When a VPN disconnects, traffic may either stop or fall back to your normal internet connection. A working kill switch is designed to block that fallback, while a fail-open setup may let new traffic use your ordinary network route and public IP address.

What Happens the Moment the VPN Tunnel Drops

A VPN normally gives selected network traffic a route through an encrypted tunnel to a VPN server. When that tunnel disappears, the operating system and VPN software have to determine what should happen to traffic that would normally use it.

One possible outcome is fail open. This means ordinary networking is permitted again. New connections may use the device’s Wi-Fi, Ethernet, or mobile connection directly, just as they would if the VPN were not active. Websites reached through those new connections may then receive the public IP address associated with your normal internet connection rather than the VPN server.

The opposite behavior is fail closed. Instead of allowing protected traffic to fall back to the normal route, the device blocks it until the VPN connection returns or the blocking policy is deliberately disabled.

Suppose a laptop is connected to home Wi-Fi and its browser traffic is leaving through a VPN server. If the VPN tunnel fails, a fail-open configuration may let the browser establish its next connection directly through the internet service provider. With fail-closed protection, that new connection should fail rather than silently bypass the tunnel.

The behavior of an existing connection can be less predictable. Applications may retry requests, create a new connection, wait for the VPN to return, or time out. The practical privacy question is therefore whether traffic that was supposed to remain protected can establish a usable path outside the VPN after the tunnel is lost.

What a VPN Kill Switch Actually Does

A kill switch does not keep the VPN tunnel alive. Its job is to restrict networking when that tunnel is unavailable.

Mozilla describes its implementation as blocking the device’s network connection if Mozilla VPN becomes unstable or drops, with the aim of preventing the local IP address from being exposed. Mozilla’s kill-switch documentation is one example of fail-closed behavior implemented by a VPN application.

The enforcement can also come from the operating system. Android supports an Always-on VPN setting and a separate Block connections without VPN control. When configured together, Android can prevent connections that do not use the selected VPN.

Automatic reconnection is related but different. A reconnect feature tries to restore the VPN tunnel. A kill switch determines what traffic is permitted while that tunnel is missing. A VPN product can implement both, one, or neither depending on the platform and configuration.

Standard Kill Switch vs Persistent Blocking

“Kill switch” does not describe one universal policy. Some implementations respond primarily to an unexpected VPN failure, while others enforce a VPN-required state even after a deliberate disconnect or restart.

Proton VPN, for example, currently distinguishes a standard mode from an advanced mode. Its standard kill switch is designed to activate when the VPN connection drops unexpectedly, while its advanced kill switch prevents internet access whenever Proton VPN is not connected and can remain active across restarts on supported platforms. These are Proton-specific implementation details, not universal VPN terminology.

The table below shows the conceptual distinction. Exact behavior still depends on the VPN application, operating system, and policy configuration.

This distinction is why pressing a VPN application’s Disconnect button is not always a valid test of an ordinary kill switch. Some products intentionally interpret a manual disconnect as permission to resume normal networking.

A VPN Disconnect Is Not the Only Kind of Leak

A complete tunnel failure is only one way traffic can end up somewhere you did not intend. A VPN may appear connected while a particular protocol, resolver, application, or address family follows a different path.

Public IP exposure after fallback

If the VPN tunnel disappears and ordinary routing resumes, a new connection can leave through the underlying internet connection. The remote service may then see the public IP address assigned to that normal route.

This is the failure people commonly mean when they say a kill switch prevented an “IP leak.” More precisely, traffic that was expected to remain protected obtained an ordinary route after the VPN stopped carrying it.

DNS leakage

The Domain Name System, or DNS, translates names such as example.com into network addresses. A DNS leak occurs when queries that were intended to follow the VPN’s protected DNS path instead use another resolver or network path outside that intended configuration.

Not every DNS server different from the VPN provider’s own resolver is automatically evidence of a leak. Some users deliberately configure another encrypted or third-party DNS service. The useful comparison is between the DNS path you intended and the one the device actually uses.

IPv6 bypass

Many networks support both Internet Protocol version 4, or IPv4, and Internet Protocol version 6, or IPv6. That dual-stack design can expose a routing mismatch if VPN software protects one address family but fails to apply the intended policy to the other.

