Connect with us

Tech

Pixel Watch 5 vs. Galaxy Watch 9 vs. Apple Watch Series 11: There’s more than one way to take your health seriously

Published

on

While Google has never quite matched its competitors in the smartwatch market, particularly when it comes to health tracking features, the Pixel Watch 5 feels like its strongest attempt yet to close that gap. With features such as Insulin Resistance Trends and Breathing Emergency Detection, Google is making a serious push in a category where wellness and proactive monitoring are becoming increasingly important.

With the Pixel Watch 5 now going head-to-head with Samsung’s Galaxy Watch 9 and Apple’s Watch Series 11, the differences go well beyond the usual Android vs. iOS divide. The interesting question isn’t which smartwatch has the longest feature list, since all of them are locked to their ecosystem, but which one implements those features better, or rather cooks up something new from the existing sensors.

Pixel Watch 5 vs. Galaxy Watch 9 vs. Watch Series 11: Specs at a glance

Pixel Watch 5 Galaxy Watch 9 Apple Watch Series 11
Starting price $399.99 $379.99 $399.99
Dimensions (smaller / bigger) 41× 41 x 12.3mm / 45 x 45 x 12.3mm 42.7 × 40.4 × 8.6mm / 46.0 × 43.7 × 8.6mm 42 × 36 × 9.7mm / 46 × 39 × 9.7mm
Weight (smaller / bigger) 31.0g /
36.7g
31.5g / 34.0g 30.3g / 37.8g
Case material 100% recycled aluminum Aluminum, Armor Aluminum 2, sapphire crystal Aluminum (Ion-X glass) or Titanium (sapphire crystal)
Display type Actua 360, domed LTPO AMOLED Super AMOLED Always-On Retina LTPO3 OLED
Display size 1.27″ (41mm) / 1.46″ (45mm) 1.34″ (40mm) / 1.47″ (44mm) 1.53″ area (42mm) / 1.72″ area (46mm)
Resolution / PPI 320ppi 438×438 (40mm) / 480×480 (44mm), 327ppi 374×446 (42mm) / 416×496 (46mm), 326ppi
Peak brightness Up to 3,000 nits Up to 3,000 nits Up to 2,000 nits
Cover glass Corning Gorilla Glass 5 Sapphire crystal Ion-X (2x scratch resistant) / Sapphire (titanium)
Chipset Snapdragon W5 Gen 2 + Cortex-M55 co-processor Snapdragon SW6100 Wear Elite (3nm), Penta-core Apple S10, dual-core + 4-core Neural Engine
RAM / Storage 2GB / 64GB 2GB / 32GB 64GB
Battery (smaller / bigger) 332mAh / 465mAh 390mAh / 445mAh Not disclosed by capacity
Battery life (AOD on) Up to 30hrs (41mm) / 40hrs (45mm) Up to 30hrs (both sizes) Up to 24hrs normal use
Charging Quick Charge Dock; ~45min to 100% (41mm) 10W wireless (WPC); ~80min to 100% Magnetic fast charger; 80% in ~30 min
Water/dust resistance 5ATM + IP68 5ATM + IP68, MIL-STD-810H WR50m (swimproof) + IP6X
OS Wear OS 7.0 Wear OS 7 + One UI 9 Watch watchOS 26
Connectivity BT 6.0, Wi-Fi 802.11a/b/g/n/ac/ax, NFC, UWB, dual-freq GPS BT 6.0, Wi-Fi 4, NFC, dual-freq GPS, LTE/eSIM option Wi-Fi 4, BT 5.3, NFC, UWB (gen 2), 5G RedCap (cellular models)
Key sensors ECG-compatible electrical sensor, SpO2, skin conductance, skin temp, barometer BioActive sensor (ECG, BP, SpO2, antioxidant index), skin temp, barometer Electrical + 3rd-gen optical heart sensor, blood oxygen, temperature
Colors Matte Black, Polished Silver, Satin Pyrite (all sizes); Champagne Gold (41mm only) Graphite, Cream (40mm); Graphite, Silver (44mm) Rose Gold, Silver, Space Gray, Jet Black (aluminum); Gold, Natural, Slate (titanium)
Compatibility Android 12.0+ Android 10.0+, Samsung Health app iPhone 11+ with iOS 26+
Warranty 1 year 1 year 1 year limited

