If you own a Samsung smartphone and want earbuds to go along with it, the company’s Galaxy Buds are a tempting option. They have several features that only work with Samsung products, and they can often be included for free with the purchase of a new phone. Moreover, they sound good, too, especially the premium Galaxy Buds Pro — possibly thanks to Samsung’s ownership of some of the most respected audio brands on the market, including Harman International, Bowers and Wilkins, and JBL.
Samsung recently launched the Galaxy Buds4 Pro, the fourth generation of its premium true wireless earbuds, for $249. However, the Buds3 Pro, which launched in mid-2024, are still available for purchase, as are the Buds2 Pro and the original Buds Pro. All support active noise cancellation (ANC) and transparency mode, as well as a range of smart features. Sure, the newer products have a few extra tricks, like the live translation feature exclusive to the Buds3 series and up, or the ability to use head gestures, which is exclusive to the Buds4 Pro. With only minor differences, though, you might wonder whether you really need the latest and greatest, or whether you can skate by on a budget by scooping up an older pair of Galaxy Buds Pro.
To put that question to rest, I picked up all four pairs of Samsung’s top-line true wireless earbuds and put them through their paces. After comparing their ANC performance and sound quality, I found some surprising results.
Advertisement
Which pair of Galaxy Buds Pro has the best ANC?
Max Miller/SlashGear
To gauge the relative active noise canceling abilities of each, I used my studio reference monitors to play simulated jet cabin noise at 90 decibels, which is around the upper range of what you’ll experience at cruising altitude. I also used each pair of earbuds at my favorite coffee shop during the mid-afternoon rush.
Across the board, the original Galaxy Buds Pro had the worst ANC performance. It performed reasonably well in the airplane test, at least for lower frequencies and engine rumble, but it wasn’t so good at the higher-pitched whine. In the cafe setting, they did a decent job tamping down on the sound of an espresso machine, but couldn’t consistently mask sudden noises like chairs shifting or people laughing.
Advertisement
The best performer was the Galaxy Buds4 Pro. They muffled a much wider range of airplane engine noise and greatly reduced the most problematic noises at the cafe. However, it’s hard to say they’re that much better than the Galaxy Buds3 Pro. I had to A/B test both for several minutes before the differences became obvious to me. The Buds2 Pro is no slouch, either. Although ANC performance is a step behind the Buds3 Pro, they have longer eartips that protrude deeper into my ear canal, creating a better passive seal in my ears.
It’s worth noting that I used foam eartips from Comply instead of the standard ones. I cannot stand silicone eartips and prefer the superior comfort and sound isolation of foam. This likely affected my testing, but since foam tips were used for all tests, the relative results should be unaffected.
Advertisement
The Galaxy Buds Pro lineup sounds great across the board
Max Miller/SlashGear
When it comes to sound quality, the original Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro sounded the worst in my tests. That’s not to say they sound bad; none of these earbuds do. They are, however, less refined and do not support high-resolution Bluetooth on Samsung devices like the other models. The Galaxy Buds2 Pro are where Samsung’s earbuds graduate from good to great. They sound delightful, tracking closely to the Harman 2025 preference target aside from some elevated low-end and a large peak around 12,000 Hz.
When it comes to the Buds3 Pro and Buds4 Pro, things aren’t as simple. Both of these earbuds sound excellent, so which ones you’ll prefer likely comes down to taste. Samsung started using dual drivers with the Buds3 Pro, meaning there’s both a woofer and a tweeter inside; I found them to have the most V-shaped, or “exciting,” response. If you enjoy heavy, clear bass with a parallel emphasis on the upper range, the Buds3 Pro are your winners. They excel in genres such as dubstep and other EDM, pop, and some hip hop, but can be less impressive for rock n’ roll or country. However, I did notice some distortion at higher volumes.
The Buds4 Pro are a refinement of that approach, and my overall pick for sound quality. Samsung enlarged the dual drivers this year, but the V-shaped response is more toned down compared to the Buds3 Pro. Bass is far less forward, and there’s less excitement in the highs. It’s a much more balanced (but less fun) sound, and the Samsung app’s nine-band adaptive EQ makes it easier to tune them.
