Tech

TIDAL Raises Prices Again: What It Means for Music Streamers

Published

7 hours ago

9 July 2026

TIDAL is raising prices in the U.S. beginning August 3, 2026, and the move makes the hi-res music streaming market a little more complicated for subscribers trying to decide where their money should go. For most of us that would be a new air conditioner this summer but I digress.

The short version: TIDAL is still a strong option for listeners who care about lossless, hi-res FLAC, Dolby Atmos, and TIDAL Connect. But it is no longer the automatic value play, especially for families and students.

What Did TIDAL Do?

TIDAL says its new prices will take effect on a subscriber’s first billing date on or after August 3, 2026. Until then, existing subscribers remain on their current pricing. TIDAL also says subscribers do not need to do anything if they want to continue; the subscription will simply renew at the updated rate.

The new U.S. pricing is:

Individual: $11.99/month
Family: $19.99/month
Student: $6.99/month

TIDAL’s current pricing page lists those plans with access to more than 180 million tracks in lossless, hi-res FLAC, and Dolby Atmos, along with ad-free and offline listening.

The increases are not massive on the Individual plan, but they are more noticeable elsewhere. TIDAL’s prior U.S. support page listed Individual at $10.99/month, Family at $16.99/month, and Student at $5.49/month. That means Individual goes up by $1/month, Family rises by $3/month, and Student jumps by $1.50/month.

That Student increase is the one that looks the most aggressive. Students are already living on caffeine, expired meal-plan points, and financial anxiety. Asking them to pay more for hi-res audio feels a little cruel, even if the service itself remains very good.

How Does TIDAL Compare to Its Competitors?

Feature	TIDAL	Apple Music	Qobuz	Spotify	Amazon Music
Individual Plan	$11.99	$10.99	$12.99	$12.99	$12.99 ($11.99 Prime)
Family Plan	$19.99	$16.99	$21.90	$21.99	$21.99
Student Plan	$6.99	$5.99	$4.99	$6.99	$5.99
Max Audio Quality	24-bit/192kHz	24-bit/192kHz	24-bit/192kHz	24-bit/44.1kHz	24-bit/192kHz
Immersive Audio	Dolby Atmos	Dolby Atmos	–	–	Dolby Atmos + 360 RA
Best For	TIDAL Connect and hardware support	Apple ecosystem and families	Audiophile album listeners	Discovery and podcasts	Prime and Alexa households

TIDAL’s new $11.99/month Individual plan is still competitive. It is cheaper than Spotify Premium at $12.99/month and Qobuz Studio at $12.99/month when paid monthly. It also matches Deezer Premium at $11.99/month and Amazon Music Unlimited for Prime members at $11.99/month.

The problem for TIDAL is Apple Music. Apple Music remains $10.99/month for Individual, $16.99/month for Family, and $5.99/month for Student. It also includes lossless audio, Hi-Res Lossless up to 24-bit/192kHz, Spatial Audio with Dolby Atmos, and Apple Music Classical.

For families, Apple Music is the obvious price leader. TIDAL’s Family plan is now $19.99/month, compared with Apple Music at $16.99/month. Deezer also sits at $19.99/month, while Spotify and Amazon Music Unlimited are more expensive at $21.99/month.

For audiophiles, Qobuz remains the most direct rival. Its monthly Solo plan is $12.99/month, but Qobuz lowers the effective price to $10.83/month with a $129.99 annual subscription. Qobuz also emphasizes 24-bit hi-res streaming, music journalism, reviews, and a download store, which still gives it a more purist identity than most streaming platforms.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Spotify is the strange one. It now costs more than TIDAL for an Individual plan, but its lossless tier tops out at 24-bit/44.1kHz. Spotify still wins on playlists, discovery, podcasts, social features, and habit. It does not win on hi-res audio.

Why Is TIDAL Raising Prices?

TIDAL says it is updating prices so it can continue supporting artists and rightsholders while investing in new features, improvements, and the high-quality listening experience users expect from the platform.

That is the official explanation, and it is also the standard streaming-industry answer. The broader reality is that subscription prices have been moving upward across the category. Spotify now charges $12.99/month for Individual, $18.99/month for Duo, and $21.99/month for Family in the U.S. Apple Music is still less expensive than most of the field, but the days of every major music service sitting around $9.99/month are over.

TIDAL also has to justify continued investment in a platform built around higher-quality audio, Dolby Atmos, hardware integration, offline listening, and artist-focused positioning. None of that is free to operate. The question is whether consumers believe TIDAL offers enough that is genuinely different.

How Does This Impact Consumers?

For Individual subscribers, the impact is annoying but not dramatic. A $1/month increase is not likely to force many serious TIDAL users to cancel, especially if they rely on TIDAL Connect or listen through equipment that makes lossless and hi-res streaming worthwhile.

For Family subscribers, the increase is more meaningful. TIDAL is now $3/month more expensive than Apple Music Family. Over a year, that is a $36 difference. That is not life-changing money, but it is enough to make families compare services more carefully.

For students, TIDAL becomes a harder sell. At $6.99/month, it is now more expensive than Apple Music, Amazon Music Unlimited, Deezer, Qobuz, and YouTube Music student plans. TIDAL may still be the better choice for students with serious audio hardware, but most students are not comparing 24-bit/192kHz playback through a desktop DAC. They are trying to make rent and keep their earbuds charged.

For audiophiles, TIDAL still makes sense if the service fits your system. TIDAL Connect remains a major advantage for streamers, DACs, powered speakers, and network players that support it. The catalog is large, the hi-res FLAC messaging is cleaner than the old MQA era, and the app remains more music-focused than Spotify or YouTube Music.

For casual listeners, Apple Music is now the tougher value to ignore. It costs less, includes lossless and hi-res audio, offers Dolby Atmos, and works extremely well if you already live inside the Apple ecosystem.

The Bottom Line

TIDAL did not price itself out of the market. The Individual plan remains competitive, and the service still has real value for listeners who care about hi-res streaming, Dolby Atmos, TIDAL Connect, and hardware support.

But the price increase weakens TIDAL’s argument for families and students. Apple Music is cheaper. Qobuz is more audiophile-focused. Spotify is better for discovery and social listening. Amazon Music Unlimited makes sense for Prime households. Deezer offers a simpler CD-quality alternative at the same Individual price.

TIDAL is still worth paying for if you actually use what makes it different. If you are only streaming in the car, through cheap Bluetooth earbuds, or from a phone speaker while pretending to hear 24-bit/192kHz magic, the new pricing should make you ask a very simple question: why are you paying for the fancy bottle if you are drinking it from a paper cup?

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

For more information: tidal.com

Source link

Tech

6 Audi Engines You Should Steer Clear Of

Published

4 minutes ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

By D Figg

July 9, 2026 1:30 pm EST

Design, performance, comfort, convenience – Audi makes fantastic cars that have it all. It was the first of the big three Germans to make a proper supercar in the R8. However, the company does have its flaws. During my junior year, I started an apprenticeship in automotive repair, where I would eventually specialize in the Volkswagen Auto Group brands, including Audi. Interestingly, it was about that time that the relatively new MLB Evo platform was coming into its sixth year – in other words, just out of warranty or extended warranty for many. Of course, unlike Nissan’s disastrous CVT, which got the company sued in a Tennessee court, properly maintained Audis gave owners little to worry about.

Not all engines paired to the new-ish platforms were made equal, though, and I did run into several more than I wanted to. Cut to today, and I am a valuations expert for several car showrooms in Dubai, specializing in — you guessed it — the Volkswagen Group. Though I have since eschewed my grease monkey overalls for a pressed suit, researching this article brought back some fairly recent memories of digging about in assorted VW engine bays. I can’t speak to much of the newer generation models since we don’t have the data for it — most repairs would be in warranty at the moment — but there are definitely some particularly bothersome engines I would avoid, unless you really like the car and know what lies ahead.

