It’s impossible to avoid Microsoft if you’ve got a family full of tech - with laptops, PCs, smartphones and games consoles full of Redmond’s software, they’re everywhere.
But while that might sound all-encompassing, it might not be a bad idea if you need a parental control app. With features that smoothly integrate with your existing tech and a free price, Microsoft Family Safety could be the parental control app that your family needs.
There’s not much to say here, because Microsoft Family Safety is free - so you don’t have to fork out any cash, you don’t need to investigate different product tiers and their varying features, and you don’t have to mess around hunting for deals or registering for free trials.
Microsoft Family Safety is also included with Microsoft 365 subscriptions and Windows 11 operating systems.
Features
Family Safety runs on Windows, Xbox, Android, and Apple devices, and parents can also use Mac OS computers to access the web dashboard and monitor their children. Bear in mind, though, that you can’t install Family Safety on Mac OS devices used by your children - on Apple’s desktop and laptop OS, it’s a one-way street.
(Image credit: Microsoft Family Safety)
It’s easy to get started with Family Safety - more on that later - and once you’re up and running, the app has a decent set of core parental control features, at least on paper.
Take web filtering, for instance: while this is a core component of any good parental control app and rivals like Qustodio do a tremendous job, on Microsoft Family Safety you’re only able to filter the Microsoft Edge browser. That might work for Microsoft, which wants to keep people using its own software, but that’s not practical in families where people want to use Chrome, Safari or other browsers.
Many alternative browsers are just blocked by the app instead, and it’s possible for parents to block individual websites - and allow favored ones, too.
Frustratingly, Microsoft Family Safety doesn’t let parents see the categories of content it blocks, and users report frequent issues with unsafe websites not being blocked and not being flagged on the parent dashboard.
(Image credit: Microsoft Family Safety)
Family Safety’s screen time functionality didn’t impress all that much, either. Initially, all seems well: you can set schedules for your children’s devices, save them easily, and customize them for different days. On Android, parents can set limits on a per-app basis, too.
But a deeper dive by intrepid users online suggests that device screen time limits don’t work particularly well on Android - some reports suggest that children could continue using their devices even when contravening their scheduled limits.
Elsewhere, app blocking and whitelisting are supported and parents can allow children app access if kids send a request from their phones.
Family Safety’s location tracking features are basic. These features only work in the parents’ app on Android and iOS devices, not the web dashboard. Geofencing is only supported for Microsoft 365 subscribers - so while Family Safety is free, you’ve got to pay for 365 to get access to that feature.
Delve deeper into Family Safety’s location functionality and you will find one innovation - the Drive Safety mode. If a teen activates the feature, parents can see their route, speed and any abrupt braking. It’s welcome, but apps like Bark provide similar functionality.
What’s missing from Family Safety? Sadly, quite a lot. Outside of its web filtering, there’s no social media, messaging app or text message monitoring, and none of the camera and audio features that you’ll find in some more forward-thinking tools. You also can’t shut down or take control of child devices using Microsoft Family Safety.
Interface and in-use
Family Safety is very easy to use: install the app, grant some basic permissions and build a family group using people’s Outlook addresses, phone numbers or alternative emails and you’re good to go.
(Image credit: Microsoft Family Safety)
In a nod towards transparency, children can see the restrictions they’re under on their app’s dashboard.
On Windows devices, functionality is similar - you just make your children a new account on the device rather than using their phone number.
(Image credit: Microsoft Family Safety)
Once you’re all set up, Family Safety is exceedingly easy to use. The interface is clean and spacious with familiar Microsoft green accents, and everything is laid out well - all of the key options are in obvious places.
Support
Microsoft Family Safety’s website includes setup guides, FAQs and troubleshooting tips that should solve most common issues, and Microsoft’s busy forum is also available for more specific queries.
In-app support and reporting is available on Android and iOS, and the central Microsoft support website is available if you need to get in touch with Microsoft – although that does mean delving into the support functionality of one of the world’s biggest companies, and that means a likely slow response.
The competition
There’s no doubt that Family Safety has impressive rivals. Take Qustodio: it has far better web filtering and monitoring than Microsoft’s tool and it’s excellent for families that have lots of devices.
Bark outpaces Microsoft’s tool for social media and email monitoring, too.
Final verdict
There are certainly some areas where Microsoft Family Safety fights back. It’s free, for starters, and is easier to use for families that already use the Microsoft ecosystem through PCs, laptops or games consoles alongside smartphones.
It’s easy to use, too, and has accessible and moderately effective filtering, location-tracking, app management and screen time features.
That said, there are serious limitations in all of those departments, the iOS app is more limited than the Android version, and its rivals – while not free – are far more capable in every key area.
If you want basic parental control without spending any money, Microsoft Family Safety is easy to use and already available for loads of families. But if you’re at all serious about parental control, look elsewhere.
If your family uses Android devices and you don’t want to pay extra for one of the best parental control apps, then it can be tempting to turn to Google Family Link – Android’s own parental control suite.
Unsurprisingly, this tool works well with Google’s own apps, like Search, Chrome and YouTube, and it can save you money because you’re not investing elsewhere.
But a deeper dive into its features reveals some missing capabilities when compared to other apps – so let’s find out if it’s a false economy.
We’ve skipped our usual “Plans and pricing” section because there’s nothing to say beyond the fact that this app is free.