Health Guardian gives the Pixel Watch 5 an edge

The Pixel Watch 5’s hardware is solid but hardly distinctive next to its rivals. It uses the same 3,000-nit LTPO panel as Samsung, while still beating the Apple Watch for peak brightness, and the Snapdragon W5 Gen 2 keeps things responsive enough for features such as Gemini Proactive Suggestions. It is also the thickest smartwatch of the three, so Google clearly isn’t winning this comparison on hardware alone.

Health Guardian is where the Pixel Watch 5 makes its strongest case this year. Using its existing sensors and a month of passive wear, the watch can estimate Insulin Resistance Trends and generate monthly Blood Pressure Trend reports without requiring a CGM or blood-pressure cuff. Samsung and Apple still don’t offer anything comparable.

Then there’s Breathing Emergency Detection, which monitors for dangerous blood oxygen level drops and can automatically call emergency services if it detects that you’re unresponsive. That gives the Pixel Watch 5 a practical safety advantage I wouldn’t dismiss, particularly for someone dealing with a serious health concern.

Gemini sits at the center of the software experience. Google’s Proactive Suggestions can surface smart message replies, pull up information from conversations, and handle quick actions such as creating calendar events. Raise to Talk also removes the need for a wake word, making voice interaction more natural.

Advertisement

Google has also put real thought into hands-free navigation. A wrist-turn back gesture and refined double-pinch controls are useful rather than gimmicky, while Smart Wake uses live heart-rate data to wake you during a lighter sleep stage. Atmospheric GPS goes a step further by factoring live weather conditions into route tracking.

Combined, these features make the Pixel Watch 5 feel less like a spec-sheet refresh and more like Google finally connecting its AI, health, and safety features into a coherent smartwatch experience.

Samsung tracks everything from body composition to cardio load

On hardware alone, the Watch 9 is the only one here to meet the MIL-STD-810H durability standards while also being the sleekest smartwatch option. It runs on the most powerful Snapdragon Wear Elite chip currently available for wearables, which should translate to smoother day-to-day performance. However, Samsung has cut corners with the onboard storage. 

Samsung’s strongest bet for your wrist is its BioActive sensor, which can estimate your body fat and muscle percentage, something neither the Pixel Watch nor Apple Watch can do. 

With One UI 9 Watch, you get the new Vitals dashboard. It spends the first week establishing a personal baseline for your SpO2, heart rate variability, respiratory rate, and skin temperature, and then flags subtle deviations that could signal illness or overtraining before you’d notice symptoms yourself. 

Then there are several unique features like Daily Cardio Load and Antioxidant Index, which let you determine whether this should be a push or a recovery day and help you estimate whether your diet meets daily antioxidant requirements, respectively. Pair that with Hearing Protection Alerts, which monitor the ambient noise around you.

For anyone who trains seriously, Ghost Pacing lets cyclists race their own historical routes in real time. The updated Samsung Health app now supports custom GPX routing, which is quite useful for trail runners. On the software side, One UI 9 Watch’s split gesture system, including double pinch for yes, wrist shake for no, is the most intuitive control scheme on a smartwatch, at least for me. 

Add native Gemini integration via Raise to Talk, and Samsung has built the most well-rounded health companion of this group.