What is FSI and TFSI

An unidentified Audi model on a V6 engine cover with the

Mseidelch/Getty Images

The naming conventions for some of these engines can be confusing for non-technical buyers, so let’s go over them before getting into the list in earnest. The words FSI or TFSI are found behind every single gasoline-powered Audi on the market today.

First, fuel stratified injection (FSI) is a fancy way of saying that the engine features gasoline direct injection. This design has the benefit of improved cooling (among other things) over non-FSI engines, which could could have “hot spots” — areas of higher temperature that could cause fuel to randomly combust out of place. This phenomenon, known as “knocking” is reduced to a great degree in FSI engines, as the (relatively) cool fuel regulates the temperature inside the engine’s combustion chamber.

The “T” in TFSI simply indicates an FSI engine that features forced induction. As a matter of fact, Audi was actually the first ever car company in the world that combined FSI with a turbocharger (where the T comes from), back in 2004.

As of 2009, every gas Audi was an FSI engine, with a great many being turbo units. In fact, five of the engines that follow are TFSI units.

2.0 TFSI EA888

First up, we have the 2.0 TFSI, known through its model code of EA888, which would get a mid-cycle refresh after a few years. The motor itself was a 2-liter inline-four unit that was available in the A4 and A5 B8s, the Q5 8Rs, and the A3 8Ps from around 2005 to 2015. A middle ground in terms of power would be the 2012 A4, which made 211 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque. The issues that plagued this engine were extreme oil consumption (in some cases as high as 1 quart per 1,000 miles on the upper end) as well as timing chain failures. The tensioner is a problem on most Audi engines from this era, whether the root cause is the flywheel/firewall-adjacent placement of the chain during servicing.

The root cause of the high oil consumption problem (especially on early gen 2.0 TFSI engines) is widely agreed to be thin, poorly designed and sometimes defective piston rings that were prone to microscopic leaks. These leaks would compound and cause the oil to drain out much faster than was normally expected or acceptable. The issue got so bad that a class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey in 2026 to remedy the issue. Additionally, the water pump on the early (2006 until about 2012) 2.0 TFSI four-cylinders is also prone to failing. All of that is in addition to the standard wear and tear a high-maintenance German car of this age typically faces.

1.8 TFSI EA888

Next up, we have an engine best described as the younger sibling to the 2.0 liter TFSI above: the 1.8 TFSI EA888. As the name suggests, this was a four-cylinder unit featuring a turbocharger and direct gasoline injection that displaced 1,798cc via a bore of 82.5 millimeters and a stroke of 84.1 millimeters. It was remarkably similar to the 2.0 TFSI, though it was offered in the A4 and A5 on the B8 chassis, where it made about 170 hp in total. The main issue with this engine continued to be shoddy piston rings with improperly sized drainage holes that led to high oil consumption.

For some reason this engine also absolutely loved to gobble up its timing chains prematurely, and cold starting your car could frequently lead to the dreaded rattle-rattle-rattle that was so common on these second-gen architecture EA888s. We specifically want to point out that these issues did indeed lie with the B8 chassis in particular — not because the chassis had anything to do with them — but because the newer B8.5 chassis with the third-gen EA888 did remedy these to a large extent. That’s not to say that a B8.5 chassis with the 1.8 TFSI is without its problems; no 15-year-old German car will be, so don’t take that as a buying endorsement.

4.0 TFSI V8 EA824 CEUC and CTGE

Now, the reason we had to include that alphanumeric soup in the engine name is because Audi has built more than its fair share of 4.0-liter V8 engines over the years, and we needed to be specific — not all of its V8s were bad, after all. Let’s break down the name first. You already know what TFSI means, and EA824 is the engine family. CEUC is an internal naming system that Audi uses for subdividing its engines, and specifically, the CEUC V8 was used on the C7 family of cars. This family consisted of the Audi S7, S7, RS6, and RS7 for that particular generation, which ran until about 2016, which is when the successive EA825 engines came out.

For all intents and purposes, the CEUS can be considered the “first” generation, while the EA825 (known as the CTGE, pictured above) is the “second” generation, helped along by Porsche’s engineers. Performance on the first-gen CEUC V8 was great, pushing 605 hp and 516 lb-ft of torque in the 2017 Audi RS7, but the turbos would face oil starvation, bits would chip off due to friction, and metal shavings could (and did) enter the internals and wreck the turbo and engine. Being a luxury German brand, repairs were never cheap, especially not “engine out” ones. Other problems included issues with the starter motor and coolant leaks, though this was more up to the owners not doing preventive maintenance in our opinion.

4.2 FSI V8 (B series)

This engine is not to be confused with the legendary 4.2-liter naturally-aspirated V8 that was found in the now-discontinued Audi R8, even though the displacement and layout was the same. Audi actually made two separate (roughly) versions of the 4.2 FSI V8 engine, with differing use cases. The BNS engine code was more performant because it revved higher and had slightly different internals, such as adjusted camshafts and chain layouts.

This series of engines could be found in models like the RS6, RS5, and RS4. Then you had the lineup of the 4.2 V8s that had a lower redline, more geared towards daily applications. The most prominent engine code from this family was the BAR, though there were others, and could be found in models like the Q7 and A8. Now to be clear this one is not a ridiculously unreliable motor like the others on our list.

The problem is that when time for even a teeny repair comes, the layout of the engine is so bad that labor alone will bankrupt you. Similar to the early 2000s Bentley problem of having to have the engine out of the bay for basically anything. Examples on the 4.2 V8 are rear-mounted timing belts, engine mounts going, issues with the suspension and carbon buildup, engine intakes going, and more. The problem is that the V8 4.2s are found in enthusiast cars from the late 2000s to the early 2010s, so it’s something to definitely be aware of.

1.4 and 1.2 TFSI EA111 specifications

For these engines we’re taking a slightly different structure, because talking about the two engines in question together makes more sense, given their similarities. For those who don’t know, Volkswagen owns a number of car brands, including Audi and Skoda. The EA111 family of engines includes two very popular models, the 1.4-liter TFSI and its smaller sibling, the 1.2-liter TFSI.

As far as Audi models go, this engine family featured on the A1 and A3 compact cars — specifically the ones that used the 8P at the time. However, the Volkswagen Golf also used both of these engines for a very long production run, though the current Golf lineup consists of a 1.5 and a 2.0-liter option only.

The horsepower figures were quite similar between the two brands, with the 2012 Audi A3 making a decent 120 hp and 148 lb-ft of torque, while the 2011 Volkswagen Golf ended up with up to 158 hp and 177 lb-ft of torque. And yes, for those wondering, that does mean that the Audi A3 is essentially just a dressed-up version of the Golf, which is a fact that Audi doesn’t want you to realize. It’s also worth mentioning that there is slightly differing terminology between Audi and VW with regards to the naming of the engine – TFSI on Audi is called TSI on Volkswagen, but the engines are essentially the same.

1.4 and 1.2 TFSI EA111 problems

Now that we’ve got the comparisons out of the way, let’s talk about the issues this engine family faced – there were quite a few. Specific examples would be too many to name, but the entire EA111 family suffered from four main pain points with a degree of commonality. These were timing chain stretch, timing chain tensioner failures, water pump issues, misfires and rough running, and electrical issues. The timing chain issues were at the forefront of complaints about the car, especially with regards to the durability of the chains.

Since the models that this engine family was found in (the Audi A1, A3, and Volkswagen Golf) are by far the cheapest on this list, these issues are worth being aware of. For instance, on the used market, a 2012 Audi A3 will cost you only around $7,000 for a low-mileage model, but be prepared for a repair bill sooner rather than later.

However, the good news for someone looking to pick up an Audi with the EA111 engine is that though the problems will be shared with the Golf, so will the solutions. Repairs (and labor) will be widely available and not mega-expensive, especially at independent mechanics. Volkswagen phased out the EA111 in 2012, and Audi followed suit soon after.