The IETF’s RFC 7359 analysis of dual-stack VPN leakage describes traffic intended for a tunnel escaping through an unprotected IPv6 path when VPN software fails to handle IPv6 correctly. The document dates from 2014, so it should not be treated as evidence that current VPN applications generally have this defect.

The RFC’s IESG note also cautions that the broader leakage problem is not unique to IPv6. Similar exposure can arise whenever policy permits another unencrypted interface or route, including some split-tunnel configurations.

Browser and WebRTC address exposure

Browser networking creates a separate category of address information. Web Real-Time Communication, or WebRTC, uses Interactive Connectivity Establishment, or ICE, candidates when discovering possible paths for peer-to-peer communication.

MDN documents that an ICE candidate can contain the IP address associated with that candidate’s source. Whether the address revealed is relevant to your VPN privacy model depends on the browser, candidate type, VPN implementation, and network configuration. The presence of WebRTC address information does not by itself prove that the entire VPN tunnel failed.

These failure modes are related enough to examine together, but they should not be collapsed into one diagnosis. IP, DNS, IPv6, and WebRTC leaks have different causes and require different verification methods.

Split Tunneling Changes What “Leak” Means

Traffic outside the VPN is not necessarily leaking if you deliberately configured it to stay outside.

Split tunneling means only selected applications or destinations use the VPN while other traffic follows the device’s normal network path. Android’s per-app VPN controls, for example, can restrict VPN use to an allowed set of applications or deliberately exclude applications from it.

Imagine that a browser is configured to use the VPN but a game launcher is intentionally excluded. Seeing the normal public IP from the game launcher may be expected split-tunnel behavior. Seeing that same fallback from the protected browser after the tunnel fails would be a different result.

This is why a leak test should start by establishing what was supposed to be inside the tunnel. Without that baseline, expected exclusions can be mistaken for failures.

Kill switches and split tunneling can also interact differently across products. Proton documents that the combination is unsupported on most of its platforms, while its Windows app can use kill-switch protection with split tunneling so protected applications remain blocked if the VPN disconnects. Proton’s split-tunneling documentation illustrates why this behavior must be checked on the exact product and platform rather than assumed universally.

Troubleshooting Kill-Switch and Reconnect Problems

The symptom usually indicates whether to investigate the kill-switch policy, the VPN connection itself, split tunneling, or the underlying network.

Platform Differences That Matter

Android

Android provides several VPN controls at the operating-system level. Google’s current documentation says Android 7.0 and later can use Always-on VPN, and compatible configurations can enable Block connections without VPN. That combination can create fail-closed behavior without relying solely on an application’s own interface.

Android also supports per-app VPN rules. If applications are placed on an allowed list, only those applications use the VPN. Other applications can use normal system networking unless non-VPN connections are also blocked. With blocking enabled, applications outside the permitted VPN set can instead lose network access. The interaction is configuration-dependent, so observing one application’s behavior does not necessarily describe the whole device.

Apple devices

Apple supports several distinct VPN deployment models, including VPN On Demand, per-app VPN, and managed Always On VPN. They should not be treated as interchangeable names for one consumer kill-switch feature.

For managed Always On VPN configurations, Apple documents that all IP traffic can be tunneled through the organization’s VPN infrastructure and that all IP traffic is dropped when the required Always On VPN tunnels are not up. This is a strong example of operating-system-enforced fail-closed behavior, but it does not establish that every third-party consumer VPN application on an Apple device behaves the same way.

Apple separately documents VPN On Demand, per-app VPN, and managed Always On VPN as different deployment mechanisms. Those distinctions matter when comparing application behavior with organization-managed traffic enforcement.

Desktop VPN applications

Desktop VPN clients can implement blocking in different ways. Some rely on operating-system filtering or firewall facilities, while others use routing or interface mechanisms.

As a vendor-specific example, Proton documents persistent Windows Filtering Platform rules for its advanced Windows kill switch and a dummy network interface for its Linux GUI implementation. Those mechanisms illustrate implementation variety; they should not be generalized to unrelated Windows or Linux VPN clients.

The larger distinction between Always-On VPN and a kill switch is whether the system is trying to maintain a required VPN state, block traffic when that state is unavailable, or do both.

Bottom Line

What happens after a VPN disconnects depends less on the word “VPN” than on the policy that follows the failure. A fail-open configuration can permit subsequent traffic to use the normal network path, while fail-closed enforcement blocks affected traffic until VPN protection returns.

