improved battery life, and smart Siri assistant functionality. still a number of new features and enhancements to consider.

So what’s the difference between the old and new generations? Read on as we examine what’s changed, and perhaps more fittingly, what’s stayed the same. 

Before we dive into our official list, we should mention the new Apple AirPods Pro, which come with noise-cancellation and interchangeable, flexible eartips that will challenge the established players like Sony, RHA and Jabra. 

The earbuds use the H1 chip with an ‘Adaptive EQ’ system to tailor its equalizer settings on the fly dependent on what your listening to, be that the vocal-focused words of a podcast or the dreamy ambiance of a film soundtrack.

With all that new tech, they’re priced at $249 / £249 / AU$399 / AED 999, making them significantly more expensive than the current AirPods.

Apple AirPods (2019) vs Apple AirPods: overview

There’s no denying that the Apple AirPods paved the way for true wireless earbuds to become mainstream, and despite being released in 2016, they were still among the best true wireless buds you could buy in 2019 – that is, until the Apple released the updated Apple AirPods (2019). 

According to Apple, the upgraded buds will deliver “faster connect times, more talk time, and the convenience of hands-free Siri.” But what else has changed? 

Price and availability

The new Apple AirPods (2019) cost $159/£159/AU$249 with the standard charging case, and $199/£199/AU$319 with the new Wireless Charging Case bundled in.

This is the same price as the originals, which are no longer being sold by Apple, but should be available from third-party retailers while stocks last. We haven’t seen any price reductions yet, and the likelihood is that Apple will just let the stock run down until only the 2019 model is available to buy, without reducing the price. 

You can get some of the best true wireless earbuds for less of course; the Optoma NuForce BE Free5 wireless earbuds show just how accessible truly wireless headphones are today, costing $100 (about £75, AU$134).

Apple AirPods (2019) vs Apple AirPods: design

There’s not a huge difference in terms of design between the AirPods (2019) and their predecessors. Apple has a very distinctive style, and the AirPods stick to this aesthetic quite rigidly, which you will probably either love or hate. 

The Apple AirPods essentially took the classic EarPod design and just removed the cables, leaving the stem of the bud to hang out of the ear. 

The stem is relatively thick as it houses the buds’ microphone and battery, which makes them even more conspicuous – like we say, it’s a love/hate design.

Likewise, the AirPods (2019) are completely cable free, drawing battery from a pillbox-like charging case, with stem-like protrusions from the buds. 

True to that rigid Apple design, you won’t find modern conveniences like replaceable silicone eartips that secure the either the original AirPods or the AirPods (2019) firmly in your ears, and although the originals felt relatively snug when we tested them, we’d think twice before wearing them while working out. 

It’s the same story with the Apple AirPods (2019), which we’ve been able to test briefly in our Apple AirPods (2019) hands on review – although we will be testing the fit more thoroughly when we come to carrying out our full review process. 

Apple AirPods (2019) vs Apple AirPods: features

Connectivity has always been a bit of a sticking point when it comes to true wireless earbuds, but the Apple AirPods have a reputation for seamless pairing – as long as you’re using an iPhone, of course.

The new AirPods (2019) come with even better connectivity however, thanks to a newly-designed H1 chip which Apple has built specifically for the headphones. 

Apple says this will improve connectivity, speed up pairing times, and increase the efficiency of the battery life, which Apple claims will give you 50 percent more hands-free talk time.

When we tested the the new buds, we found pairing was noticeably quicker.

Apple AirPods (2019) vs Apple AirPods: battery life

The original Apple AirPods have five hours of battery life, while the charging case holds enough power to charge them over four times. 

Apple says that the inclusion of the H1 chip within the AirPods (2019) will “give you 50 percent more hands-free talk time”, but it hasn’t revealed an official battery life yet – how long they last as just headphones is the key metric here.

Both generations of the true wireless buds can be wirelessly charged now that Apple has launched the new wireless charging case alongside the AirPods 2. This means you can use Qi-compatible charging mats to power the case without having to stick a cable in, which is presumably in anticipation of the launch of Apple’s long-awaited Air Power charging mat.

Even if you have the original AirPods, you can still buy the case separately for $79 (£79/AU$129) and enjoy the benefits of wireless charging.

Of course, if you get the AirPods (2019) with the wireless charging case, it will cost you around $40 more than if you buy them with the standard charging case.

Audio performance

True wireless earbuds get a bad rap when it comes to audio performance, but they are getting better all the time. 

Even the original AirPods, which are relatively old now, still sound pretty good, with a lively presentation and decent levels of bass – although treble frequencies can sound a bit harsh. 

There are no differences in sound quality between the old generation and the new AirPods (2019), so most of the changes are centered on connectivity, battery, and wireless charging.

Neither of these buds will likely offer the same kind of audio prowess that a really good pair of over-ear headphones will, but you do get the freedom of wireless connectivity in exchange for a slightly less powerful sound. 

Takeaway

Overall, not a huge amount has changed between the two generations of Apple AirPods, with many rumored features not making it to the final iteration of the AirPods (2019). 

Back in July Apple filed a patent for biometric sensors which would allow the AirPods 2 to take on fitness tracking capabilities like those seen in the Jabra Elite Wireless. This followed another patent filed in March, which further fueled the rumors.

It doesn’t look like these capabilities made the cut, which fitness enthusiasts may find disappointing. 

We can’t say whether the AirPods (2019) are a marked improvement upon their predecessors until we carry out a full and thorough review, but features like wireless charging, “Hey Siri” functionality, and more reliable connectivity will probably only make using the true wireless buds a more seamless experience. 

It’s also worth noting that there are lots of other brands making true wireless earbuds these days that may suit you better than either offerings from Apple.

In fact, our favorite pair of true wireless earbuds are the RHA TrueConnect True Wireless Earbuds, which are the around $10 cheaper than the AirPods 2, and offer a balanced, detailed sound, and a reliable Bluetooth connection. 

• The best true wireless earbuds 2019: the best Apple AirPod alternatives around

Powered by WPeMatico