A note about Audi model names

If you see an alphanumeric code behind a model, like “A4 B8,” the B8 refers to the generation. It’s important to mention the generation because VW has released several overlapping years. For example, the B8 ran from around 2008 to 2012, and the B8.5 ran from 2013 to 2016, but the B9 ran from 2015 onward. Different markets also had different phased rollouts.

Sometimes the U.S. was the first to get a new platform, sometimes it was the last, and other times it was skipped. Thus, chassis codes, which double up as generation codes (“B8” is to Audi what “997” is to Porsche) are useful to us.

Furthermore, all the engines on this list are from the 2010s, and this is with good reason. You see, when an engine is new, and develops a problem, Audi’s service centers would fix it, meaning independent technicians wouldn’t get to see or log the problems.

Warranty periods could stretch as long as seven years, if things like an extended warranty or extended Audi-approved service plan were purchased, and that would further delay the information being available to the consumer market. It’s not just Audi that does this, either — basically every mainstream brand is guilty of the practice — but that’s why the engines on this list are all “previous” generation. Of course, the cars being a little older also means that prices are probably down on the used market, so they could be tempting to buyers.

Methodology

After shortlisting several engines from recent generations of Audi vehicles known to be problematic, we began trawling the internet for complaints about the specific car and engine pairing. Every single car on this list has been looked up on the NHTSA recall finder tool, and that includes every single year that the generation was in production. Common issues were extrapolated and listed; we also took into account owner complaints and feedback on model-specific and Audi-specific internet forums.

We also looked at data on the engines in question through the various handbooks published either by Volkswagen Auto Group, Audi, or the NHTSA’s self-study guides to confirm that there were no major architectural changes to the engine or engine family in the generation that we’re talking about.

For technical facts and figures like horsepower, torque, displacement, weight, and model utilization, we looked directly at press releases from Audi. Where able, we sourced images directly from Audi’s legacy press release archive to ensure that the exact engine we’re talking about is shown, to avoid confusion. Where current pricing for used models is listed, we researched and took a ballpark figure from classifieds sites with a Dallas zip code and the filter set to show “nationwide” results.

Source link

Tech

iPhone 17 vs Samsung Galaxy S26: Which flagship wins?

Published

13 minutes ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

The iPhone 17 and Samsung Galaxy S26 are two very similar standard flagships, making the decision of which to buy all the more challenging.

Do you go for the premium, Liquid Glass-inspired iPhone 17 or stick to the ultra-slim Android flagship experience of the Samsung Galaxy S26? Is there really a difference in how they perform day-to-day? And what about elements like camera hardware, screen tech and all-important battery life?

While it’s easy to compare the two on paper, we’ve used both the iPhone 17 and Samsung Galaxy S26 in day-to-day use – and here’s how they compare in the real world.

Pricing and availability

The Samsung Galaxy S26 is the more expensive of the two, coming in at £879 for its 256GB model.

SQUIRREL_PLAYLIST_10208273

That said, if budget is a primary concern, the iPhone 17 is a slightly more affordable option at £799, with the same generous 256GB of storage out of the gate.

SQUIRREL_PLAYLIST_10207955

Design

The iPhone 17 and Samsung Galaxy S26 both present beautifully compact forms compared to their giant Ultra and Pro Max siblings, making them much easier to use one-handed, though they tackle premium builds in slightly different ways.

Galaxy S26 rear — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

The Samsung Galaxy S26 is certainly the thinner and lighter of the two, measuring in at just 7.2mm at the edges and a mere 167g in the hand. Samsung has refined the design slightly this year, shrinking the display bezels further and housing the cameras in a raised, pill-shaped island rather than letting them poke out awkwardly.

However, if you hate a phone that rocks when placed flat on a table, beware; the S26 is the wobbliest phone we’ve used in a while.

Samsung Galaxy S26 - in hand back design — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

It’s a pretty premium experience elsewhere, however, with a chassis constructed of aluminium and Gorilla Glass Victus 2, complete with full IP68 dust and water resistance to round things out.

The iPhone 17, on the other hand, retains its highly familiar (and now iconic) flat-edged, rounded-corner look it has sported for several generations, complete with the same aluminium frame and frosted glass panel on the rear. It also comes in attractive colour options like Sage and Mist Blue, alongside a premium-looking matte-black finish.

iPhone 17 on a table — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

Like the Pro models, it features the programmable Action button on the left and Camera Control on the right, though the latter remains placed a little too far down the side to be comfortable enough for swift setting changes or snapping photos.

iPhone 17 Camera Control — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

Apple has, however, enhanced the phone’s ruggedness with Ceramic Shield 2 on both the front and back to ward off micro-scratches and damage from drops, and while it matches the S26’s IP68 rating, it boasts added protection down to 6 meters for up to half an hour.

Screen

Both Apple and Samsung deliver a top-notch screen experience, though the iPhone finally takes the win with this generation.

Samsung Galaxy S26 - video watching in hand — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

The Samsung Galaxy S26 delivers a vibrant 6.3-inch Dynamic AMOLED 2X panel with a 1080 x 2340 resolution and a smooth LTPO-enabled 120Hz refresh rate – a very familiar setup largely carried over from the Galaxy S25.

Still, general viewing angles are fantastic, and its 2600nit peak brightness easily cuts through direct sunlight outdoors. It does, however, miss out on the anti-reflective coating and Privacy Display tech found on the S26 Ultra.

Apple, on the other hand, has finally relented and added the previously Pro-exclusive ProMotion 120Hz screen tech to the base-model iPhone 17.

iPhone 17 displaying a full-screen image — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

The 6.3-inch screen packs a sharp 1206 x 2622 resolution that remains detailed, bright and vivid, but the more important element here is LTPO tech; it allows the screen to drop all the way down to 1Hz to maximise battery life, just like Samsung’s option.

Visibility is also impressive, with the iPhone 17 reaching a massive 3000-nit peak brightness (1600-nit in high-brightness mode) while dropping to just 1 nit for a more comfortable late-night viewing experience.

Cameras

If there’s one area where the Galaxy S26 and iPhone 17 diverge, it’s in the camera department.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 features a strong triple-camera system comprising a 50MP main sensor, a 10MP 3x telephoto zoom lens, and a 13MP ultrawide. The primary camera is the strongest of the bunch, capturing detailed photos with a vibrant, saturated processing style that preserves shadow detail in backlit scenes – but the other sensors are weaker.

The 3x zoom struggles to lock focus on moving objects in windy conditions, and because it’s only a 10MP sensor, digital cropping is limited compared to high-res rivals. The 13MP ultrawide is the weakest link, turning out grainy, pale images with clear edge distortion as soon as light levels drop.

The iPhone 17, on the other hand, lacks a dedicated telephoto lens, instead relying on an optical-quality 2x in-sensor digital crop from its otherwise excellent 48MP main sensor, which can push to around the 4x mark before things get spotty.

iPhone 17 cameras — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

The main snapper provides sharp, colour-accurate images with Apple’s reliable ‘always good’ point-and-shoot processing. This year’s standout is the massive upgrade to the accompanying 48MP ultrawide sensor, which finally matches the main sensor in colour and detail, even in more challenging lighting conditions.

We’re also big fans of the iPhone’s new selfie camera; it uses an 18MP square sensor, allowing you to take full-res portrait or landscape shots without needing to rotate the phone. A small touch, but one that makes a big difference in use.

Performance

In terms of day-to-day use, both devices feel rapid with plenty of processing headroom that’ll get you through most mobile-related tasks without breaking much – if any – of a sweat.

Mario gaming on Galaxy S26 — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

The Galaxy S26 ships with the Exynos 2600 chipset in the UK (the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 in other regions like the US) and a rather generous 12GB of RAM. Benchmark scores are, unsurprisingly, brilliant, nearly matching the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 in the S26 Ultra in some cases.