Advertisement
Fit and build quality vary across models
Max Miller/SlashGear
Build quality and fit vary across the models. The Buds Pro and Buds2 Pro use an in-ear design with fins to help them stay put. The Buds3 Pro and Buds4 Pro use a stemmed “elephant trunk” design similar to Apple AirPods. It’s a tradeoff. The stemless design of the first two models is harder to knock loose with a finger or bike helmet strap, but the touch controls are finicky, and I often paused music by accident while adjusting them. The stem on the later models reduces unintentional inputs, but makes them easier to dislodge accidentally.
The first two models use charging cases with identical external dimensions, like a ring box that opens clamshell style. This pattern is interrupted by the Buds3 Pro, which has a more AirPods-esque case. It’s by far the most pocketable, but it tends to open a bit in the pocket. It is also plagued by charging issues that afflicted my unit, and I often found one bud close to dead when I pulled them out. The Buds4 Pro returns to the ring box case, but is slightly larger and more squared off. It also has a clear plastic top so you can see the buds inside.
Where the original Buds Pro and Buds3 Pro use glossy finishes, the Buds2 Pro have a matte finish on the case and the buds themselves. It can begin to discolor over time (especially the lovely, lilac-colored version I own), but does not get disgustingly oily during use. Conversely, the Buds3 are especially nasty after a long listening session. The Buds4 Pro split the difference with a recycled plastic that isn’t too shiny, nor too matte. The material doesn’t get dirty easily.
Advertisement
Some features are exclusive to newer Galaxy Buds
Max Miller/SlashGear
Lastly, I investigated the difference in smart features across Galaxy Buds Pro models. All four have ANC and ambient mode, but the Buds3 and Buds4 Pro can automatically switch to ambient mode when they detect voices or emergency sirens. They are also the only models with voice controls — a feature I frankly cannot live without any longer. It’s simply too convenient to say, “Next song” or “Volume up” while I have wet or dirty hands. The Buds4 Pro also support head gestures, letting you nod or shake to answer or reject calls. Since my Samsung devices do not yet have the One UI 8.5 update, I wasn’t able to test this.
Although all four pairs of earbuds can automatically switch between your Samsung devices and Windows PCs with the Galaxy Buds app installed, the feature is inconsistent on all but the Buds4 Pro. I could rarely get the other three to notice when I stopped music on my phone to start a video on my tablet, but the latest model did much better. It only failed when trying to switch from my Windows PC back to a mobile device, an issue I attribute to Windows 11, not to Samsung.
Advertisement
All four Buds Pro models have 360-degree audio, a feature I’ve always found gimmicky. It’s hard to find many songs mixed in Dolby or other spatial formats, and their stereo mixes are usually superior, anyway. As for other media, I don’t watch movies or TV on my phone. All said, the Buds4 Pro win out for their more consistent performance.
Advertisement
The Galaxy Buds4 Pro are peak Samsung, but the Buds2 Pro are a value pick
Max Miller/SlashGear
After two full weeks of side-by-side testing, I’m going to hang onto the Samsung Galaxy Buds4 Pro as my main true wireless earbuds. They outperform their predecessors in terms of ANC, smart features, and battery life (which is excellent and beats Samsung’s estimates in my testing). Sound quality is subjective, but I think Samsung gave the Buds4 Pro a balanced, yet consumer-friendly sound that almost everyone will appreciate. Previous models sound good, but perform best with music that leans into their respective strengths. Fit, while very personal, is passable, and their build quality is the best overall.
While the Buds4 Pro are great, budget-conscious consumers should strongly consider the Buds2 Pro. Samsung no longer sells them directly, but you can pick up a renewed pair on Amazon for just $55 at the time of this writing. With Amazon’s notoriously generous return policy, that’s a deal worth rolling the dice on. Considering how little you’re missing out on compared to the brand-new Buds4 Pro, you should pick the Buds2 Pro up if you can find a new or factory-certified pair for under $100. I suggest checking local retailers for old stock, as well.