Advertisement

Hypertension alerts and Workout Buddy keep the Watch Series 11 relevant

The first and most obvious difference is that the Watch Series 11 is the only rectangular smartwatch here, a form factor I consider better suited for reading notifications, messages, or glancing at data. It’s slimmer than the Pixel Watch, but not the slimmest here. Then there’s the S10 chip and its four-core NPU, which enable the Apple Watch Series 11 to process Siri commands entirely on-device, including the new Siri AI experience

The Watch 11’s most useful and unique feature is Hypertension Notifications. Apple’s optical heart sensor tracks how your blood vessels respond to each heartbeat over a 30-day period, then alerts you if it detects patterns linked to chronic high blood pressure, a condition many people don’t discover until a doctor’s visit.

Like the Galaxy Watch 9, the Watch Series 11 also lets you detect the early signs of Sleep Apnea. Another similarity is the new Vitals app (Apple did it first), which aggregates overnight heart rate, respiratory rate, and wrist temperature into one dashboard so you can see at a glance whether you’re deviating from your own baseline. 

Workout Buddy is Apple’s most interesting new addition for anyone who actually trains, in my opinion. It’s an Apple Intelligence-powered coach that adjusts pacing and offers encouragement mid-workout (that is important), pulling from your paired iPhone. Google’s Gemini Health Coach is mostly passive during workouts, giving Apple an edge here.

Combined with genuinely advanced sport tracking, including SWOLF scoring for swimmers, offline topographic maps for hikers, Stride Length and Ground Contact Time for runners, and the new wrist flick gesture for one-handed control, the Series 11 remains an intuitive smartwatch and a reliable health-monitoring device.

Which one should you get?

Ultimately, there’s no one winner here. Call it a pro or a con, but the decision depends on the phone in your pocket. The Pixel Watch 5, with the new Insulin Resistance and Blood Pressure Trends feature, is the best to pair with the new Pixel 11 series, or any Pixel for that matter. The Galaxy Watch 9, on the other hand, has a hardware advantage in the form of the BioActive Sensor, making it the best smartwatch for Galaxy phones. Finally, the Apple Watch Series 11, while its falling behind when it comes to unique or new health monitoring features, is still the best smartwatch to pair with iPhones.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

If one PC creates 20dB of noise and another makes 40dB, how louder is the second PC?

Published

on

Also: what are humming, rattling and whining PC noises?

Read Entire Article
Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

SoftBank plans record $6.3bn retail bond sale in Japan

Published

on

SoftBank plans a record 1 trillion yen retail bond sale, about $6.3bn, the largest by any issuer in Japan, to fund investment commitments to OpenAI. Analysts say banks were reluctant to take the risk, leaving the deal dependent on retail investors.

SoftBank has found a lender of last resort for its AI bet, and it is Japanese households. The group plans a record ¥1 trillion retail bond sale, about $6.3bn and the largest by any issuer in Japan, to fund its investment commitments to OpenAI.

The terms are built to be tempting. The seven-year bonds are expected to price on 4 September with an indicative coupon of 4.3% to 4.9%, and SoftBank says it expects an A rating from Japan Credit Rating Agency.

International raters see it differently. S&P has SoftBank at BB+, one notch below investment grade, having revised its outlook to stable from negative in July.

Advertisement

The reason it is going to retail is not enthusiasm. “Banks are finding it difficult to take on the risk given weak deposit growth, the credit rating and the seven-year duration, leaving the deal more reliant on retail investors,” said Yuuki Fukumoto of NLI Research Institute, in a pattern that has already forced Oracle to find anchors outside the banking system.

It is also becoming routine. This is SoftBank’s third retail bond of the year, after raising ¥418bn in April and ¥260bn in June.

Even ¥1 trillion does not close the gap. Bloomberg Intelligence’s Sharon Chen says a shortfall above $20bn remains after this issue, making offshore issuance likely in the near term.

The commitments behind it are enormous. SoftBank has pledged more than $60bn to OpenAI and has separately sought a $10bn margin loan secured against its stake in the company.

Advertisement

Everyone is raising at once. Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon have committed nearly $2.4tn to AI-related spending, and Alibaba raised about $10bn in Hong Kong on Monday for chips and data centres.

A European issuer could not do this the same way. Bond prospectuses across the EEA routinely carry a prohibition on sales to retail investors, because the PRIIPs rules require a key information document that most issuers decline to produce.