It also helps that One UI is highly optimised, ensuring that taps and swipes are fluid and lag-free. Gaming is similarly smooth, with titles like Mario Kart Tour running at high resolutions without noticeably heating its relatively thin chassis.

Using an iPhone 17 — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

The iPhone 17 counters the S26’s performance with its custom Apple A19 chip alongside a more conservative 8GB of RAM. Though it lacks the extra GPU core of the A19 Pro variant, it handles pretty much everything flawlessly. Social media timelines scroll without a hint of stutter, and intensive apps load instantly. You’ll be able to play even console-level games on this thing without much issue.

Software

Your choice of phone will likely come down to your preference for iOS or Android, but regardless, both systems have had notable updates this year.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Audio Eraser — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

The S26 runs One UI 8.5 based on Android 16, but the bigger focus here is its AI smarts. Galaxy AI covers a wide range of features, from returning favourites like photo eraser to new features like the real-time AI Noise Eraser, which reduces distracting background tracks and crowd sounds directly in apps like YouTube. And, with seven years of OS upgrades to look forward to, it should only improve over time.

The iPhone 17 runs iOS 26, which as I’m sure we’re all aware of at this point, ships with the redesigned Liquid Glass interface. The at-times controversial UI change adds an unmistakable charm to the software, with colours physically refracting beneath the UI layers and moving with organic elasticity.

iPhone 17 Home Screen — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

Unfortunately, Apple’s AI push remains underwhelming, especially compared to Samsung’s. The Photo Clean Up tool leaves glaring signs of editing, text transcription is hit-and-miss, and Image Playgrounds looks almost child-like compared to rivals.

However, that could all change with iOS 27 and the long-awaited release of the redesigned, smarter Siri – we’ll just have to wait and see for now.

Battery life

When it comes to both overall battery life and charging capabilities, Apple’s iPhone 17 has a clear win.

Samsung Galaxy S26 - standing video watching landscape — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

The Samsung Galaxy S26’s 4300mAh battery is an improvement over its predecessor, but it remains somewhat average in use. Light users managing around 3-4 hours of screen time per day will coast through easily, but power users will find themselves running low before the sun goes down.

It’s also severely let down by slow 25W charging and a Qi2 wireless implementation without magnets, instead leaving magnetic connectivity to casemakers.

The iPhone 17, on the other hand, sports a 3692mAh battery that comfortably lasts through an intense 12- to 14-hour day with few complaints. Everyday tasks like scrolling through TikTok, using Google Maps for navigation and messaging on WhatsApp will still leave you with a solid 20% or so in the tank by bedtime.

iPhone 17 lock screen — Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

Charging is also significantly improved, boasting rapid 40W wired charging and 25W MagSafe wireless support. Paired with a 65W charger, it hits 50% in just 26 minutes – much quicker than the Samsung competition.

Verdict

Overall, the iPhone 17 stands out as the better buy for most people in this generation, with Apple finally addressing key long-term complaints in its entry-level iPhone.

Both devices offer premium, compact designs that are increasingly rare in the smartphone market, paired with fluid 120Hz displays, exceptional flagship performance, and capable primary camera sensors. However, the iPhone 17 justifies its price with superior camera hardware – both front and rear – and vastly superior 40W wired and 25W magnetic wireless charging.

That said, the Galaxy S26 remains an excellent choice if you’re on the market for a triple-lens camera system with a dedicated 3x zoom lens, prefer an ultra-thin 7.2mm body, or simply prefer Android to iOS. There’s no hardware that’ll tempt you if you don’t like the hardware it runs on, after all.

But, with its weak secondary cameras, average battery life and slower 25W charge speeds, it takes a back seat to the more polished package offered by the iPhone 17.

To see how the two compare more widely, take a look at our selection of the best smartphones.

Source link

Tech

Best Budget Earbuds for 2026: Cheap Wireless Picks

Published

27 minutes ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Baseus Inspire XP1: A trickle of earbuds from value oriented brands have come out in the last year in collaboration with Bose, which has been gradually expanding its “Sound by Bose” initiative that brings its brand to more affordable headphones and earbuds. Like the Skullcandy Method 360 ANC earbuds, the Baseus Inspire XP1 feature very good sound in a set of comfortable earbuds that share some similarities with Bose QuietComfort Ultra earbuds, particularly how they fit (they have similar ear tips to the Ultras, and the buds fit my ears quite well). The Inspire XP1’s price fluctuates and sometimes dips to $100, which is the best time to buy them.

Anker Soundcore Liberty 4 NC: Released in 2023, the Anker Soundcore Liberty 4 NC earbuds carry a lower list price than 2022’s Liberty 4 buds and are arguably better in some ways. They have improved noise cancellation and better sound quality, along with support for the LDAC audio codec for devices that support it. (Many Android smartphones do, and in theory it offers slightly improved sound quality when paired with a music streaming service that offers high-res tracks.) Nicely discounted, they’re lightweight buds that should fit most ears comfortably with four sizes of ear tips to choose from. That said, the newer P31i cost less and offer similar performance.

QCY MeloBuds Pro: Like Earfun, QCY makes a variety of budget earbuds and headphones that deliver good bang for your buck. The MeloBuds Pro look a little generic, but they’re lightweight and comfortable and sound good for what they cost, offering decent clarity and well-balanced audio (you can tweak their sound profile a bit with the EQ settings in the QCY companion app). Also, they’re noise-canceling and voice-calling performance are better than average for sub-$50 earbuds. And finally, they have ear-detection sensors, multipoint Bluetooth pairing, a low-latency gaming mode and support for Sony’s high-quality LDAC audio codec (many Android devices support LDAC).

Roseselsa Ceramics X: Truth be told, I’d never heard of the Roseselsa Ceramics X earbuds before I saw a post comparing them to Final Audio’s more expensive ZE3000 SV buds that argued the two models are essentially the same. This would make the Ceramics X far better value but it didn’t quite prove to be true. While I ended up liking the Final Audio ZE3000 SV better, I was impressed by the sound quality of the Ceramics for how little they cost. Also, not only did they fit my ears well, but I thought their noise canceling was effective, and their voice-calling performance was acceptable. They also support the AAC and LDAC audio codecs for Bluetooth playback (many Android smartphones support LDAC).

Anker Soundcore AeroFit 2: Anker’s Soundcore AeroFit 2 used to be on list but their list price has risen from $100 to $130, so I had to pull them off. These open earbuds have been completely redesigned and look quite different from the original AeroFit buds, which also listed for $100. The second-gen Aerofit are not only more comfortable but look sleeker, sound significantly better and offer all-around improvements. The buds aren’t as light as the Shokz OpenFit 2 buds and don’t sound quite as good, but they cost quite a bit less and offer good all-around performance with augmented bass response. Available in multiple colors, they’re a good option for those looking for ear-hook style open earbuds with a fairly premium design and good sound quality without the high price tag of top-end models.

Soundpeats Air3 Deluxe HS: What makes these $40 Soundpeats Air3 Deluxe HS buds special is that they sound surprisingly good for open earbuds — they’re close to what you get from Apple’s AirPods 3 for sound (they’re a little more behind the AirPods 4, which offer improved sound from the AirPods 3). On top of that, they support Sony’s LDAC audio codec for devices that offer it. Not too many cheap open earbuds have good sound but these Soundpeats have good bass response and clarity. They’re also good for making calls and have a low-latency gaming mode. Battery life is rated at 5 hours at moderate volume levels, and these are IPX4 splash-proof.

Amazon Echo Buds (2023): Amazon’s 2023 Echo Buds impressed me in a few ways that I wasn’t expecting. For starters, they sound good for inexpensive open earbuds, delivering decent clarity and ample bass. But they also have a robust feature set, including multipoint Bluetooth pairing, hands-free Alexa and ear-detection sensors that pause your audio when you take one or both buds out of your ears. Their sound falls short of that of Apple’s AirPods 4, which deliver better bass performance and overall fuller, cleaner sound (they’re better at handling more complicated music tracks with a lot of instruments playing at the same time). But the AirPods 4, even the entry-level model ($129), cost significantly more.