Before you get started, it’s worth checking Family Link’s device compatibility, too. For kids, Family Link is compatible with Android devices running version 7.0 or higher. However, only certain settings will function on devices using Android 5.0 or 6.0. There’s no kids app for iOS.
For parents, the control app runs on Android devices running Android 5.0 or higher or iOS devices running iOS 11 or higher.
That last point is a boon because it means you can use Family Link on children’s devices even if you’re a parent on iOS.
(Image credit: Google Family Link)
Family Link allows users to set screen time controls, including downtime and app-specific time limits. Parents can also manage app, website, and extension permissions and downloads through the control software.
You can always see your child’s location thanks to Google’s mapping prowess, too.
(Image credit: Google Family Link)
Delve into many of these features, though, and you’ll discover that they’re relatively basic.
You can set device usage limits and restricted times for your children, with support for 15-minute increments, so they won’t be browsing their phones during school hours or bedtime, for instance.
Device locking is supported, and you can also give your children always-on access to certain apps. But when compared to other tools, like Bark or Qustodio, Google’s Family Link is pretty basic here.
The filtering is relatively rudimentary, too. While there’s no doubt that Google’s SafeSearch filtering works very well by blocking or blurring unsuitable text and images, other apps offer dozens of categories to choose from if you want to block specific topics, and you can’t go any further than SafeSearch here. You can block certain sites and allow others, but you’ll have more control elsewhere. And while Family Link filters YouTube, too, the options here are still fairly basic.
More impressive is Family Link’s app capability. You can see exactly which apps your children have installed and either block or limit their usage individually.
Content restrictions are available for Google Play, and you can prevent your children from making purchases as well – handy if you want them to stop spending a lot of money on addictive games. You can also prevent app installation from unknown sources and stop your children from adding or removing users from their devices or delving into the Developer options.
Unsurprisingly, Google’s location tracking is very accurate, and you can set up geofenced locations with decent radius limits – although other apps are even wider here.
You’ll get notified if children leave the area. One smart addition is the ability to view your child’s battery status, allowing you to spot if they’re about to run out of charge, too.
One notable omission here, though, is location history – it’s simply not available.
Elsewhere, Family Link doesn’t include text or call monitoring, and across basically every part of the app you don’t get the granular control you’ll find on other tools. Other apps also offer more comprehensive activity monitoring, including email and social media monitoring. And when your kids are 13, they can opt out of the monitoring if they wish.
Interface and in-use
As you’d expect from a Google app, Family Link is a sleek and minimalist piece of software that looks clean and uncluttered. It’s easy for parents and kids to navigate most of the settings available, which means setup is quick.
That’s great if you want an app that doesn’t overwhelm you with information, but it also means that some crucial bits of info can be hard to find.
(Image credit: Google Family Link)
You’ll need to use different screens to check children’s app and YouTube usage, for instance, and you'll also have to delve into various menus to view their web history. Many competitors make it easier to access this information, offering more centralized access to reports, alerts, and details.
Setup is easy, at least: because this is an official Google product, you don’t have to deal with the sideloading that's sometimes required elsewhere.
Support
Unsurprisingly, from a computing behemoth like Google, Family Link’s support is a little sporadic and impersonal.
If you need help you’ll need to go through Google’s official channels, and you’ll probably not get a fast response.
Thankfully, there are plenty of good knowledge base articles in the help center, but that’s it. If you want more extensive or faster support, a dedicated app will be far better.
The competition
Norton Family, for instance, has much better support, with live chat, and Qustodio has phone support available for people in certain tiers.
There’s also no denying that those apps are more extensive in terms of features, even if competitors fall short in certain areas: Norton doesn’t do well with text and call monitoring either, and Qustodio can be pricey.
Final verdict
Google Family Link’s free price is one of its biggest selling points, then, and elsewhere its key strength comes from its granular, powerful app controls and its decent screen time and scheduling options.
Go beyond this, though, and Google Family Link is lacking. You may have to pay for rivals, but they have far more extensive filtering and location tracking and work on a broader array of devices.
Google Family Link is ideal if you want to use it alongside one of those apps, perhaps to control Google Play usage or double up on filtering to have an extra safety net. But it’s just not powerful enough to function as your primary parental control tool.
There are few more prominent names in cybersecurity than Norton. Norton Family tries to leverage that recognition and trust into one of the best parental control apps that protects your children when they’re using the internet.
With a wide feature set that includes screen time controls, inappropriate content filters, app restrictions, and location checkers, it’s clear that Norton Family provides many of the options that busy families with digitally savvy children need.
Some of the features have more depth than you’ll find on other parental control apps, too, but there are questions about how effective Norton Family is on Apple’s iOS platform – so let’s find out if Norton’s product is the right option for protecting your children.
Plans and pricing
Norton Family gets off to an impressive start: it costs just $49.99/£29.99 per year. That stellar price undercuts many rivals – top tools like Qustodio and Bark cost $89.36/£69.95 and $99 for a year of access to their upper-tier products. Mobicip’s pricing also sits in the same category as Qustodio and Bark.
Because Norton offers so many consumer cybersecurity products, it’s easy to get Norton Family included in other products.
Norton 360 Deluxe, for instance, includes Norton’s parental control features alongside a secure VPN, dark web monitoring, and scam protection. It costs $49.99/£29.99 for the first year, with a renewal price of $119.99/£89.99.
And if you want to add even more features, Norton 360 Premium or Select Plus costs $99.99/£99.99.