A kill switch is therefore a traffic-control feature, not a guarantee that the VPN will never fail. Split tunneling, DNS routing, IPv6 handling, browser networking, and platform-specific rules can create separate exposure paths even when the main tunnel appears healthy. The reliable approach is to understand what should be protected, verify that behavior with harmless traffic, and interpret the result against the exact VPN and operating-system configuration in use.

What just happened? Flock Safety is changing how police search its license plate camera database as the company faces growing questions in Washington over privacy, accuracy, and misuse. The company told Senator Josh Hawley that it has added more controls to its search system, which scans about 20 billion license plates a month.

Until recently, users were required to explain why they were conducting a search by typing into an open text field. Flock said those entries were not always specific enough. The company has replaced the field with a drop-down menu of standardized categories based on the FBI’s crime-reporting system.

By the end of the year, law enforcement users will also need to enter a case number before running a search. Flock said that requirement can be waived in emergencies.

The changes were outlined in a letter from Flock’s chief legal officer to Hawley, the Missouri Republican who opened an investigation into the company last month. Hawley led a Senate hearing on Wednesday examining Flock and three other companies that provide similar surveillance technology.

The hearing featured a Florida woman who spent 13 days in jail after her car was detected by a Flock camera near the scene of a fatal crash. Authorities were looking for a similar vehicle.

Flock’s automated license plate recognition system has spread quickly. The company says it has about 120,000 cameras nationwide. Police departments and public-safety officials argue that the technology can help find missing children, track stolen vehicles, and investigate hit-and-run crashes.

The system has also drawn criticism from privacy advocates, civil-liberties groups, and people on both sides of the political divide. Critics are concerned that agencies can use the cameras to follow a person’s movements over time. They also point to allegations that some officers have used the system for personal reasons, including stalking.

Flock said it does not maintain “a single consolidated count of confirmed customer misuse.” The company said its customers determine whether a search was justified and whether discipline is appropriate when an employee abuses access.

The company has also started adding its own monitoring tools. In April, it introduced a system designed to flag unusual search activity. Flock said the system has identified several cases of misuse, including some that led to arrests. It is also working on a feature that would lock users out when their behavior appears abnormal.

Hawley said the issue could prompt congressional action. “We have an entire constitutional system to protect individual liberty,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Without limits from companies or the government, he added, “we’re going to have a huge problem with the invasion of basic rights and liberties.”

The company is also reducing the amount of data it stores by default. New customers will have a seven-day retention period, down from 30 days. Existing customers will have to opt in if they want the shorter period.

Agencies can still seek permission to retain data longer, but Flock said those requests must be approved “either by an elected governing body…or by an elected official.” The company said about 3% of its law-enforcement customers keep data for more than 30 days. Its maximum retention period is one year.

In a nutshell: Meta’s Connect 2026 event aimed to address two of the biggest obstacles facing wearable smart devices: privacy for smart glasses and the size of VR and AR devices. The company’s upcoming audio-only AI glasses look to put a digital assistant on the wearer’s face while avoiding the surveillance concerns that have dogged previous models. Meanwhile, the company’s latest VR device directly calls out Apple’s failed Vision Pro.

Pre-orders are now open for Meta’s recently revealed Ray-Ban Audio glasses. Starting at $349 and shipping October 13, the glasses handle music, calls, and AI functions without cameras. Meta also unveiled a VR headset that packs immersive media and productivity functionality into a form factor only slightly larger than a pair of glasses.

Meta compares the Ray-Ban Audio’s functionality to advanced earbuds such as Apple’s AirPods. Wearers can listen to music or podcasts, take calls, and chat with the company’s AI assistant, Muse, with up to 12 hours of battery life. Muse only begins listening when users say “Hey Meta” or press the action button.

Although the Connect 2026 keynote did not highlight the fact that the Ray-Ban Meta Audio glasses don’t include cameras, the omission is clearly an attempt to sidestep concerns about the privacy violations associated with camera-equipped smart glasses.

Earlier this year, New York banned such devices from courtrooms due to their recording capabilities, and Apple reportedly delayed its planned smart glasses as it wrestles with the issue. It remains unclear whether limiting smart glasses recording to audio will alleviate critics’ concerns.