That sits awkwardly with what Brussels says it wants. The Savings and Investments Union, adopted in March 2025, exists to move some of the €10tn European households hold, roughly 70% of it sitting in bank deposits, into capital markets, at a moment when Masayoshi Son calls bubble talk absurd.

Japan has now shown what mobilised savings look like in practice. A retail saver funding a seven-year bet on a company that does not yet know how the technology will pay.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Harvey’s first in-house model for legal work is here

Published

on

Harvey has launched Tenet, its first proprietary model for legal work, post-trained on Kimi K3, the open-weight model from Chinese startup Moonshot. The company is backed by OpenAI, whose models Tenet is designed to displace inside Harvey’s own product.

Harvey has stopped renting the thing its business depends on. The legal software company has launched Tenet, its first proprietary model, after years of routing customer work through models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google.

The base it chose is the detail worth stopping on. Tenet is post-trained on Kimi K3, the open-weight model released in July by the Chinese startup Moonshot, in work Harvey says it did with Fireworks AI.

Consider who is on the cap table. OpenAI is an investor in Harvey alongside Sequoia and Andreessen Horowitz, so a company valued at $15.5bn has built its flagship on a Chinese base to reduce its dependence on its own backer.

Advertisement

The commercial logic is unsubtle. Every model call Harvey makes on a customer’s behalf is an invoice from a rival, and owning the engine turns a variable cost into a fixed one.

Quality is the other argument. Cofounder Gabe Pereyra, formerly of Google DeepMind, says Harvey already routes tasks to whichever model suits them, and Tenet adds an option shaped around legal work specifically.

The training material was manufactured. Harvey hired lawyers, on staff and through firms including Mercor and Snorkel, to invent mock disputes and case files and then grade how well models reasoned through them.

Europe’s answer to Harvey is Swedish. Legora is chasing a $10bn valuation and selling to many of the same firms, which makes the choice of base model a competitive question as much as a technical one.

Advertisement

For a European buyer the AI Act is the next question. A company that modifies someone else’s general purpose model becomes the provider of the modified version only when the change is significant, with the Commission’s guidelines using roughly a third of the original training compute as the indicative marker.

A post-train almost certainly falls well below that. Which means most of the obligations stay upstream, and a European law firm deploying Tenet ends up relying on a documentation chain that begins in Beijing.

The licence has a threshold of its own. Kimi K3 permits derivative models, but requires a separate agreement with Moonshot for model-as-a-service operators above $20mn of revenue in any 12 months, and Harvey runs at more than $350mn annualised, in a market already shaped by free Chinese models.

The open-weight debate has mostly been about capability and price. Harvey has quietly turned it into a question about who your counterparty is when the work is covered by privilege.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Motorola is prepping phones for GrapheneOS but may be priced more than the Google Pixel

Published

on

Motorola is preparing to become the first major smartphone maker beyond Google to sell phones built for GrapheneOS, the privacy-focused Android alternative best known for its tight security requirements. The catch is that these will not be cheap phones.

According to a Mastodon post by GrapheneOS, Motorola and the GrapheneOS project are targeting a 2027 launch for their first supported devices, with the initial lineup expected to consist of premium flagships. The phones are also expected to cost more than Google’s Pixel devices, which have long been the only mainstream smartphones officially supported by GrapheneOS.

GrapheneOS is finally moving beyond Pixel phones

The partnership, announced earlier this year, marks a significant expansion for GrapheneOS. The open-source operating system is built around privacy and security, adding protections such as hardened memory management, granular network permissions, enhanced sandboxing and other defenses beyond standard Android.

Until now, Pixel phones have been the project’s primary home because Google’s hardware met GrapheneOS’ strict security requirements. Motorola’s upcoming devices will change that, with the company working alongside the project to support the software.