Those prices may look high, but remember that they’re for broader security products that happen to include Norton Family features, so they still represent excellent value.
If you’re still unsure if Norton Family is right for you, there’s a thirty-day free trial – a generous offer that’s longer than many other free trials. Bear in mind, though, that there’s no free version of Norton Family.
Features
Web filtering is one of Norton Family’s strongest areas. Parents can block websites using 45 pre-defined categories of inappropriate content – more than many rivals.
Norton tries to give children some trust with its web filtering too: parents can choose to warn children about sites and let them decide whether to proceed. Kids will also be able to see why particular sites have been blocked.
Differing access levels are also allowed depending on age groups, with specific categories of content permitted for older children, and there is the usual option to allow or block specific sites.
Norton also monitors how your children use search engines, and has an option to always enable safe searching across various browsers on Android – but on iOS, this only works using Norton’s own browser. Also note that Norton Family doesn’t work on child Mac OS devices at all.
Reports for parents show your child’s web history, including which blocked sites they’ve tried to access, their search histories and their YouTube history. Norton’s web filtering works across Android and iOS, with browser extension options for desktop and laptop browsers. It’s a comprehensive, effective system.
The impressive filtering extends to apps, too. Parents are presented with a list of apps installed on child devices, blocking is simple, and each app has an activity report for parents to see when the app was installed and how much it’s used. Newly-installed apps are even given a special highlight on Android devices.
Set a device to school time and it can only access educational web categories (Image credit: Norton)
The only thing missing here is the ability to set app time limits – a feature you’ll find on many rivals, including Qustodio.
Norton’s screen time schedules can be built in thirty-minute increments – that’s fine, but apps like Mobicip allow more granular control. Parents can set screen time limits on different days or just restrict devices at night, and it also has a selection of effective pre-defined schedules for children of different ages. There’s also a specific module for setting more restrictive limits during school hours – that education option includes additional web filtering to further restrict the content children can access.
Kids can request more screen time – a feature you’ll find in Mobicip but not in Qustodio – and screen time reports are displayed easily, with clear graphs showing usage.
(Image credit: Norton)
Norton Family includes the usual array of location-based features. There’s real-time tracking, and the geofencing tool includes a generous radius of 3,200m (2 miles) – the largest we’ve seen on any parental control app.
Parents can set up alerts to find out where kids are located at particular times of day. Norton’s emphasis on trusting children also extends to an option where kids can perform check-ins and choose to share their location – rather than parents automatically viewing the location.
Elsewhere, Norton allows parents to instantly lock child devices and prevent app uninstallation with additional security features, but Norton Family does not monitor text messages or calls – or what your children are posting and messaging on social media apps. If you do need that feature, Bark is your best option.
Interface and in-use
Norton’s parental control apps are available on Android, iOS and the Edge, Chrome and Firefox browsers, while child apps can be installed on Android, Windows and iOS devices.
No matter what platform you’re using, Norton Family is very easy to set up with a familiar process that requires account registration and allowing the typical range of app permissions on child devices.
That ease-of-use continues to using Norton Family. The kids apps allow children to browse the web using the Norton Family Browser and it’s easy for children to find the option to send a check-in to parents, see the rules they’ve been set, or ask for a time extension.
Parent apps are similarly well designed, with clean design and options in sensible places. Altering settings is simple, and the app's web version is just as straightforward to use.
Support
Norton Family’s entry-level support module includes loads of helpful, well-produced guides and a busy forum for asking questions. If you need to contact Norton support, there are phone and live chat options that are open 24/7 – the benefit of dealing with a large business like Norton rather than a smaller organization that can’t provide that level of access.
If you’d like more support, including faster access to experts, then you can also pay for Norton Ultimate Help Desk. This provides quicker and more comprehensive support, but it costs $99.99/£99.99 annually.
Also note that Norton’s array of support options doesn’t always mean you’ll get a good answer.
The sheer size of Norton means that some users report that some of Norton’s customer support representatives are not particularly helpful with queries about Norton Family features – if you’ve got a specific query then you’ll need to get lucky and land a knowledgeable support representative if you don’t want to get generic and vague answers.
The competition
Still, those support options are excellent, and align with what you get with Qustodio’s Care Plus package. Bark’s support is reasonable, but it still can’t compete.
Elsewhere, Norton competes reasonably well on value thanks to its great pricing, but its biggest competitors offer more features: Qustodio is stronger on call and SMS monitoring, and Bark is better with social media.
MMGuardian is worth considering if you want improved web filtering, and Mobicip has great scheduling and screen time functionality, even if it fails on social media and messaging in the same way as Norton.
Final verdict
Norton Family, then, sits in a tricky spot. It’s an effective, competent parental control product that offers great value and a good range of features – and it’s very easy to use, too.
However, it falls behind on social media, call and text message monitoring, and it could perform better on iOS, too. And, importantly, rivals go better in all of these areas, with more power and innovation.
There’s still a place for Norton Family, though: it’s a good, well-rounded parental control app, it’s affordable, and it’s very easy to use. It helps that it’s included with many other Norton apps too.
If you want a straightforward, effective tool that’s easy to use – and trust Norton’s brand and other products – then this is worth its good-value prices. But if you need social media or messaging monitoring, or want more power, then shop around.
If you’ve spent any time researching the best parental control apps, then you will have heard of Qustodio – it’s one of the most prominent names in the sector. It’s been around for over a decade, it’s been trusted by over seven million parents, and the app’s systems have averted over three billion threats.