However, Meta has not given up on camera-based smart glasses, as the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 3 glasses are available today. Starting at $449, they include a new six-microphone array that dampens background noise by more than 90% and a 12MP camera for 3K video recording. Later this year, the glasses will even be able to record 360-degree video with Dolby Atmos spatial sound.

Meta also revealed new features coming to Ray-Ban Display. Starting later this month, users can activate turn-by-turn cycling directions with voice commands. Furthermore, instead of simply using street names, directions will describe the world around wearers to make navigation more intuitive.

Later this fall, WhatsApp and Meta AI app users in the US can show call recipients photorealistic avatars while wearing Meta glasses. The holograms use AI to determine facial expressions based on users’ speech.

Meta VR glasses are coming next spring, starting at $1,299. Like Apple’s Vision Pro headset, Meta VR glasses can display multiple virtual screens around the wearer, showing content from productivity and streaming apps. With 5K micro-OLED panels delivering 37 pixels per degree, Meta’s device achieves the glasses-like form factor VR headsets have long strived for, weighing only 100 grams – about one-eighth as much as a Vision Pro.

Wearers can control a virtual keyboard, trackpad, remote, or game controller using gestures. Meta VR glasses will support Xbox Cloud Gaming and more than 75 VR games on day one that do not require controllers. The company is also collaborating with ESPN, Amazon Prime Video, YouTube, DirecTV, Crunchyroll, Plex, Peacock, HBO, Paramount+, and IMAX to deliver immersive, high-resolution streaming content.

Taking another shot at Apple, the glasses will also show a full-body hologram to call recipients instead of just a head and shoulders.

Waymo’s commercial robotaxi ramp-up looks expansive, both in geographic reach and in ridership. And by almost every measure, it is — until you pay attention to where the bulk of those robotaxis are actually showing up.

The numbers over the past two years reflect the kind of commercial rollout you’d expect from a deep-pocketed company like Waymo, which spun out of Google and still counts Alphabet as its majority owner. In September 2024, Waymo was operating in just three cities — Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Today, it offers robotaxi service in 15 U.S. cities, with most of those commercial launches occurring in the past year. Ridership has skyrocketed, too, with Waymo now averaging 500,000 paid robotaxi rides every week.

But a closer look at its fleet shows a company concentrating its efforts in just two states. About 80% of Waymo’s roughly 4,000 robotaxis are in California and Texas, and Texas is where the action is now: Waymo’s fleet there has grown by nearly half in the past three weeks, fueled by a new Chinese-built minivan the company is betting will help it scale, even as tariffs drive up its costs.

The other 800 or so vehicles are spread across cities in other states, including Arizona and Florida, another burgeoning hot spot. Most are the familiar white Jaguar I-Pace electric SUVs, but a growing number are the new minivans — a modified Zeekr RT that Waymo has branded “Ojai.”

Waymo’s focus on California is no surprise. It is headquartered in Silicon Valley, and much of its early testing and development work was conducted there. Plus, a segment of the population there is inclined to adopt tech at its earliest stages.

The recent growth in Texas is more interesting. Waymo has increased its Texas fleet by 49% in the past three weeks, according to state vehicle registrations and data from the Texas Autonomous Vehicle Fleet Tracker. As of September 24, Waymo had 1,102 autonomous vehicles registered in the state.

Waymo first launched in commercial service in Austin through a partnership with Uber in March 2025, letting riders hail its robotaxis through the Uber app. Since then, the company has expanded its robotaxi services in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

Waymo’s Texas fleet remained relatively static for most of the summer, inching up from about 600 vehicles in June to more than 700 by the end of August. Then came September, when the fleet surged, driven by an influx of new Ojai minivans, which now make up about a third of Waymo’s Texas fleet.

Expect that share to grow.

The Ojai robotaxi, equipped with Waymo’s sixth-generation self-driving system, is supposed to help Waymo reach mass scale. Its interior is built to withstand heavy use, and it comes with an upgraded rider interface and Google’s Gemini AI, which acts as an in-car assistant for riders.

Strip away that technology, though, and the Ojai is a minivan made by Zeekr, a brand owned by China’s Geely Holding Group (which also owns Volvo). The Ojai is built on Zeekr’s SEA-M platform, a shared vehicle platform designed for uses like robotaxis and delivery vans. The base Zeekr vehicles are shipped to the U.S. without any Chinese connected-car technology on board. Once they arrive, the vehicles are sent to Waymo’s Arizona factory, where they are outfitted with Waymo’s self-driving system.