If you’ve already got the Buds2 Pro or Buds3 Pro and aren’t experiencing issues, there’s not a ton compelling you to upgrade (unless you buy a new Galaxy S26 and get the Buds4 Pro bundled for free). Those still using the original Galaxy Buds Pro, though, are likely to appreciate the improvements Samsung has made over the years.
Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson addressed concerns about a potential wave of new data centers in the city and raised the possibility of a moratorium, citing economic and environmental issues.
Wilson’s public statement Saturday followed a Seattle Times report April 10 that four companies have approached Seattle City Light about building five large-scale data centers with a combined peak demand of 369 megawatts, equal to roughly a third of Seattle’s average daily power consumption.
“I share community concerns about environmental justice, economic resilience, and impacts of increased costs for Seattle rate payers,” Wilson wrote on Facebook. “That’s why my team is working closely with Seattle City Light, City Council and stakeholders to identify a range of long-term policy approaches, including exploring a moratorium on siting new centers.”
Seattle already has about 30 data centers, but they’re relatively small. The proposed facilities would be the first at this scale in the city and could consume nearly 10 times more power than the existing ones at full capacity, according to the Seattle Times report.
The world’s biggest tech companies, including hometown tech giants Microsoft and Amazon, have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars building data centers to scale up artificial intelligence.
Advertisement
Those facilities have historically gone up in rural areas, but power availability has grown scarce in many markets, driving developers to look at cities with their own utility resources.
It’s not clear who the proposed data centers would be built for. Seattle City Light hasn’t disclosed the companies involved or proposed locations due to nondisclosure agreements.
Seattle City Light is rewriting its contract terms for large-load customers and plans to require data center operators to secure their own power generation and pay for infrastructure upgrades rather than passing costs to ratepayers. The companies are expected to decide in the next two to three months whether to formally apply for service.
Sometimes the best finds at AXPONA 2026 aren’t planned. I walked into Chesky Audio’s room chasing Schiit Audio gear in Room 709; there was plenty of it, including the Yggdrasil Singular DAC, Loki Max, Kara, and a pair of Tyr monoblocks driving the new Chesky LC2 loudspeakers, but no one from Schiit to talk shop. So I stayed put, listened, and let the room tell its own story.
That story changed fast when the pricing banner came into focus: $1,995. Not each. Per pair. In a show full of six-figure loudspeakers, the Chesky LC2 doesn’t just feel affordable; it feels like a direct challenge to how high-end audio defines itself.
And that’s where this gets more interesting. If high-end audio wants a future, it needs more designers like Lucca Chesky. He comes from a family name that carries real weight in the music world, but he’s not coasting on it. He’s studying engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, and it shows in how he approaches both design and people.
There’s no gatekeeping here, no “you don’t belong in this room” energy. The LC1 and now the LC2 are priced where actual listeners can engage, and he speaks about them in a way that makes you feel like you’re part of the conversation and not being lectured from behind a stack of gear you can’t afford.
Advertisement
The kid gets it. And judging by what I heard in that room, he’s not just talking a good game.
Admittedly, a $1,995 price tag only matters if the speakers can actually deliver. The original Chesky LC1 set a high bar, earning multiple “Best of Show” nods from the eCoustics team at previous events; something Chesky made no effort to hide with the awards laid out on the table. So yes, I was a bit late to the party.
Better late than never.
I stayed for several tracks to get a clearer sense of what the team had already heard in the Chesky LC1, and what that might mean for the new Chesky LC2. It didn’t take long to recognize a familiar foundation, but with more scale and a bit more weight behind it, suggesting this isn’t a departure so much as a more developed version of the same idea.