That’s an impressive resume and, on paper, it’s backed by an impressive slate of features, too. But can Qustodio earn your vote ahead of big rivals like Bark, Norton Family or MMGuardian?
(Image credit: Qustodio)
Plans and Pricing
The Qustodio experience starts with a refreshingly straightforward look at pricing, with two paid tiers available.
The Basic package offers core functionality and costs $43.37/£33.95 a year – the equivalent of just $4.25/£3.33 per month.
With the Basic package, you get daily time limits, web filtering, location monitoring, game and app blocking and the ability to pause internet access for your children’s phones. It’s a solid core product with a more generous offer than the basic package you’ll find elsewhere.
The Complete product, at $89.36/£69.95 annually, adds AI-powered alerts, social media monitoring, custom routines, app time limits and additional monitoring, and allows parents to add unlimited devices to the account.
It’s a decent offer, especially when many premium products restrict how many devices you can monitor.
Bark and MMGuardian are both pricier than Qustodio, but Norton Family is even cheaper.
There’s a free version of Qustodio, too, that offers web filtering, daily time limits, 7-day activity reports and the ability to pause the internet, but it only protects one device, so it’s understandably limited.
Features
Qustodio offers good value, then, and it also serves up a good range of features.
It’s possible to filter out inappropriate apps, games and websites easily, and pick categories for whitelisting, alerting or total blocking. Parents can access alternative recommendations to apps that kids aren’t allowed to access, and even deploy conversation starters, approved by child psychologists, to start conversations about web browsing and internet use.
With Qustodio you can block unknown websites, automatically enable safe searches in common browsers, and receive alerts if your child searches for inappropriate content.
Qustodio offers more than 25 web filtering categories, but there’s no option within the app for kids to request access to particular websites – a feature you’ll find on Norton Family.
Qustodio allows parents to set screen time allowances for every day of the week, and also set time limits for individual apps – and use the in-built app monitoring and detection to automatically sort over 25,000 apps into categories for easier blocking or accessing.
It’s easy to create different routines and switch between them and, if you need to step in quickly, there’s an option to pause internet access on child devices or block the device completely.
And if parents want to reward their children or be a little more lenient, it’s easy to add screen time and see a new limit once that extra time has been granted.
Different rules can be used to govern screen time use between browsers and apps, there are varying “modes” that alter access for bedtime, leisure time and study time, and custom schedules are very easy to build.
(Image credit: Qustodio)
A straightforward map allows parents to spot child locations, geofencing is supported – albeit with a tiny 200m radius – and you can see location histories.
Call and SMS tracking and reading are supported on both Android and iOS, with full message details available, and parents can block phone numbers on child devices. You’ll get alerts for suspect content.
When it comes to reporting on all of this, Qustodio is similarly comprehensive. A real-time dashboard provides easy access to each child's digital activity, including an activity timeline, screen time and browsing history, and parents can access more detailed daily or weekly reports.
Qustodio is also forging ahead with some AI-based content, too, with AI-powered alerts that notify parents of any worrying searches, conversations or social media activity based on chosen topics or categories. That’s great, but it’s worth noting that Qustodio is a little weak on social media monitoring – it monitors messages on WhatsApp, Instagram and LINE, but that’s it.
In terms of other features, Qustodio allows parents to limit social media use, get app-based insights, and add additional parents or guardians to the software.
The app is also comprehensive when it comes to device support. As well as working on Android and iOS, which is a given for parental control apps these days, it works on Windows and Mac OS tech, Chromebooks, and Kindles. Additionally, parents can monitor child devices using Qustodio’s web interface.
As usual, though, be prepared that not every feature works on every platform. You don’t get WhatsApp alerts on iOS, for instance, and there’s no location, call or SMS monitoring on Mac OS or Windows. Android is the only platform that features a panic button.
Interface and in use
Qustodio has one of the best interfaces we’ve seen on any parental control app. As well as having a straightforward layout that places everything where you’d expect, Qustodio packs its apps and web interfaces with helpful tips and explanations about features and how they work.
A selection of Quick Actions provides fast access to common tasks, and the activity summary does a fantastic job of presenting key data in an attractive and intuitive format.
(Image credit: Qustodio)
Child apps are simple enough for even the youngest children to understand what’s going on, and if you’re a parent who wants to dive deeper into the settings, you won’t get lost – the effective UI continues here.
It’s typically easy to get started, too: download the app, register an account, set up child profiles and tick all of the permissions, and you’re ready to start building schedules, monitoring devices and protecting your kids.
Customer Support
Qustodio makes a big deal about ensuring that its service is easy to use for busy parents who may not have a deep understanding of technology, and this attitude extends to its support functionality.
There are loads of helpful articles in the FAQ section, many of which have screenshots, and the guides that illustrate how to set up the app, use basic features and manage your account are particularly good.
If you need support and you use the Basic package, it’s managed through a contact form – sadly there’s no phone support, chatbot or live chat available here, but users report that they always receive helpful, polite form responses within 24 hours.
If you’re a Complete user, you get access to Care Plus. This adds phone support, personalized guidance and ongoing check-ins for parents who want more from their parental control app. And, impressively, Care Plus has an average resolution rate of 97% and an average resolution time of 15 minutes.
While it’s included for free with the Complete package, it costs $10.21/£7.99 to add it to the Basic product.