The Ojai is supposed to drive down costs and ultimately help Waymo reach profitability. For now, though, tariffs are cutting any savings. Under current U.S. trade policy, vehicles built in China face steep import tariffs, raising Waymo’s costs for every Ojai it brings into the country.

Waymo appears willing to absorb that cost. New York-based research firm MoffettNathanson, which tracks Ojai imports using detailed shipping records, said in its September report that Waymo is on track to bring 5,100 of the vehicles into the U.S. by the end of the year.

Where will all those Ojai vehicles go? Texas is certainly on the list. But Florida, where Waymo operates in three cities, and newer markets like Las Vegas will likely see an influx as well.

Winning the beer league championship title becomes an all-consuming obsession for coach Joanne Pico (Jess Salgueiro) after her girlfriend and co-founder of the Public Lass Brovaries, a team for LGBTQ women and non-binary players, dumps her and joins a rival team in 10-part softball mockumentary Slo Pitch.

The comparisons with Heated Rivalry are obvious, all the moreso because Emily Hampshire and Nadine Bhabha are in both shows. Slo Pitch, however, predates the smash-hit hockey series. It started out as a cult web series in 2020, and its co-creators are heavily involved in the TV adaptation, with J Stevens directing, Gwenlyn Cumyn and Karen Knox starring, the trio having reunited to pen the series.

Bluetooth has become very good at convenience. The trouble begins when you ask it to behave like a cable inside a recording studio, where latency, compression, and synchronization are not features engineers are particularly interested in negotiating with.

A vocalist monitoring their own voice or a musician tracking an instrument needs to hear what is happening almost immediately. Nobody in the control room really cares how impressive the codec logo looks when the performance arrives late.

That is the problem LEWITT is attempting to solve with its new LW6 Wireless Studio Headphones, a $699 closed-back design that uses Ultra-Wideband (UWB) wireless technology rather than Bluetooth for its primary professional audio connection.

More specifically, LEWITT’s RealSound wireless system uses LE-UWB technology from SPARK Microsystems to deliver uncompressed PCM audio with 5.8 milliseconds of latency, a 1,728 kbps data rate, 110 dB of dynamic range, and an operating range of up to 5 meters or 16.4 feet. SPARK describes the LW6 as its commercial entry into the professional audio market.

That makes the LW6 considerably more interesting than another wireless headphone with a new Bluetooth codec.

Related Reading:

Bluetooth Is Getting Some New Competition

The timing is rather interesting.

We just examined Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Sound Elite Gen 2, which adds micro-power Wi-Fi 6E and XPAN technology to future wireless headphones and earbuds. Qualcomm’s idea is that Wi-Fi can handle higher-bandwidth lossless audio and other demanding applications while Bluetooth remains available when power efficiency and universal compatibility are more important.

LEWITT and SPARK are approaching the same fundamental problem from a different direction.

Instead of adding Wi-Fi, the LW6 uses LE-UWB, or Low Energy Ultra-Wideband, for its RealSound connection. SPARK’s implementation is based on impulse-radio UWB technology but has been developed as a high-speed short-range data connection rather than primarily for the ranging and positioning applications commonly associated with UWB.

In other words, this is not AirTag technology wearing expensive headphones and hoping nobody notices.

SPARK designed LE-UWB around deterministic low latency, high throughput, and low power consumption for applications where data needs to arrive quickly and predictably. In the LW6, that technology is being used specifically to move uncompressed audio between LEWITT’s included transmitter and the headphones.

We Have Already Seen UWB in High-End Audio

UWB audio itself is not entirely new.

We have already covered its use in the Focal Diva Utopia family, including the $210,000 Diva Alta Utopia, which uses UWB for the wireless connection between its left and right loudspeakers. That system can transmit 24-bit/96kHz audio wirelessly between the speakers without compression.

SPARK also confirmed earlier this year that its LE-UWB technology powers the wireless connection inside the Diva Alta Utopia.

The LW6 moves that concept into headphones, where latency becomes considerably more important. A small delay between two loudspeakers can be managed by the system; hearing your own guitar, drums, or vocals noticeably behind the actual performance is another matter entirely.