Advertisement
Chesky Audio LC2 Stand-mount Speakers with Schiit electronics at AXPONA 2026
An Affordable Speaker With Real Ambition
Much like the original Chesky LC1, the Chesky LC2 sticks to a compact two way monitor format. It pairs a dual chamber aperiodic 1 inch tweeter with a roughly 6.5-inch mid bass driver, both modified in house rather than pulled off a shelf. The familiar passive radiator approach is still here as well, now using larger 8-inch radiators on either side to extend low frequency output without relying on a traditional port.
Where things diverge, and where Chesky is clearly doing its own thing, is the cabinet. The front baffle is a 5/8-inch thick slab of machined aluminum, and the rest of the enclosure is 3D printed around that structure. It is an unusual approach, but the result is a cabinet that feels both rigid and relatively lightweight for its size. Each speaker measures roughly 13 x 9 x 13 inches and comes in just under 30 pounds.
It is also worth noting that these are not outsourced, mass produced boxes. Chesky Audio assembles, finishes, and tests the speakers in New Jersey before they ship. In a category where “designed here, built somewhere else” is the norm, these are actually made in the United States, and that still matters.
Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Advertisement
Lucca Chesky is also quick to point out that the drivers are not an afterthought. The mid-bass unit uses a cast-basket high-definition design more commonly found in higher-priced speakers, and the tweeter follows that same philosophy. He stops short of naming suppliers, but the implication is clear this is not generic OEM hardware.
Schiit Audio stack powered the Chesky Audio LC2 Speakers at AXPONA 2026.
The crossover is designed in house, although Chesky remains somewhat tight-lipped on specifics. Instead of locking into a fixed number, the crossover point is described as falling somewhere in the 3 to 5 kHz range. On paper, the speaker is rated at 86 dB sensitivity with a 4 ohm impedance that does not dip below 3.1 ohms across a stated 40 Hz to 20 kHz frequency range.
That combination suggests an easy enough load for most modern amplifiers, whether it is a vintage Kenwood receiver, a newer NAD integrated, or even a well-sorted ST-70 style tube amp build. But if our experience with the Chesky LC1 taught us anything, it is that specs do not tell the whole story. The LC1 benefited from more power than you might expect, and giving it better amplification paid off.
Until we get the Chesky LC2 in for a full review, it is too early to say how closely it follows that pattern.
Chesky LC2 in a Real Room at AXPONA 2026
Sound wise, the Chesky LC2 delivers clean mid-bass with solid detail and impact for a speaker of this size, but sub-bass is limited. That is not a surprise given the form factor. In a nearfield setup such as a desktop or small studio, there is enough low end to get by without a subwoofer, but in a larger room, adding one would make sense.
Advertisement
The midrange is where things come into better focus. There is a clear emphasis on clarity and balance, which aligns with what you would expect from anything carrying the Chesky name. Vocals come through naturally without sounding nasal or forced, and strings have enough presence to avoid sounding thin. That is not always a given with compact speakers, where cabinet limitations can work against natural timbre. The construction here likely plays a role, but that is something that needs more controlled listening to fully evaluate.
The top end had good energy and dynamic presence, but this is where the limitations of the show environment start to creep in. Between room noise and less than ideal setup conditions, it would be premature to draw firm conclusions without spending more time with the speakers in a more controlled space.
The Bottom Line
I can see several use cases for the Chesky LC2. Those looking for unpowered monitors for nearfield use will find them easy to live with as a standalone pair, and they also make sense in smaller rooms where space is limited. For larger spaces or mixed use systems that pull double duty for music and home theater, Chesky offers two, three, and five speaker packages that can be built out as needed.
Adding a subwoofer would round things out in those scenarios. Models like the REL Tzero or SVS 3000 Micro R|Evolution come to mind as good matches, offering tight, controlled low end without taking over the room or the budget.
Advertisement
With that kind of setup, the LC2 starts to make a lot of sense for multi purpose spaces where flexibility matters just as much as performance.
Proof-of-concept exploit code has been published for a critical remote code execution flaw in protobuf.js, a widely used JavaScript implementation of Google’s Protocol Buffers.