The Competition
As a big name in the parental control space, Qustodio has some big rivals – but it does a brilliant job of competing.
Norton Family, for instance, is more affordable than Qustodio but not as good at call or SMS monitoring. And MMGuardian isn’t as easy to use as Qustodio and is a bit more expensive, too.
Bark is probably Qustodio’s best competitor. It’s far better with social media, but is more limited on iOS and doesn’t provide a full web history, and it’s also a little more expensive.
Final Verdict
Those factors leave Qustodio looking like a particularly strong parental control option. It has superb filtering, scheduling and screen time options, AI-based additions, solid location features and excellent design, reporting and platform support.
Its customer support is great if you have the Complete product, the apps are all easy to use, and the pricing is fair, too – either competing or undercutting many rivals. The only downside is weak social media monitoring and a relatively small geofencing zone.
That social media monitoring drawback could be a dealbreaker for many families but, in almost every other area, Qustodio is a winner – it’s one of the best parental control apps on the market.
And you thought Focal's first wireless over-ear noise-cancelling headphones were expensive…
The French company has had a good long think about things, developed an all-new magnesium driver, one with an ‘M’-shaped dome, and built it in-house. The company has then added a lovely new ‘chestnut’ finish and badged the resulting model ‘Bathys MG’. Oh, and then slapped an uber-premium price ticket on it.
Remarkably, the Bathys MG go quite a long way to justifying that asking price. They’re beautifully built and finished, and really look the part. They have potent battery life, and will remain comfortable even if you drain that battery in one sitting. They will function as a USB DAC if you want to use them for desktop or office listening. And they have way more positives than negatives when it comes to the sound those fancy-pants drivers can serve up.
Some of the best headphones money can buy then? Well, nothing's perfect, and the Focal lack the wireless codec compatibility that could absolutely maximise their Bluetooth performance – it only takes a moment’s comparison of their sound when running via USB-C to the wireless equivalent to realise this. And while their active noise-cancellation is pretty good, ‘pretty good’ doesn’t approach ‘class-leading’ at this sort of money.
As with sound quality, though, the overall positives outweigh the negatives to a considerable degree. If you’ve the headroom in your bank account, the Focal Bathys MG have plenty to recommend them.
(Image credit: Future)
Focal Bathys MG review: Price & release date
Released March 26th, 2025
$1299 / £999 / AU$2299
The Focal Bathys MG were announced on March 26, 2025 and went on sale the following month.
Eyebrows were raised at the revelation of the asking price, and it seems fair to say they haven’t really been lowered since – Focal has pitched these headphones at the very outer edge of the wireless over-ear market, where only rarefied alternatives from the likes of Audio Technica, Bang & Olufsen and Mark Levinson serve as competition…
(Image credit: Future)
Focal Bathys MG review: Specs
Type
Over-ear, closed-back, noise-cancelling
Drivers
40mm magnesium ‘M’-dome
Weight
350g
Battery life
30h (wireless); 35h (hard-wired); 42h (DAC mode)
Connectivity
5.2 with aptX Adaptive codec compatibility, 3.5mm, USB-C DAC connectivity
(Image credit: Future)
Focal Bathys MG review: Features
40mm magnesium ‘M’-dome dynamic drivers
Bluetooth: 5.2 with aptX Adaptive codec compatibility
Will function as a 24bit/192kHz USB-DAC
When you’re asking absolutely top dollar for a pair of wireless over-ear noise-cancelling headphones, there are a lot of ‘features’ boxes that need a thorough ticking. With the Bathys MG, it seems fair to say Focal has dealt with most, but not all, of them.
The headline, the thing Focal seems most proud of, and the feature that goes furthest in separating the Bathys MG from their more affordable Bathys sibling, is the 40mm magnesium ‘M’-dome dynamic driver that produces the sound. These drivers are made in Focal’s workshops in France and, according to the company, deliver a frequency response of 10Hz - 22kHz. The measurable distortion is vanishingly low, and Focal is bullish about the sonic power and clarity this design is capable of serving up.
Getting information on board the headphones in order for those drivers to do their thing can be achieved in a few different ways. Obviously the Bathys MG are wireless headphones, and use Bluetooth 5.2 with aptX Adaptive codec compatibility for wireless connectivity - which is fine as far as it goes, but it could be argued that it doesn’t go far enough. Bluetooth 5.4 represents the cutting edge right now, and codecs like LDAC and, especially, aptX Lossless offer optimum sound quality. LC3 and Auracast are also increasingly common in wireless designs that sell for significantly less than this, but the Focal go without. At least the Bathys MG feature multi-point connectivity.
There’s a 3.5mm analogue input on the edge of the right earcup, so the Bathys MG can be hard-wired to a source of music – an in-flight entertainment system, for instance – when wireless transmission is not available. And the USB-C slot that’s nearby not only allows for battery charging but also turns the headphones into a USB DAC – make a digital connection to a source of music and the Bathys MG can deal with 24bit/192kHz hi-res content like the best of the standalone headphone DACs we've tested. Just select the correct position on the little ‘off/DAC/on’ slider on the right ear cup and you’re in business.
On the subject of the battery, it’s worth noting the Focal cannot be used passively – no power, no sound. But given that battery life is around 30 hours when using Bluetooth, 35 hours via the analogue connection or an epic 42 hours when operating as a USB DAC, you’d have to be pretty negligent to run dry. And should the worst happen, the fast-charging function means that 15 minutes of mains power should equate to five hours of playback.