Jabra Elite 4: The lightweight Elite 4 fit my ears comfortably and offered good, well-balanced sound with punchy bass and decent clarity. They support Qualcomm’s aptX audio codec (for Android and other devices that support aptX) but only the SBC codec for iPhones (no AAC support). The Elite 4 is missing more premium features like ear detection sensors and has a four-microphone array for noise canceling and voice calls (voice-calling performance is good but not exceptionally good). What’s a little confusing is that Jabra also sells the Elite 4 Active, a slightly more ruggedized version of the same buds that carries a list price of $120 but sometimes sells for less than the standard Elite 4. So get the Elite 4 Active if it costs less.

JBL Live Pro 2: Over the years, JBL has put out some decent true-wireless earbuds, but nothing that really got me too excited. That’s finally changed with the arrival of the Samsung-owned brand’s new Live Pro 2 and Live Free 2 buds. Both sets of buds — the Live Pro 2 have stems while the Live Free 2 have a pill-shaped design — offer a comfortable fit along with strong noise canceling, very good sound quality and voice-calling performance, plus a robust set of features, including multipoint Bluetooth pairing, an IPX5 splash-proof rating and wireless charging.

JBL Live Free 2: Like the Live Pro 2, JBL’s new Live Free 2 buds are surprisingly good. With 11mm drivers, six microphones, oval tubes and oval silicon tips, they combine a comfortable fit along with strong noise canceling, very good sound quality and voice-calling performance. Features include multipoint Bluetooth pairing and wireless charging, and they’re rated for up to seven hours with IPX5 water-resistance (splash-proof).

Beats Studio Buds: The Beats Studio Buds look a lot like the rumored stemless AirPods some people have been waiting for. Geared toward both iOS and Android users, they are missing a few key features on the Apple side of things (there’s no H1 or W1 chip), but they’re small, lightweight buds that are comfortable to wear and offer really good sound. While their noise canceling isn’t as good as the AirPods Pro’s, they do have a transparency mode and they’re decent for making calls. Read our Beats Studio Buds review.

Sennheiser CX: If you can’t afford Sennheiser’s flagship Momentum True Wireless 4 earbuds, the CX are a good alternative. They feature very good sound, plus decent noise canceling and voice-calling performance. The only issue is they stick out of your ears a bit and may not fit some smaller ears. This model, which often sells for less than $100 on Amazon, doesn’t feature active noise canceling but the step-up CX Plus does (the CX Plus is also a good value, particularly when it goes on sale). Learn more about the budget earbuds in my full Sennheiser CX true wireless earbuds review.

Source link

Tech

Final DX10000 CL Headphones Pack True Diamond Drivers and an $8,500 Reality Check

Published

41 minutes ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Final has unveiled the DX10000 CL, a new closed-back flagship headphone built around a 40mm True Diamond dynamic driver, with pre-orders opening July 9, 2026. The standard edition is priced at $8,499, while the first 150 units will be sold as a Collector’s Edition for $8,999. Because apparently the headphone market looked at five-figure loudspeaker cables and said, “Hold my paulownia wood box.”

Before anyone starts polishing the Crown Jewels, Final is not exactly operating in uncharted waters here. Diamond material has already appeared in personal audio, including Periodic Audio’s Carbon IEM, TXN Sound’s Diamond IEM, and a much wider field of diamond-like carbon driver coatings used by brands such as Campfire Audio and Austrian Audio.

The difference is that Final is not merely saying “diamond-like” or using diamond as jewelry-counter shorthand. The DX10000 CL uses a CVD-grown True Diamond diaphragm in a full-size closed-back flagship headphone, and Final has built the entire acoustic system around it.

The timing is also worth noting. The high-end headphone category has been moving well beyond the old $1,000 psychological barrier for years. Meze Audio recently announced the ARTA at $6,000 with a 225-ohm high-impedance planar magnetic driver; Audeze’s LCD-5s sells for $4,500 and adds SLAM acoustic management to its planar platform; the Audeze CRBN2 electrostatic headphone is $5,995; and Meze’s Elite Tungsten remains a $4,000 planar magnetic headphone.

The DX10000 CL is more expensive than all of those, so Final had better be bringing more to the table than a shiny diaphragm and a huge asking price.

What Makes the Final DX10000 CL Different?

The core of the DX10000 CL is its 40mm True Diamond diaphragm dynamic driver. Final says the center dome is produced using Chemical Vapor Deposition, where diamond is grown as a crystalline layer before the substrate is removed, leaving a self-supporting diamond dome. That matters because this is not the same thing as a common DLC coating placed over another diaphragm material.

final-dx10000-cl-collectors-edition-headphones-5

Final’s argument is straightforward: diamond offers very high rigidity, high sound velocity, and strong internal damping, which should help the driver maintain piston-like motion, reduce deformation, and suppress residual vibration after the signal stops.

The company has also redesigned the supporting driver assembly, including a polyurethane surround, lightweight polyimide bobbin-integrated voice coil, free-floating lead wire structure, N55 neodymium magnet, aluminum shorting ring, and internal damping system. Exotic diaphragm materials do not automatically guarantee great sound. Implementation still does the heavy lifting, as usual. And that’s before you even start thinking about the source, DAC, and headphone amplifier to make this very expensive headphone worth the expenditure.

Closed-Back Is the Hard Part

The DX10000 CL is not another open-back flagship chasing a huge soundstage and then calling isolation someone else’s problem. Final is taking on closed-back headphone design, which is harder to get right at this level because rear sound waves reflect inside the enclosure and can create resonance, coloration, and that familiar cupped-in effect.

To address that, Final uses a high-rigidity, airtight housing machined from an aluminum-magnesium alloy with 5-axis CNC machining. Inside the housing, unnecessary material is removed to reduce weight, and the resulting cavities are filled with dedicated acoustic damping material to control internal reflections.

The earpads are also part of the tuning strategy. Instead of relying on a fully sealed pad that increases low-frequency pressure and then correcting the balance with elevated treble, Final uses Ultrasuede with controlled air permeability and a selected foam material.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

The goal is to manage the ear chamber more naturally while maintaining an effective seal. That is a smarter claim than simply promising “more bass,” which is one of the most abused marketing terms around in the Head-Fi world.

Better-defined bass with real clarity, detail, and texture should be expected from an $8,500 headphone, but we’ll see whether Final’s driver, enclosure, and damping choices actually deliver.

final-dx10000-cl-standard-edition-headphones — Standard Edition

final-dx10000-cl-collectors-edition-headphones-angle — Standard Edition

Built to Be Serviced, Not Worshipped From Across the Room

One of the more useful details is the DX10000 CL’s 12-point through-bolt construction. Final says the housing assembly is clamped together with 12 screws rather than adhesive, allowing the headphone to be disassembled and serviced. Wear components are replaceable, which matters when the standard version costs $8,499 and the Collector’s Edition costs $8,999. At that price, “throw it out when the pads go” would be immediate grounds for a red card and that one is not being overturned because someone makes a phone call.

The Collector’s Edition adds gold-colored accents, a traditional Japanese paulownia wood box, a Shingen Pouch made from Tango Chirimen silk, and a CNC-machined aluminum headphone stand. The standard edition uses silver-colored accents and ships with the protective carrying case used across Final’s D Series headphones.