Advertisement

The price, however, could be steep. Ars Technica reports that the GrapheneOS team expects the first Motorola phones to be premium flagship devices, potentially priced above Google’s Pixel lineup. With the Pixel 11 starting at $900 and the Pixel 11 Pro XL reaching $1,300, Motorola’s privacy-focused models could easily enter four-figure territory.

This Mastodon thread adds more context to Motorola’s plans. The initial devices are expected to receive seven years of proper software updates and will likely launch with Snapdragon hardware. GrapheneOS has indicated that Qualcomm’s newer flagship chips offer improved support for memory tagging, isolated components and other hardware-level security features needed for the project.

A more expensive phone could buy an unusual kind of freedom

The partnership matters because GrapheneOS users have effectively been tied to one hardware manufacturer. Anyone wanting the operating system’s security features had to buy a compatible Pixel, whether they liked Google’s phones or not.

Motorola gives those users another option, even if the first devices will not target the budget market. The company’s premium phones could also eventually give GrapheneOS support to form factors Google does not currently offer, including foldables. Ars Technica notes that Motorola’s recent flagship focus has increasingly centered on foldable devices, making them a plausible candidate for the new software.

More important than the hardware itself is the shift in what GrapheneOS represents. A project once almost entirely dependent on Pixel hardware is beginning to build relationships with major Android manufacturers. The thread also reports that Motorola is dedicating engineering resources to the porting and maintenance work, while GrapheneOS will also contribute directly to firmware and software support. The project says the phones should meet or exceed its requirements, including seven years of updates and protection for features such as boot modes.

Motorola has not yet revealed the phones themselves or confirmed exact pricing. GrapheneOS support is expected to arrive around launch in 2027, with installation likely to work through the project’s web-based installer. The bigger question is whether privacy-conscious buyers will pay a premium for choice. GrapheneOS may finally be escaping the Pixel, but freedom, it seems, could come with a flagship-sized price tag.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Sinestro in Lanterns explained: who is Hal Jordan’s villainous former mentor in episode 2 of the Green Lantern TV show on HBO Max?

Published

on

Lanterns episode 2 is now live on HBO Max — and it introduces viewers to the most famous Green Lantern villain of all, Thaal Sinestro.

Long-time Green Lantern fans will already know plenty about this recurring antagonist, his relationship to Hal Jordan, and why he’s deemed such a threat to the Green Lantern Corps and wider galaxy. However, unless you’ve read the source material and/or seen the disastrous 2011 Ryan Reynolds-starring Green Lantern movie, many of you won’t know much, if anything, about Sinestro.

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Batch file automated a clean-up job, then fouled itself by deleting the wrong directory

Published

on

SOFTWARE

It survived testing and the boss signed off, so who was really to blame?

WHO, ME? Welcome to another installment of “Who, Me?” – the reader-contributed column in which The Register opens the working week with your tales of IT woe.

This week, meet a reader we’ll Regomize as “Pascal,” who once worked for a company that had just acquired its first Exchange server, home to around 600 mailboxes.

Advertisement

“The IT manager was keen we kept on top of the performance of the Information Store and suggested we take the box offline once a week to defrag it,” Pascal told The Register.

That sounded like a sensible idea, so Pascal wrote a batch file to stop the Information Store, run eseutil /d to compact the database, delete the temporary files created during the process, and restart the service

“It tested OK and did make a difference to the size of the Store, so we scheduled it to run on the Friday night and left for the weekend,” he told Who, Me?

Pascal didn’t make it far into the weekend before his phone started buzzing with reports that Exchange had stopped working.

Advertisement

“I drove into work to check and found the Windows NT 4 server wasn’t happy. Hardly anything would run, and the services for Exchange had stopped,” he confessed to The Register.

Pascal quickly spotted the problem. His script contained the command DEL *.* but did not specify a directory. Running from the System32 folder, it therefore began deleting files there.

“My script wiped most of the System32 files, and that meant Windows NT 4 was lobotomized and the server was beyond repair,” Pascal wrote. “It needed a full rebuild and restore, which took me most of the weekend.”