Features score: 4/5
(Image credit: Focal)
Focal Bathys MG review: Sound quality
Spacious, insightful and energetic sound
Punchy and dynamic presentation
Treble response can be goaded
Conext, of course, is everything. The Focal Bathys MG get almost everything right when it comes to the way they sound – but when you’re asking four figures for a pair of headphones, ‘almost’ means you’ve come up slightly short.
The stuff that’s enjoyable is a much longer list than the stuff that isn’t, though, so I might as well start here. The Bathys MG are a beautifully open, organised and detailed listen – the stage they create is spacious and properly defined, and there isn’t an event that happens on it that’s too fleeting, too minor or too transient to be overlooked. The Focal are absolutely hawk-like in their attention to detail, and their ability to identify and contextualise every single incident in a recording makes them one of the most out-and-out revealing headphones I’ve heard in a good long while.
No matter it it’s Talk Talk’s timeless Spirit of Eden as a DSD64 file being delivered via aptX Bluetooth or a 24bit/192kHz FLAC file of I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You by Aretha Franklin served up by the Bathy MG functioning as a USB DAC, they communicate in the most relentless and articulate fashion. Low frequencies are textured and endlessly varied, and so carefully controlled that rhythmic expression is never an issue. The word ‘revealing’ is almost too weak a way to describe the way the Focal handle the midrange – Aretha’s peerless technique and exquisite tone is translated in the most eloquent manner imaginable.
Switch to a 24bit/48kHz FLAC file of James Holden’s Imagine This is a High Dimensional Space of All Possibilities and the dynamic headroom the Bathy MG demonstrate, as well as the straightforward punch and attack, is deeply impressive. There’s real momentum to this recording, and the Focal describe it in full and with complete confidence.
The whole frequency range hangs together well, and frequency response is smooth and even too. Really, it’s only at the top end that any shortcomings are apparent – and for most of the time, they’re latent rather than overt. Treble sounds are slightly distinct in their tonality from the rest of the frequency range – there’s an edginess, a willingness to bite, that puts them at odds somewhat with everything else that’s going on. Very big volumes and/or sharp-edged recordings are no friends of the treble response of these headphones.
Otherwise, it’s only the active noise-cancellation that sounds the mildest of bum notes. There’s no shame in having to play second fiddle to Bose when it comes to ANC – everyone else is too, after all. But the job the Bathys MG do on external sounds is not complete. They damp down ambient noise, of course, and do so without altering their sonic characteristics in any way or leaving a sensation of counter-signal – but if it’s complete negation of external noise you’re after, you won’t get it here.
Sound quality score: 4.5/5
(Image credit: Future)
Focal Bathys MG review: Design
Excellent standard of build and finish
Premium materials look and feel good
Rigid carry-case with a selection of cables
Within the inevitable constraints of over-headphone design, Focal has done good work with the Bathys MG. Whether or not a pair of headphones can ever look or feel like they cost four figures is debatable, but there’s no arguing with the standard of construction, the industrial design or the quality of the materials involved here.
At 350g the Focal are of manageable weight, and their clamping force and hanger arrangement allow them to stay comfortable for hours on end. This is helped in a fairly big way by the use of leather and padded microfibre for the headband, and similarly padded pleather for the (replaceable) ear pads. The bulk of the frame is of aluminium or hard-wearing plastic, and the design on the ear cups (first seen on the original Focal Bathys) helps these headphones look distinctive and up-market. The ‘chestnut’ colour, which shifts subtly as the light changes, is very agreeable – and the in-app ability to adjust the intensity of the lighting of the stylised company logo on each ear cup is a nice touch too.
The app itself is on the brief side, but those few functions it does include are useful and well-implemented. A five-band EQ has some presets and the ability to save custom settings, noise-cancellation can be toggled between ‘transparent’, ‘soft’ and ‘silent’, and there’s a ‘Mimi’ test to help the headphones set themselves up to suit your specific hearing profile.
Voice-control is available via your player’s native assistant – there are four mics in each earcup taking care of these interactions as well as telephony and ANC. And there are some physical controls, almost all on the right earcup – the classic three-button strip takes care of volume up/down, play/pause, skip forwards/backwards and Bluetooth pairing, and there’s a button to wake your voice assistant. There’s that on/off/DAC slider too, of course. And on the left ear cup, there’s a button that lets you cycle through your ANC options.
The Bathys MG arrive in a rigid travel case (which is not as big as it might be, given that they don’t fold beyond some articulation in the ear cup yokes). It includes a couple of 1.2m cables of very acceptable quality – one is a 3.5mm analogue number, the other a USB-C.
Design score: 4.5/5
(Image credit: Future)
Focal Bathys MG review: Value
Great standard of build, from premium materials
Good battery life, extremely enjoyable sound
Not the last word in wireless technology
Obviously these are expensive headphones – so it’s mildly surprising that the Focal Bathys MG go so far towards offering value for money. They’re nicely made, look good, use upmarket materials and have quite a few technical highlights – not least their driver technology.
The uptick in performance when used as a USB DAC compared to the wireless equivalent does make me wish for LDAC or, better still, aptX Lossless compatibility though – then we’d be talking about value for money that would be very difficult indeed to argue with.
Value score: 4/5
Should I buy the Focal Bathys MG?