Cables and Connectivity

Final includes two silver-coated OFC cables co-developed with Junkosha: a 4.4mm balanced cable at 1.5 meters using ePTFE insulation, and a 4-pin XLR cable at 3 meters using larger conductors and PFA insulation. Final also includes two adapters: 4-pin XLR female to 6.3mm male, and 4.4mm female to 6.3mm male. That gives the DX10000 CL broad compatibility with desktop headphone amplifiers and high-end audio systems.

final-dx10000-cl-collectors-edition-headphones-box

Final DX10000 CL Specifications:

Headphone Type: Closed-back over-ear headphone
Driver: 40mm True Diamond diaphragm dynamic driver
Diaphragm Process: CVD-grown diamond center dome
Housing: Aluminum-magnesium alloy
Magnet: N55 neodymium
Voice Coil: Lightweight polyimide bobbin-integrated structure
Shorting Ring: Aluminum
Earpads: Ultrasuede with selected foam material
Construction: 12-point through-bolt serviceable housing assembly
Impedance: 20 ohms at 1 kHz
Sensitivity: 92 dB/mW at 1 kHz
Weight: 543 grams
Included Cable: 4.4mm balanced, 1.5m, silver-coated OFC with ePTFE insulation
Included Cable: 4-pin XLR, 3m, silver-coated OFC with PFA insulation
Included Adapters: 4-pin XLR female to 6.3mm male; 4.4mm female to 6.3mm male

final-dx10000-cl-collectors-edition-headphones-6

The Bottom Line

The DX10000 CL stands out less for using diamond as a driver material and more for how Final applies it: a CVD-grown True Diamond diaphragm inside a closed-back flagship with a rigid aluminum-magnesium housing, controlled internal damping, and serviceable construction.

At $8,499, expectations are high. This is for serious headphone listeners who want a closed-back reference design, already have a capable desktop system, and are willing to pay for Final’s specific approach to driver material, enclosure control, and long-term ownership.

For more information: final-inc.com

Source link

Tech

Daily Deal: The Essential MATLAB & LabVIEW Mega Bundle

Published

54 minutes ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Essential MATLAB and LabVIEW Mega Bundle has 9 courses to help you improve your skills in programming and visualization. You’ll learn the basics of each and then go through hands-on courses building apps, learning about data analysis and visualization, and more. It’s on sale for $30.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Source link

Tech

6 women in the research space whose careers you need to follow

Published

1 hour ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

If you are a researcher and want to know more about the people driving innovation and change, then look no further than these six impressive women.

In all industries, there are the movers and shakers whose work often leads to the evolution of what is possible and the reimagining of what could be. The field of research, perhaps more than most, embraces those who are of a curious mind and have a vision for the future – think of people like Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin and Alice Ball.

In the 20th century, these women were at the forefront of the research space and their work has gone on to impact the lives of people today as much as it did when first shared.

But who are the movers and shakers of today? Who are the women driving the research answering life’s most pressing questions?

Yvonne Buckley

Yvonne Buckley is a professor of zoology at Trinity College Dublin. She was also the founding co-chair of the All-Island Climate and Biodiversity Research Network, the senior editor of Journal of Ecology, a member of the National Carbon Budgets Working Group and a member of both the Royal Irish Academy and Academia Europaea. She leads a team of researchers, post-docs, PhD and undergraduate students aiming to better understand the fundamental drivers of animal and plant population processes.

The discoveries she is a part of are often used to provide support for environmental decisions in the areas of biodiversity conservation, invasive species management and habitat restoration. Earlier this year, she was the recipient of the 2026 Royal Irish Academy Gold Medal in the Environmental Sciences, Geography and Geosciences in recognition of her outstanding contributions to science, research and scholarship.

Emer McGrath

Prof Emer McGrath is an associate professor in the College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at the University of Galway. She is also an adjunct associate professor at UT Health San Antonio, a consultant neurologist at Galway University Hospital, an investigator for the Framingham heart study and a research collaborator at the Boston University School of Medicine.

Her main focus at the moment is research around dementia risk factors and identifying biomarkers of the illness before the patient suffers memory loss and irreversible brain damage, which can make treatment significantly more complicated.

Ieva Plikusienė

Ieva Plikusienė is a professor and senior researcher in the Faculty of Chemistry and Geosciences and the Faculty of Medicine at Vilnius University. Her area of research focuses primarily on the development of advanced biosensing systems, designed to detect early warning signs of illness in the human body. The aim of her work is to help source the best candidates for drug design and detect important cancer, viral or bacterial biomarkers.

In recognition of her contributions to the research and medtech spaces, Plikusienė was recently awarded the prestigious André Mischke Award from the Young Academy of Europe.

Sarah Gilbert

Prof Sarah Gilbert is a professor of vaccinology at the Pandemic Sciences Institute at the University of Oxford. Her chief research interest is the development of viral vectored vaccines that work by inducing strong and protective T- and B-cell responses. She has led work on influenza vaccine development as well as vaccines for different emerging pathogens, including MERS and Lassa virus. She is in frequent collaboration with colleagues working in the Clinical Biomanufacturing Facility and Centre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine at Oxford.

In 2020, she was named the Oxford project leader for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, a vaccine against the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. If you are interested in vaccinology and related fields, such as future pandemic prevention, Gilbert’s career trajectory could offer some inspiration.

Friederike Otto

Prof Friederike Otto is a renowned researcher and scientist operating at the intersection of climate science and environmental policy at Imperial College London.

She is the lead of World Weather Attribution (WWA), which is an international effort to analyse and communicate the impact of climate change on extreme weather events. She studies how major weather events, such as droughts, heat waves and storms, are intensified and made more frequent by changes in the climate. She is also interested in the merging of science, law and policy, and aims to better understand how scientific evidence can be used in legislation, litigation and more informal governance for resilient societies.

She has authored numerous reports, was recognised for her co-founding of WWA on the Time 100 list as one of the world’s most influential individuals, is the author of two non-fiction books – ‘Angry Weather’ and ‘Climate InJustice’ – and has had her work featured extensively in global media, including in The Economist, Financial Times, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, Times of India and the BBC, among others.

Abeba Birhane

A cognitive scientist researching AI accountability, Prof Abeba Birhane is a principal investigator for the Artificial Intelligence Accountability Lab and assistant professor of AI in the school of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College Dublin. Her work ranges from the systematic examination of AI ecology and governance structures, to the execution of algorithmic audits. Also central to her research are goals of challenging and dismantling societal and historical inequalities and power asymmetries, holding responsible bodies accountable, and paving the way for a future marked by equitable AI systems that work for everyone.

She has contributed to several peer and non-peer reviewed journals, and is a driving force in continued research into AI, ethics and the long-term, societal implications of the technology. She has also been the recipient of several awards and commendations, including a mention on the Time 100 most influential persons in AI 2023 list, and the Distinguished Paper Award 2024 at the IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Source link

Tech

Pulse Space wins $40M contract from Space Force to work on space laser power system

Published

1 hour ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

An artist’s conception shows a satellite receiving energy from a laser beam. (Credit: Pulse Space via Vimeo)

Bellevue, Wash.-based Pulse Space says it has received a $40 million award from the U.S. Space Force to develop technologies for laser-based power beaming and orbital tracking systems.

The startup, founded in 2022, is working on a system that would collect energy using solar arrays and send that energy via a laser beam to remote nodes in space. The technologies developed for the system could also be used to track objects in orbit and transmit data.

“This historic $40 million award is a defining moment for Pulse Space, and I am exceptionally proud of our team for making it happen,” Karl Stedman, Pulse Space’s founder and CEO, said today in a news release. “We are honored to partner with the United States Space Force to mature our laser-based technologies and are proud to share this massive step forward with our investors and shareholders. Pulse’s technical development platform is helping pave the way toward that future.”

Pulse Space was previously awarded a $1.9 million Air Force contract in support of its work on laser-based military communications systems. The company said its proposed satellite constellation would support “secure, high-bandwidth optical communication and energy delivery,” with the ability to transmit 29.7 kilowatts of power to a 3-meter (10-foot) target from 1,000 kilometers (621 miles).

The company is also on the Missile Defense Agency’s list of potential vendors for SHIELD contracts, with a ceiling of $151 billion. SHIELD — which stands for Scalable Homeland Innovative Enterprise Layered Defense — is a program that encompasses a broad range of work areas for the Pentagon’s Golden Dome missile defense initiative.