LEWITT RealSound

The supplied LW TX RealSound transmitter can connect directly to a computer using USB-C or to the headphone output of an audio interface using its 3.5 mm analog input.

The transmitter itself supports USB audio up to 24-bit/96kHz, while the RealSound wireless link delivers uncompressed PCM audio at 1,728 kbps with the aforementioned 5.8 ms latency. LEWITT also provides a 3.5 mm analog output on the transmitter.

There is one important limitation to understand: RealSound is a short-range dedicated connection, not a universal replacement for Bluetooth. Its specified range is only 5 meters, which makes complete sense inside a studio but somewhat less useful if your recording console happens to be located across the parking lot.

Bluetooth remains onboard for everything else.

The LW6 supports Bluetooth 5.3 with SBC and AAC, with LEWITT claiming a range of approximately 40 meters. There is no aptX Adaptive, aptX Lossless, or LDAC because the higher-performance studio connection is handled separately by RealSound.

That separation may prove to be one of the smarter aspects of the design.

Instead of trying to force Bluetooth to handle professional monitoring, LEWITT uses UWB for the demanding job and leaves Bluetooth available for phones, tablets, and casual listening.

Closed-Back Headphones Designed for Studio Work

The LW6 uses a 40 mm dynamic driver with a bio-cellulose diaphragm inside a closed-back enclosure. Frequency response is rated from 20Hz to 20kHz, impedance is 32 ohms, sensitivity is 114 dB SPL/V, and maximum output is specified at 121 dB SPL. Weight is 358 grams.

LEWITT also took an interesting approach to tuning.

Rather than relying solely on conventional headphone measurement fixtures, the company used MIRE measurements, which place small microphones inside the ear canals of actual listeners. LEWITT says this allowed its engineers to account for differences in ear anatomy, head shape, hair, glasses, and headphone seal while developing the LW6’s target response.

The goal is to provide the isolation required for tracking and recording while maintaining the tonal characteristics engineers often prefer from open-back headphones.

We will reserve judgment on whether LEWITT achieved that until someone actually puts them on our head. We have all met enough products that were “reference” right up until the first cymbal crash.

The LW6 is not relying solely on its wireless connection to justify the $699 asking price.

LEWITT includes a substantial collection of onboard DSP features controlled through its HEADPHONES desktop software and mobile app:

• 5-band customizable EQ
• Three user EQ profiles stored directly on the headphones
• Virtual studio monitor processing
• Loudness Guard
• Mono, side stereo, side mono, and left/right monitoring checks
• Three programmable target volume levels
• Two customizable hardware buttons
• K-metering support for mastering and broadcast

The LW6 also includes a license for LEWITT Space Replicator Essential, which provides virtual studio environments and additional mix translation tools.

Battery life is rated at 21 hours using RealSound, with a full recharge taking approximately 80 minutes. A 15-minute charge can provide around three additional hours of playback.

USB-C audio is also supported directly through the headphones at up to 24-bit/96kHz, along with a conventional 3.5 mm analog input.

Specifications:

• Type: Closed-back wireless studio headphones
• Driver: 40 mm bio-cellulose dynamic
• Frequency Response: 20Hz–20kHz
• Impedance: 32 ohms
• Sensitivity: 114 dB SPL/V
• Max SPL: 121 dB
• Weight: 358 g / 12.6 oz
• RealSound Wireless: LE-UWB, uncompressed PCM
• Latency: 5.8 ms
• Data Rate: 1,728 kbps
• Dynamic Range: 110 dB(A)
• RealSound Range: 5 m / 16.4 ft
• Bluetooth: 5.3 with SBC and AAC
• Bluetooth Range: Approx. 40 m / 130 ft
• USB-C Audio: Up to 24-bit/96kHz
• Analog Input: 3.5 mm
• Battery Life: Up to 21 hours with RealSound
• Charging: 80 minutes; 15-minute charge provides approx. 3 hours

The Bottom Line

The LW6 is not evidence that Bluetooth is about to disappear.

It is evidence that audio manufacturers are becoming less willing to pretend Bluetooth needs to handle every wireless application.

Our recent look at whether wireless headphones really need 24-bit/192kHz audio raised precisely this issue. Better drivers, amplification, DSP, and DAC stages have pushed wireless headphones forward considerably, but the connection between the source and headphone remains an important part of the equation.