Looking back, Pascal accepts that it wasn’t his finest hour. It was at least a lucrative one: he received double time to fix it. Pascal deleted System32 without deleting his career.

Advertisement

Have you deleted something important by mistake? Before your brain erases the memory of your shame, click here to send your story to Who, Me? Perhaps we’ll restore it in full on a future Monday. ®

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Jimmy Reed at Carnegie Hall Review: Bluesville Revives the Famous Concert Album That Wasn’t Live

Published

on

Record companies were playing games with album titles long before streaming services started calling 14 slightly different versions of the same record a “Deluxe Edition.”

Jimmy Reed really did perform at Carnegie Hall on May 13, 1961, sharing the “Blues at Carnegie” bill with Muddy Waters, Big Maybelle, Jimmy Witherspoon and Oscar Brown Jr. The album that followed, however, was not a live recording of that performance.

According to the original Vee-Jay liner notes, contractual and technical difficulties prevented the label from recording Reed’s Carnegie Hall appearance as intended. Vee-Jay subsequently recreated the material in studio sessions, and Jimmy Reed at Carnegie Hall arrived later in 1961 as a double LP.

The title certainly sounded better than Jimmy Reed Played Carnegie Hall But This Isn’t the Recording. Sixty-five years later, the music has survived the marketing department rather well.

Advertisement

Craft Recordings and its revived Bluesville imprint are returning Jimmy Reed at Carnegie Hall to vinyl on August 21, 2026, but collectors should understand exactly what they are getting. This is not a reissue of the complete original two-record set. Bluesville is reproducing the first LP only, containing the 11 tracks associated with Reed’s Carnegie Hall program.

The new edition has been remastered AAA from the original analog tapes by Matthew Lutthans at The Mastering Lab and pressed on 180-gram vinyl in partnership with Acoustic Sounds. It comes in a replica tip-on jacket with an obi featuring new reflections from Grammy-winning producer, songwriter and blues musician Scott Billington. At $33, it is also priced considerably more sensibly than a lot of modern audiophile vinyl.

Jimmy Reed Made Simplicity Very Difficult to Copy

Born Mathis James Reed in Dunleith, Mississippi, in 1925, Jimmy Reed became one of the most commercially successful blues musicians of the 1950s and early 1960s without sounding remotely interested in showing off.

Reed moved to Gary, Indiana, in 1948 and signed with Chicago’s Vee-Jay Records in 1953. His breakthrough arrived with “You Don’t Have to Go,” which reached No. 5 on Billboard’s R&B chart in 1955 and began an extraordinary run of successful singles.

Advertisement
jimmy-reed-carnegie-hall-bluesville-lp-cover

Between 1955 and 1961, Reed scored 18 Top 20 R&B hits, including “Ain’t That Lovin’ You Baby,” “You Got Me Dizzy,” “Honest I Do,” “Baby What You Want Me to Do,” “Big Boss Man” and “Bright Lights Big City.”

Not bad for someone whose music often sounds as though nobody involved was in much of a hurry.

Reed’s sound was built around relaxed shuffles, economical electric guitar, harmonica, uncomplicated arrangements and one of the most recognizable vocal deliveries in postwar blues. There was nothing flashy about it, but that was precisely the point.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Advertisement

His music sounded easy enough that thousands of musicians probably thought they could reproduce it. Most discovered that the hard part was not playing the notes.

Reed understood that a blues song does not automatically improve because the guitarist managed to squeeze another 47 notes into the solo. His timing, rhythmic feel and ability to leave space made the music work, and those qualities proved enormously influential.

The Rolling Stones, Van Morrison, the Grateful Dead and numerous other rock and R&B artists drew from or covered his material, and Reed was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1991.

His influence also extended beyond conventional blues circles. Reed’s relaxed rhythmic approach helped connect electric blues with R&B, rock, country and garage rock without requiring him to change very much about what he was doing.