The tool is highly popular in the Node Package Manager (npm) registry, with an average of nearly 50 million weekly downloads. It is used for inter-service communication, in real-time applications, and for efficient storage of structured data in databases and cloud environments.
In a report on Friday, application security company Endor Labs says that the remote code execution vulnerability (RCE) in protobuf.js is caused by unsafe dynamic code generation.
The security issue has not received an official CVE number and is currently being tracked as GHSA-xq3m-2v4x-88gg, the identifier assigned by GitHub.
Endor Labs explains that the library builds JavaScript functions from protobuf schemas by concatenating strings and executing them via the Function() constructor, but it fails to validate schema-derived identifiers, such as message names.
Advertisement
This lets an attacker supply a malicious schema that injects arbitrary code into the generated function, which is then executed when the application processes a message using that schema.
This opens the path to RCE on servers or applications that load attacker-influenced schemas, granting access to environment variables, credentials, databases, and internal systems, and even allowing lateral movement within the infrastructure.
The attack could also affect developer machines if those load and decode untrusted schemas locally.
The flaw impacts protobuf.js versions 8.0.0/7.5.4 and lower. Endor Labs recommends upgrading to 8.0.1 and 7.5.5, which address the issue.
Advertisement
The patch sanitizes type names by stripping non-alphanumeric characters, preventing the attacker from closing the synthetic function. However, Endor comments that a longer-term fix would be to stop round-tripping attacker-reachable identifiers through Function at all.
Endor Labs is warning that “exploitation is straightforward,” and that the minimal proof-of-concept (PoC) included in the security advisory reflects this. However, no active exploitation in the wild has been observed to date.
The vulnerability was reported by Endor Labs researcher and security bug bounty hunter Cristian Staicu on March 2, and the protobuf.js maintainers released a patch on GitHub on March 11. Fixes to the npm packages were made available on April 4 for the 8.x branch and on April 15 for the 7.x branch.
Apart from upgrading to patched versions, Endor Labs also recommends that system administrators audit transitive dependencies, treat schema-loading as untrusted input, and prefer precompiled/static schemas in production.
Advertisement
AI chained four zero-days into one exploit that bypassed both renderer and OS sandboxes. A wave of new exploits is coming.
At the Autonomous Validation Summit (May 12 & 14), see how autonomous, context-rich validation finds what’s exploitable, proves controls hold, and closes the remediation loop.
The first mission when it comes to this machine was to dump the ROMs, which have thus far not been preserved in any major archive. With that done, [beaumotplage] worked to hack a version of MAME that could emulate the Three Monitor Version’s unique mode of operation. As it turns out, each screen is driven by its own arcade board, with the three boards linked via C139 serial links. To emulate this, the trick was simply to write some C139 linkup code and run three versions of MAME all at once, letting them communicate with each other as the original boards would have. It’s a little janky in operation right now, but it does work!
You can download the hacked version of MAME for three-monitor operation here, though note that this does not include the ROM dumps from the machine itself. We look forward to seeing if the hardware ends up getting a full restoration back to operational standard, too.
Statistics from Google show a steady rise in global IPv6 usage, climbing from near zero in early 2012 to 50.1% on March 28, briefly surpassing IPv4. Although the milestone did not hold, usage now hovers between 45% and 50%. Read Entire Article Source link
Apple has secured a major victory for its redesigned smartwatches as per the latest decision from the US International Trade Commission. The federal agency ruled against reinstating an import ban on Apple Watches, allowing the tech giant to continue selling its devices with a reworked blood-oxygen monitoring technology.
The ITC decided to terminate the case and refer to a preliminary ruling from one of its judges in March that claimed that Apple’s redesigned smartwatches don’t infringe on patents held by Masimo, the medical tech company that has long been embroiled in lawsuits surrounding the Apple Watch. Apple thanked the ITC in a statement, adding that “Masimo has waged a relentless legal campaign against Apple and nearly all of its claims have been rejected.” We reached out to Masimo for comment and will update the story when we hear back.