HiFiMAN has already explored another route with the HE1000 WiFi, which moves high-resolution playback onto Wi-Fi rather than relying exclusively on Bluetooth. We found genuine sonic advantages there, although battery life and usability demonstrated that changing the wireless transport does not magically erase every engineering compromise.

LEWITT’s approach is narrower but arguably more practical for its intended audience.

It does not need RealSound to work everywhere. It needs it to deliver stable, uncompressed, nearly real-time audio across a recording room, while Bluetooth handles ordinary listening outside of that environment.

Qualcomm is betting that Wi-Fi will become a second wireless pipeline for premium consumer headphones. LEWITT and SPARK are demonstrating that UWB can perform a similar role where latency matters even more.

Bluetooth isn’t dead. Far from it.

But 2026 is starting to look like the year the audio industry finally stopped asking it to do every job in the building.

Price & Availability

The LEWITT LW6 Wireless Studio Headphones are priced at $699 USD and include LW TX RealSound UWB transmitter, cables, adapters, transport pouch, and Space Replicator Essential software..

Related Reading:

Chargers are easy to compare by wattage and harder to compare by what they’ll actually do for a setup. I picked six discounted options with distinct jobs, from keeping a phone topped up at a desk to replacing the adapters competing for a travel outlet.

Amazon Basics 25W Qi2.2 wireless charging pad – $9.71 (27% off)

A magnetic charging pad for less than $10 is an easy addition to a desk or nightstand, especially if there’s already a suitable USB-C adapter nearby. The Amazon Basics pad includes a long cable, giving it more freedom of placement than a puck with a short lead. It’s a simple phone charger, though: there’s no stand or second charging spot, and the power adapter is sold separately.

UGREEN Nexode 65W 3-port charger – $23.99 (40% off)

This is the charger I’d pack when a laptop, phone, and smaller accessory all need power but only one wall outlet is available. The Nexode can handle all three, with enough output to replace the supplied adapter for many compact USB-C laptops. Power is divided when several devices are connected, so don’t expect maximum laptop charging speed while using every port. At $23.99, that flexibility is the appeal.

Anker Nano 45W Smart Display Charger – $29.99 (25% off)

Most wall chargers give no indication of what they’re doing. The Nano’s display shows charging information at a glance, which is useful when checking whether a device is drawing the power expected. It also has a plug that adjusts to different outlet positions and a Care Mode for less aggressive charging. There’s only one port, so this makes more sense as a dedicated phone or tablet charger than a whole-bag solution.

UGREEN MagFlow 25W 2-in-1 foldable charger – $39.99 (33% off)

For trips, the MagFlow replaces separate wireless pads for a phone and earbuds with something that folds flat in a bag. Its phone pad can also be raised into a stand, making it useful on a nightstand or desk after the trip. The second charging spot gives it a reason to cost more than a basic puck. Factor in a separate power adapter, though, because UGREEN doesn’t include one.

Anker Nano 6-in-1 Travel Power Strip – $39.99 (20% off)

A charger helps with USB devices; this one also leaves room for equipment that needs a regular plug. The Nano power strip turns one wall outlet into six connections, making it useful beside a cramped desk or in a hotel room. Its flat plug and 5-foot cord help when the available outlet is tucked behind furniture. It’s the most practical pick here for a mixed collection of devices.

Anker Prime 25W 3-in-1 foldable wireless charger – $99.73 (34% off)

The Prime is the one to consider if an iPhone, Apple Watch, and wireless earbuds all need a place to charge overnight. It folds for travel and uses active cooling to help sustain fast wireless charging on a compatible phone. It’s still a substantial purchase at nearly $100, but Anker includes the wall adapter and cable. That makes the package easier to justify than a cheaper stand that needs another accessory to work as intended.

Microsoft has refreshed its compact Surface Laptop with Qualcomm’s latest Snapdragon X2 Plus processor. This promises more performance and better efficiency without changing the lightweight design.

The new Surface Laptop 13-inch is a fanless Windows PC with a full-size backlit keyboard, precision touchpad, aluminium body and a taller 3:2 PixelSense touchscreen. Moreover, the Snapdragon X2 Plus upgrade brings up to 17% faster Office productivity performance and more than 60% faster graphics. It also offers up to 95% faster on-device AI processing compared with previous generations.