Advertisement
jimmy-reed-carnegie-hall-bluesville-lp-back

“Bright Lights Big City”

“Bright Lights Big City” opens Side A and remains the obvious centerpiece.

The song became one of Reed’s biggest records in 1961 and is a perfect example of why his music remains so difficult to imitate convincingly. Nothing feels forced. The rhythm settles into place, the instrumentation leaves plenty of room around Reed’s voice, and the performance never sounds as though anyone is trying particularly hard to impress the listener.

That is precisely why it works.

The rest of the album stays comfortably within Reed’s established musical vocabulary. “I’m Mr. Luck,” “What’s Wrong Baby,” “Found Joy,” “Kind of Lonesome,” “Aw Shucks, Hush Your Mouth,” “Tell Me You Love Me,” “Blue Carnegie,” “I’m A Love You,” “Hold Me Close” and “Blue, Blue Water” do not pretend that Reed suddenly decided to reinvent Chicago blues.

Advertisement

Nor should they.

Reed found a formula that worked and became remarkably effective at making small changes in timing, guitar phrasing, harmonica and vocal delivery feel meaningful.

Some musicians need a wall of amplifiers and a pedalboard that resembles the control room at NORAD. Jimmy Reed needed a groove.

Whether Craft and Bluesville planned it this way or not, the Jimmy Reed and Skip James reissues share a stripped-down quality that makes both albums remarkably accessible. There is very little standing between you and the musicians, and neither recording needs modern studio tricks to convince you that something real happened in front of the microphones.

Advertisement
Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Are these on the same sonic level as some of the recordings Chad Kassem made at Blue Heaven Studios, the former church in Salina, Kansas? No. And if the blues means anything to you, you should own some of those as well. Kassem did all of us a favor by bringing aging and often underappreciated blues musicians into that remarkable space and recording them properly while there was still time.

Jimmy Reed at Carnegie Hall presents its music differently.

The image forms just in front of the loudspeakers rather than being thrust into your lap with a stiff drink and some floozy you met on a train pulling into Grand Central Station. There is intimacy here, but also some distance, and I think the recording benefits from it.

Advertisement

Reed’s voice is meatier and throatier than Skip James’, although it does not have quite the same grit or that I’ve seen the worst of man and somehow I’m still standing quality that makes the James record hit so hard. Reed sounds more relaxed and grounded, with enough texture in his voice to keep it believable without the mastering trying to manufacture additional age or suffering that was never on the tape.

The percussion is on the softer side and never becomes particularly forceful. Reed’s guitar is different. Individual notes have just enough energy, presence and bite to keep you leaning forward, and the mastering allows that character to emerge without making the instrument unnaturally sharp or oversized.

There were moments during my first few listens when the recording did not feel quite as connected as Devil Got My Woman. The voice, guitar and percussion do not lock together with the same almost eerie cohesiveness of the Skip James album. Give Reed a few spins, however, and the presentation starts to make more sense. You stop waiting for it to become something bigger and settle into its looser, more relaxed groove.

The pressing helps enormously. My copy was exceptionally clean, centered and free of distracting surface noise. There was not a smudge, pop or patch of groove noise pulling me away from the music.

Advertisement

Both of these Bluesville releases are worth owning, but they do not land with the same emotional force. The Jimmy Reed draws you in gradually.

The Skip James grabs you by the collar and reminds you why the blues existed in the first place. It is music for the imperfect parts of ourselves we never quite manage to bury, no matter how convincing the performance.

You can tell yourself that a sleeve full of fresh biltong might somehow make it all seem real again. But she is long gone.

And angry as hell.

Advertisement

Our Ratings:

★★★★★★★★★★ Music

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

★★★★★★★★★★ Sound Quality

★★★★★★★★★★ Pressing Quality

Advertisement

Where to buy:

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Why Are There So Many Fast Charging Standards, And What’s The Difference Between Them?

Published

on

Today, USB Power Delivery (USB PD) is the closest we have to a universal standard. It’s widely used across phones, tablets, laptops and some gaming portables.