Pulse Space was one of the startups selected in 2024 for the Techstars Space Accelerator program, and last year the company partnered with Virginia-based Scout Space to work toward an in-orbit demonstration of laser power transmission.

In February, Pulse Space completed a $5.72 million seed investment round, according to Pitchbook. Its investors include Divergent Capital, GrayArch Partners, Shake and Bake Productions and Techstars.

Source link

Tech

The Best Tech-Packed E-Bike Yet

Published

2 hours ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Adam Doud/SlashGear

I had a chance to test out the Segway Myon e-bike at CES 2026, back in January and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. In Las Vegas, this bike blew me away. Now that I have one, I’ve found a few warts, but I’m still genuinely impressed.

I’m a 49-year-old, 270-pound man who is riding a bike for the first time in two weeks. Why it’s the first time in two weeks is a subject we’ll discuss in a little bit, but suffice it to say, it’s been a while since I’ve had the opportunity to get out and cruise. I biked from my home in Streamwood, IL over to the city of Elgin, along the river for a spell to the Illinois Prairie Path, on to the Great Western Trail, back over to Woodfield mall, and finally back to my home.

I just crossed my 50th mile on this trip. I’ve been biking for just over four hours in 87-degree heat. Overall, I’m tired, but I feel pretty good, and I have the bike under me to thank for it.

Put simply, this bike packs the most technology I’ve seen in a bike that costs less than $2,000. There’s a lot to love here, and it doesn’t cost much to love it — comparatively. $2,000 is a lot of money, but what you get compared to what you get in other e-bikes is outstanding. It’s no exaggeration to say that this sets the new standard for e-bikes in America.

Smooth riding

Adam Doud/SlashGear

One of my favorite parts about this bike has to be the motor. It is incredibly powerful and very smooth. The bike uses a torque sensor to determine when assistance in needed. A torque sensor can tell how much effort you’re putting into pedaling and nudge you a little faster and a little harder. It doesn’t take much for it to kick in, but when it does it feels natural — as if you’re just pedaling a little bit harder. By comparison, a cadence sensor detects when the pedals move and engages the motor basically whether you need it or not. Overall, I vastly prefer torque sensors.

As far as the assistance is concerned, you can set your own level. For the most part, I left the assist level between one-quarter and one-half power. I basically never needed more than that; it was plenty. On the 50-mile journey that culminated my review period, I kicked it up to half power toward the end, both because I didn’t need to conserve the battery as much, it was largely uphill, and because I was getting pretty gassed.

It’s not cheating

Adam Doud/SlashGear

Some people will look at someone riding an e-bike and consider them to be cheaters. I totally see where that opinion is coming from, but after this latest ride, I can very much assure you that is not the case. Basically, it’s like being in a four-hour spin class. That’s no joke. The Myon has a throttle as well, so it is possible to just cruise on this bike if you want, but that takes a big hit on the battery.

For one trip, I biked about 12 miles from my home to a newly-published geocache — I was the first to find it, thank you very much. On the way back, I decided to just let the bike do the work. The trip down used about 20% of the battery. The ride back depleted it by nearly 50%. You’re better off biking, using the motor to assist your pedaling, rather than just wholesale relying on the throttle. The motor is so powerful, you don’t need to turn up the assistance much at all, but your legs will be doing some work, for sure.

The tech packed in

Adam Doud/SlashGear

The Segway Myon has a ton of useful tech built into it. Of course, there’s a bright, full color display in the middle of the handlebars. On each end is a turn signal that flashes the handlebars front and back so everyone knows where you’re going. The bike also has a lot of security features like Airlock, which allows you to unlock the bike just by having your phone nearby. When the bike is locked and it’s moved, the real wheel locks and won’t spin and a loud klaxon sounds indicating the bike is being moved without its owner nearby.

I found this feature to be a tad annoying — my phone didn’t unlock the phone or prevent the alarm from sounding nearly in time. Most of the time, I had to pull my phone out of my pocket and manually unlock the bike in the app just to shut it up. I like the idea of the locking rear wheel and alarm, but overall, Bluetooth doesn’t seem quick or reliable enough to make that connection and disable those features before they annoy you.

Moreover, the security features are hard on the battery — draining it by about 9% overnight. That’s not great. If you don’t ride your bike and don’t leave it plugged in, you may go out after three days and find a quarter of the battery drained. What would make this feature better would be a geofence that allows you to disable all those features when you are home, so the bike knows that it’s safe, so it can relax and save some battery.

Navigation with Here maps is (currently) terrible

Adam Doud/SlashGear

The bike also comes with built in navigation, which is a really cool concept, but it’s fundamentally flawed in a number of ways. Most notably, navigation relies on app connectivity which, as I’ve already discussed, is far from perfectly. That’s already not great. The app has a navigation feature that remains hidden until you expose it. I had to edit the quick options in the app to locate navigation panel in order to actually use it, but that’s still not the worst part about the navigation.

The bike uses Here maps to navigate. I have a lot of respect for Here — it was the default navigation app for Windows Phone; I’m a fan. But Here maps is terrible for biking directions, and it’s worth reiterating that this navigation…is for a bike.

On any given route, I entered the destination on Google Maps and in the Segway navigation app, and without fail, Google had better directions. In one instance, Here wanted me to ride my bike on the shoulder of a thoroughfare with a posted speed limit of 45 mph while Google (rightly) directed me to the bike path that literally ran parallel to the road 50 feet to the north. It got to the point where I simply stopped using the bike’s (Here) navigation because it was, for all intents and purposes, useless.

Quality, but delicate construction

Adam Doud/SlashGear

The build quality of the bike is very solid, and very heavy. The bike has a step-through frame, with an optional body bar. I left it off — I’m old and I prefer step-through frames. Each handlebar has a controller with buttons and switches that control the technology on board. A joystick on the left side switches you between screens, and rocker switch on the right controls the gears for the bike — electronic switching is quite handy by the way. In a couple of weeks, Segway will roll out an automatic gear switching feature. When I receive that update, I will test it and if it significantly improves the overall experience, I’ll be sure to update this review.

The problem I ran into (and the reason why I didn’t ride a bike for two weeks) was because at some point when either loading or unloading the bike from my car, the pedal assist rocker switch popped off and I lost it. Segway sent over a new control unit which required disassembly of the handlebar, and when I tried to reconnect the wires to the control board, I inadvertently bent delicate pins inside one of the connectors. I had to head to a bike shop where they were able to straighten the pins and get the connector working again.

When I looked more closely at the rocker switch that popped off I could easily see how it happened. The button had a small slot below it that could easily catch on a sharp edge and pop the button right off. The pins inside the connector are also a bit too easily bent for my taste. I hope Segway takes these notes to heart when designing its next bike.

Intuitive and easy

Adam Doud/SlashGear

Overall, the bike is easy to ride and control. I sometimes found myself turning on the turn signal when I meant to adjust the pedal assistance because the rocker switches are identical left and right. Beyond that though, I love the idea of navigation built into the display, and media controls which you can adjust via that control screen.

The bike can also switch between being a class 2 and a class 3 e-bike. The difference is a class 3 e-bike can go up to 28 miles per hour, but that disables the throttle entirely. I left the bike in Class 2 mode for most of my review period because I like having the throttle if I need it, and 28 miles per hour is too fast for trail riding, which is where I spent most of my time. All that being said, I wouldn’t hate it if Segway made the switch a little easier to access.

Segway Myon pricing, availability, and verdict

Adam Doud/SlashGear

I love this bike, paint points and all. I could see any one of the issues I ran into turning you off — that’s fair. But this is by far the best value you can find in an e-bike of this quality. The bike retails for $1,999.99 — you can buy the Segway Myon from the Segway store online, now. In the world of e-bikes, the average is around $1,200 to $1,500, so this bike is more expensive than other options. But the sheer amount of (useful, functional) tech built into this bike makes it worth it.