The latest decision could offer some closure to the longstanding legal feud between Masimo and Apple. The patent battle dates back to 2021 with Masimo’s first filing against Apple that requested an import ban on Apple Watches. The ITC ended up ruling that Apple violated Masimo’s patents, resulting in the previous import ban and the Apple Watch maker redesigning the blood-oxygen reading feature in certain models. However, Masimo wasn’t satisfied with this conclusion and sought another import ban on the updated Apple Watch models. Now that the ITC has ruled against that, Masimo is left with the option to appeal the decision with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
While Masimo may currently be on the losing side of this legal battle, it’s confronting Apple on multiple fronts. In November, a federal jury sided with Masimo and ruled that Apple has to pay $634 million in a separate patent infringement case.
A judge has granted the makers of the “ICE Sightings – Chicagoland” Facebook group and the Eyes Up app a preliminary injunction to stop the Trump administration from coercing platforms to take these projects down. Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that the plaintiffs, Kassandra Rosado and Kreisau Group, are likely to succeed in their case, which alleges that the government suppressed protected speech under the First Amendment by strong-arming Facebook and Apple into removing ICE monitoring efforts.
Both Eyes Up and ICE Sightings – Chicagoland use publicly available information to keep tabs on ICE activity. But after pressure from Trump officials, they were removed from Apple’s App Store and Facebook, respectively. Similar apps including ICEBlock and Red Dot were also taken down from the App Store and Google Play. The lawsuit cites social media posts by former US Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem that demanded and took credit for the removal of these apps. In a document filed on Friday, Alonso called these posts “thinly veiled threats.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which is defending the plaintiffs, wrote in a post on X that it is “extremely encouraged by this ruling.” It continued, “Even though it’s not the end of the case, it bodes well for the future of our legal fight to ensure that the First Amendment protects the right to discuss, record, and criticize what law enforcement does in public.”
Research and development engineer Romain Marchand of Paris headquartered Quarkslab obtained a telematic control unit (TCU) from a salvage yard in Poland… Marchand tore down the TCU, which is based on a Qualcomm system on a chip, and extracted the Linux-based file system from the Micron multi-chip package (MCP) which contained NAND-based non-volatile storage memory. The non-volatile storage contained sensitive information, including system configuration data and more importantly, logs that revealed the vehicle’s GPS positions over time.
None of that information was encrypted, Marchand told iTnews, which made it possible to collect and retrieve sensitive data of interest. What’s more, the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) logs with GPS positions covered the BYD’s full journey from the factory in China to its operational life in the United Kingdom, and to its final wrecking in Poland, Marchand explained in an analysis… The issue is not restricted to BYD, and Marchand added that the hardware architecture of the Chinese car maker’s TCU is broadly similar to what can be found in other brands.
Not everyone had the money for the original Neo Geo Advanced Entertainment System when it released in the ’90s, but there’s still a chance to experience it as an adult with disposable income. SNK and Plaion Replai, who is also behind the all-black remake of the Commodore 64, announced a faithful remake of the high-end retro console, called the Neo Geo AES+.
To bring the original console into the modern day, the collaborating companies added HDMI compatibility for resolutions up to 1080p and DIP switches on the bottom of the console to allow for language selection, overclocking and switching display modes. Rounding out the upgrades, SNK and Plaion Replai included a permanent way to retain high scores on a memory card and a low-power usage mode. For the purists out there, the Neo Geo AES+ still works on those chunky CRT displays since it has the original AV output.
Preorders are currently open for two versions of the Neo Geo AES+, including an all-white 35th anniversary edition bundle that includes an Arcade Stick, a limited-edition Metal Slug game cartridge and a memory card, for $349.99. The standard edition in classic black will only come with an arcade stick, but will be available for $249.99. Coinciding with the console release, Replai Plaion will release 10 modernized game cartridges, including Metal Slug, The King of Fighters 2002 and other classics, for $89.99 each. If you think those prices are high, don’t forget the original Neo Geo AES’ release price was $649.99. The Neo Geo AES+ is set to start shipping on November 12.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login