Section
Notes
Score
Features
No power, no sound when wired, and no Auracast or LC3 in an otherwise beautiful setup
4/5
Sound quality
Practically perfect… just a shade off excellent for ANC and treble response
4.5/5
Design
Lovely colorway and classy build, but LDAC wireless support would've been ideal
4.5/5
Value
A touch surprising, given the asking fee, but they're not bad value at all…
4/5
Buy them if...
You value exclusivity The Focal look and feel like a premium product - which is just as well, given the asking price
You like expansive and informative sound Even music you’re very familiar with can sound fresh when heard through these headphones
You indulge in long listening sessions Tha Bathys MG have the battery-life to indulge you and are as comfortable as they come
Don't buy them if...
You’re expecting a fully featured control app The Focal app is sort of the anti-Sony - its functionality is very restricted
You want cutting-edge wireless technologies Where Bluetooth specification is concerned, the Bathys MG are not exactly at the forefront
You’re especially sensitive to high-frequency sound The Focal live right on the edge when it comes to treble response
Focal Bathys MG: Also consider
Bang & Olufsen Beoplay H95 The OG of premium audio will, of course, sell you an extremely pricey and very good-looking pair of wireless over-ear headphones – and happily the H95 have the performance to justify the price. Read all about them in our Bang & Olufsen Beoplay H95 review
Focal Bathys Their driver technology may not be as attention-grabbing as that of the Bathys MG, but then neither is the asking price – and the Bathys remain a very compelling option in their part of the market. Learn more in our full Focal Bathys review
Mark Levinson No. 5909 Safe to say Mark Levinson has concentrated on performance with the No. 5909 – they’re no one’s idea of a great-looking pair of headphones. If you prioritise sound, though, they are very hard to argue with. See them up close in our in-depth Mark Levinson No. 5909 review
How I tested the Focal Bathys MG
Wirelessly connected to an iPhone 14 Pro and a FiiO M15S
Hard-wired via USB-C to a MacBook Pro
For quite a long time
An Apple iPhone 14 Pro tops out with the AAC codec, of course – but a FiiO M15S can offer aptX to the Bathys MG, and doesn’t have the distraction of a native voice-assistant either.
For home listening, I listened to the Focal as a USB DAC via a USB-C connection to my MacBook Pro – the laptop is running Colibri software in order to get access to 24bit/192kHz content.
I listened for longer than I needed to, quite honestly, because it was no kind of hardship – and I listened to lots of different types of music, and lots of different file types and sizes.
The Nothing Headphone (1) are the first-ever over-ear headphones from the still-fairly-new tech company, joining its smartphones and a range of earbuds – including one model we rated as a five-star smash hit: the Nothing Ear (a).
While Nothing's earbuds are all mid-range or cheaper, however, the Nothing Headphone (1) are in competition with the best noise-cancelling headphones at a premium level, due to their $299 / £299 price (about AU$630). That's what you pay for a pair of Sony WH-1000XM5 today – so do they stand up to one of the biggest names in wireless headphones?
Well, the Nothing Headphone (1) are a product of two halves. When it comes to the technical side of things, they absolutely won me over. They're crammed with features, ranging from tweakable active noise cancellation, to useful audio customization, to USB-C lossless sound support, to spatial audio.
With the exception of the limp spatial audio, these all work excellently, and when you pair them with fantastic on-ear controls – including a 'Roller' button that changes the volume (plus other functions) and is maybe my favorite button on a pair of headphones ever – and superb build quality, they feel well worth their price.
Sadly, the sound quality isn't at the same level. The audio is tuned by the great hi-fi brand KEF, and is reasonably refined, well-balanced, and broadly enjoyable. But it also feels compressed, and lacks the openness and expansive sound I'm used to from testing the competition at this price.
I tested them directly against the Sony WH-1000XM5, and far preferred the extra breadth and detail the Sony cans offer. I also compared them to the Sennheiser Accentum Plus headphones, which can be bought for about half the price, and preferred the sound of those too.
That's the key divide in the Nothing Headphone (1): premium price, premium features, but mid-range sound. But is why you buy headphones, and it needs to match the rest.
There is another divide of sorts: the aesthetics, which some people like a lot, and some people detest. You'll have to make your own mind up. The headphones are comfortable and extremely well-made, though, there's no question about that.
If (well, when) they get a price drop, these could be great headphones. As it stands, I'd suggest you go for the Sony WH-1000XM5 at this price, or another option among our round-up of the best headphones.
(Image credit: Future)
Nothing Headphone (1) review: Price and release date
$299 / £299 / AU$TBC
Released on July 15, 2025
Nothing's previous earbuds releases have all played in the budget-to-mid-range pool, but the Nothing Headphone (1) are going in at the premium deep end.
Their price of $299 / £299 matches the current street price of the Sony WH-1000MX5, and in the US is about the same price as the Bose QuietComfort Headphones. In the UK, you can get the Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones for only a little more at the time of writing, and they often drop to a similarly competitive price in the US too.
That's pretty hardcore company, but the Nothing Headphone (1) are still significantly less expensive than the newest Sony WH-1000XM6, which come in at $449 / £399; and when it comes to features, the Nothing are closest to the XM6 and the Bose Ultra.
I'd also expect them to be available for less than their full price before too long. This is fairly standard with Nothing's earbuds, and the Nothing Ear (a) are now available at an effectively standard price that's far less than their launch price, which puts them top of our list of the best budget earbuds. Perhaps the Headphone (1) will drop before long; for now, though, I'm reviewing them based on their full price.