Other e-bikes have similar features — a color screen, a smooth torque sensor, turn signals — but no other bikes have all of these features for this low a price. Which is why, when I asked the bike shop how often they’ve sold one (since they started selling them earlier this year, 2026), they told me they sell about one per week.

But there is room for improvement. Here maps is basically a non-starter for navigation. It actually makes me wonder if Segway even tested the navigation before shipping it. I get Here maps is probably less expensive to license than bigger-name alternatives, but it’d almost be better to have nothing.

I’d also like to see geofencing implemented to save the battery while you’re storing the bike at home.

But beyond that, this is absolutely a bike you should consider if you’re in the market. The overall experience is absolutely premium, and there’s just enough room for improvement that makes me really excited to see what the company will offer next year.

Source link

Tech

Fixing A Dodgy Cheap Audio DAC

Published

2 hours ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

One of the attractions of buying at the bottom end of the electronics market by mail order from China is that you never quite know what will come your way. Sometimes it’s a diamond in the rough, while with others it’s a mess. Occasionally along comes something which should work but doesn’t, and that’s the moment when you wonder if you could fix it. [Nyanpasu64] had just such a device, an HDMI to VGA converter with audio that didn’t work. What could be wrong?

The HDMI to VGA chip has an onboard audio digital-to-analog converter (DAC), and it’s a delta-sigma design. This type of DAC is frequently used in audio applications because it works by shifting its switching frequency many times higher than the input sample rate, thus reducing considerably the distortion. This one wasn’t performing as advertised though, and the problem turned out to be that switching frequency being all over the output. Clearly the filter wasn’t working, which led to the design of a new filter. The write-up is therefore an extensive dive into filter design, and in part also a discovery of the effect of impedance on them.

For a super-cheap module to cause so much work, one might ask why not simply spend a few more dollars and get a better one. But had they done that we wouldn’t have seen this write-up, so we’re sticking with team cheap.

We’ve looked at audio DACs, in the past.

Source link

Tech

A Brief History Of The Crazy Old 7-Segment Display

Published

2 hours ago

9 July 2026

NewsAdmin

How old is the seven-segment display? Surely it is a product of the 1970s. After all, calculators started showing up, and the height of junior high humor was plugging 7734 into your calculator and showing it to someone upside down. Of course, for it to go mainstream, maybe they really originated in the 1960s, but no earlier than that, right? Actually, no. Sure, the LED seven-segment display had to wait for LEDs. But the actual idea is much older than that.

The concept of building numbers from a small set of reusable segments predates LED displays by decades. In fact, the basic idea appears in patents from the early 1900s and may have roots in even older mechanical signs and printing techniques.

The history isn’t entirely straightforward. Unlike vacuum tubes or transistors, segmented displays evolved gradually through a series of practical ideas rather than one defining invention.

Blacking out the Eight

While looking into the history of segmented displays, I was reminded of something I’d seen years ago in retail stores: reusable price tags printed with rows of eights.

Rather than printing every possible price, the clerk simply used a marker to black out portions of each figure, transforming an 8 into whatever digit was needed. Cover a few strokes, and the eight becomes a three. Remove a different set, and it becomes a zero or a five. It was, in essence, a manual segmented display.

Finding the exact origin of these price tags is akin to finding out where Romans bought sponges. They were inexpensive commercial supplies, not the sort of products that historians carefully documented. My recollection is from the middle of the twentieth century, but the underlying concept is almost certainly older.

Everything New is Old Again

George Mason’s 1898 21-segment display used 21 lamps and a complicated switch to display any digit or letter in a very stylish font. You can see a modern recreation of these ancient displays in the video below. While this is the basic idea, certainly, it is more ambitious than a simple 7-segment display.

I couldn’t determine that Mason’s displays were ever used for anything.

You could argue that an early 1903 invention by Carl Kinsley to draw characters telegraphically using six pens was an even better precursor, but using magnets to draw with pens on tapes hardly seems to qualify as a display, although figure 12 in the patent clearly shows the formation of numbers and even letters with this arrangement.

Digits of Patent

The direct parent of modern segmented digit displays appeared in the early 1900s (filed 1908; granted in 1910). Technically, this was an 8-segment display because it had a bar dedicated to forming a proper four, with the top-left part slanted. But removing that one segment is just an optimization. It may or may not have been the first, but by 1910, seven-segment displays were in use and not just curiosities on a workbench or dreams in a patent application.

Even for lit-up displays, the first implementations weren’t LEDs. Early displays used incandescent lamps or neon-filled tubes. By the 1930s and 1940s, segmented neon or incandescent indicators were appearing in industrial equipment and counters, instead of the common columns of ten neon bulbs, pointers, or rotating wheels.

Then, too, there were different approaches. Nixie tubes used individual character forms that lit up. Decatrons could count with ten different glowing points, each representing a digit.

Enter the LED

The real explosion came in the late 1960s when practical LED displays arrived. Suddenly, segmented displays could be compact, rugged, inexpensive, and operate at low voltages. Calculators, clocks, frequency counters, digital multimeters, and every imaginable piece of consumer electronics adopted them almost overnight.

Of course, it wasn’t just LEDs. Numitrons used seven tiny incandescent filaments. Vacuum fluorescent displays used segments with phosphor that glowed when excited. LCDs adopted the same pattern, blocking or passing light to produce the segments. But the key idea was something that lights up, arranged in seven segments.

Radio Shack’s 1976 catalog featured magnified LED displays.

Early LED displays often had all the diodes on a single die to reduce cost. That made them very tiny. It wasn’t unusual to see displays with magnifying bubbles to make it easier to read.

The important point isn’t whether they used exactly seven segments. Many didn’t. Some divided the numerals differently or used additional pieces to produce more attractive typography. The insight was the same: begin with the most complex digit and selectively remove strokes to create all the others.

Why Seven?

One of the reasons seven segments became the standard is that they strike a perfect balance (although not everyone agrees, as you can see in the video below). With fewer than seven elements, several decimal digits become difficult to distinguish. Adding more segments certainly improves appearance, but every additional segment increases wiring, decoding logic, manufacturing cost, and the number of possible failure points. Seven is the right number for — um — numbers. But what about letters?

You can make some compromises to show some letters. For example, old computers would display hex digits using seven segments, but the A would be uppercase and the B would be lowercase. You also had to light the top segment for the 6 to make it look different from a B. But you only need A-F for hex. If you need, say, the letter S, there’s no real way to make it not look like a 5 with 7 segments. But sometimes, the letters you can make are good enough.

There were also 8- and 9-segment displays that could do better with letters and special characters. You can increase the segments further to get more glyphs.

The Union Jack

Different segment counts for displays (public domain by [errorage])

The solution for full letter displays was to add more segments. Despite Mason, you didn’t really need 21. By the 1970s, fourteen-segment and sixteen-segment displays had become common in instruments, telephones, calculators, and video cassette recorders. Their pattern of diagonals and crossbars earned them the nickname “Union Jack” display because the arrangement resembles the British flag. These are also sometimes called starburst displays. You occasionally see 16-segment displays, too.

Even Today

Today, you have a plethora of options for adding alphanumeric screens to just about anything. Yet, you still see 7-segment displays hanging around.

The seven-segment display isn’t successful because it’s beautiful. It isn’t even especially flexible. It’s successful because it’s close to the minimum solution that works. It delivers readable numbers with very little hardware, whether the technology behind it is incandescent bulbs, neon, vacuum fluorescence, LEDs, LCDs, or even ink on a printed price tag.

Perhaps that’s why it has survived every technological transition for more than a hundred years. Good engineering ideas often outlive the technologies that first bring them to life.

And once you start looking for segmented displays, you’ll notice they’ve been hiding in plain sight for much longer than the digital age.

Featured image: [Arduino Enigma]’s marvelous Seven Segment Art Installation

Source link