Newer versions of USB PD push the standard forward. USB PD 3.1 raised the maximum supported power to 240W, while USB PD 3.2 is the spec’s latest revision. Those higher power levels target demanding devices like laptops and monitors. Phones typically don’t need anywhere near those maximum limits. Besides, thermal constraints would make 240W (or anything close to it) impractical and unnecessary for a handset anyway.

The iPhone 17 series is among the devices that support USB PD. Samsung and Google phones use fast-charging systems built around USB PD and its PPS feature.

PPS, or Programmable Power Supply, is one of the more advanced USB PD features available on phones. It lets the device request smaller, more precise voltage and current changes as it powers up. That can improve efficiency and help with heat management.

Advertisement

Samsung’s Galaxy S26 Ultra uses PPS as part of its 60W “Super Fast Charging 3.0” system. Meanwhile, Google’s Pixel 11 models use USB-C PPS charging to reach their fastest advertised speeds, with the Pixel 11 Pro designed for a 45W PPS charger. If you use Android flagships and want a versatile USB-C charger, PD with PPS is your go-to.

Remember Qualcomm Quick Charge? It was one of the first fast-charging systems for Android phones. Although it’s still around, USB PD has become the more broadly adopted standard across the mobile industry, to the degree that even newer Quick Charge versions themselves support it. In fact, a Qualcomm chip doesn’t even guarantee that the device uses Quick Charge, since phone makers can opt for other fast-charging systems instead.

Meanwhile, some Android phone makers use their own proprietary fast-charging systems. OnePlus and Oppo use technologies based on SuperVOOC, and Xiaomi uses HyperCharge on some models. The catch is that reaching the highest advertised speeds usually requires a compatible proprietary charger and, in many cases, the right cable, too. Still, many of these phones also support USB-C PD charging, although you might not get anywhere near the advertised speeds for the proprietary systems.

Speaking of which, it’s good to take manufacturer claims with a few grains of salt anyway. Phones marketed as supporting 80W or 100W charging don’t continuously draw that power from empty to full. Instead, they tend to charge fastest when the battery is fairly low, then rapidly taper the charging rate as the battery fills.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Neo-Cyclostyle: Automatic Document Copying Devices In 1890

Published

on

Using the special pens to remove the wax coating on the template. (Credit: Old Typerwriters and Calculators, YouTube)
Using the special pens to remove the wax coating on the template. (Credit: Old Typerwriters and Calculators, YouTube)

Document duplication has been a highly desirable feature, long before medieval monks slaved over yet another illuminated manuscript by flickering candle light. Fortunately one part of the Industrial Revolution was the invention of machines like Cyclostyle copying machines, which covered a range of manual and automated devices. One such crank-powered device from 1890 is demonstrated in this video.

The Cyclostyle and neo-Cyclostyle copying system was quite simple yet elegant: by removing the wax coating on a special piece of paper ink from a screen-printing system could be pressed through the resulting template, and allow for repeat copies to be made.

With the machine demonstrated in the video the ink is applied to the top rollers, with the lower roller inking itself on them during the retraction cycle, before applying the fresh ink to the screen on the cycle following the insertion of a fresh piece of paper to print on. With this method many copies of the design on the waxed template could be made before it had to be replaced, which would have saved countless hours of work by artists.

After the machine in the video more advanced designs were developed, some of which we covered previously. These would automate more parts of the process, making it faster and more precise, before being replaced by newer technologies.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

How to watch Rowing World Championships 2026: FREE live streams, schedule

Published

on

Watch Rowing World Championships 2026 live streams as reigning Olympic champions Oliver Zeidler, Karolien Florijn and the Sinkovic brothers battle for global supremacy at the Bosbaan on the outskirts of Amsterdam.

More than 1,200 athletes from over 60 countries are set to face off across 23 boat classes, including both Olympic and non-Olympic races – the men’s single sculls and women’s single sculls being the twin highlights.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025