Nothing Headphone (1) review: Specs
Drivers
40mm dynamic
Active noise cancellation
Yes
Quoted battery life
ANC on: up to 35 hours. ANC off: up to 80 hours
Weight
329g
Connectivity
Bluetooth 5.3
Frequency range
20Hz-40kHz
Waterproofing
IP52
(Image credit: Future)
Nothing Headphone (1) review: Features
Multiple noise-cancellation modes and spatial audio options
Lots of other customization options in the excellent app
You might need to turn on some basic-seeming features
The Nothing Headphone (1) certainly justify their price when it comes to the list of features. You've got adaptive active noise cancellation with Transparency mode, head-tracked spatial audio, equalizer customization options, LDAC higher-res wireless audio, USB-C lossless Hi-Res Audio connectivity, a 3.5mm jack, multi-point Bluetooth to two devices, wear detection, Google Fast Pair, a customizable control button, and up to 35 hours of battery life with active noise cancellation turned on.
If you use them with the new Nothing Phone (3) you also get extra options, such as the option to use the customizable button to switch between your favorite audio apps, or active AI-based voice-note taking, in which your notes are automatically sorted into a relevant collection of notes on your phone.
Let's start with the noise cancellation, since it's the feature most people will use pretty much every time they turn on the headphones. You have three strength settings, plus 'Adaptive' – I was happiest sticking with 'High', but you might choose 'Low' for an office setting, say.
On High, the Nothing Headphone (1)'s noise-blocking power was essentially on a par with Sony WH-1000XM5 in my direct comparison. The noise cancellation does a great job of reducing sounds across the whole frequency range, and does it without interfering with the audio quality. I'd maybe give the Sony cans a 10% higher rating on higher-frequency noise reduction when listening to a podcast, but when listening to music, any difference between these two headphones was academic.
The Transparency mode works perfectly well, though it really emphasizes higher-frequency noises, such as crinkling a wrapper. This isn't uncommon, but the Sony XM5 cans maintained a more natural transparency sound when I compared them.
I also noted that when using Transparency mode and talking to someone, my own voice felt really boomy in my ears, far more so than with most of the premium headphones I've used for a while now, which is a bit distracting.
(Image credit: Future)
You can switch noise cancellation levels in the app, and you can switch between ANC or Transparency mode using the Roller button on the headphones. The sound that the headphones make to indicate when you've switched modes are my favorite I've ever heard on a pair of headphones – a small thing, but I genuinely loved it.
You hear the sound of a big intake of breath when you switch to Transparency mode, like a sound spirit has been freed from the captivity of ANC. Then, when you turn ANC back on, there's a sucking and shutting sound, denoting the noise being trapped – like the lid slamming back down on the Ark of the Covenant. There's zero confusion as to which mode you've switched to, unlike with some headphones.
When you've finished choosing your noise cancellation mode in the app you can also customize the sound, using two different EQ options and a separate Bass Enhancer tool. I'll get into the latter in the Sound Quality section next, but the EQ options initially give you the option of some named presets (such as 'Vocal'), or you can go into a truly custom mode with an eight-band EQ.
By default, the only way to activate the spatial audio mode, or the separate head-tracked spatial audio mode, is from the app. However, one of the other options you can customize in the app is a physical button near the top of the headphones, which you can use to trigger basically anything from within the app (plus the Nothing Phone (3)-specific options, such as the AI Assistant or switching audio apps). I decided to set this to switch spatial audio modes for my review period, which worked nicely.
I'll talk about the quality of spatial audio in the next section, but the short version is that I don't think it adds anything here, and actively harms the quality of watching videos or movies, sadly.
One slightly odd thing about these headphones is that the wear-detection (to auto-pause what's playing when you take them off) and multi-point Bluetooth (to connect to two devices at once) are both turned off by default, and these settings are hidden in the Device Settings screen rather than being somewhere obvious.
I kind of get it with multi-point Bluetooth – it's not uncommon for this to be turned off by default, and it could be confusing for people not used to the idea. But auto-pause should definitely be turned on by default! The good news is that both work perfectly.
When it comes to battery life we're promised 35 hours with active noise cancellation turned on, and 80 hours with it turned off. I didn't have time to test the latter claim during my review period, but I got just over 38 hours of real-world use from the cans with ANC on, and that was with spatial audio turned on at times as well, which uses even more power.
When it comes to microphone quality, these headphones are a little tinny and robotic, as many over-ear headphones are, but largely clear. Not bad, not impressive. I again broke out the Sony XM5 for comparison, and the two performed incredibly similarly – however, once again I heard my own voice booming far more in the Nothing in the Sony, which is a little unpleasant.
Features score: 4.5 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Nothing Headphone (1) review: Sound quality
Well balanced with energetic low-end, especially with Bass Enhancer
Limited dynamism and expansiveness
Movie audio quality is weak, and spatial audio doesn't add anything
A quirk of timing meant that I received my Nothing Headphone (1) and starting testing them out before I knew their price. This meant that during my initial testing I had no preconceptions of how they should sound relative to their price; I just listened in isolation.
My instant reaction was "Oh, these must be much more mid-range than I expected from the design." I grabbed the Sennheiser Accentum Plus to do some comparison testing, since those are a top mid-range pick for us. And then I received the pricing information, and realized that these are not mid-range at all – but disappointingly the sound is.
The audio quality of the Nothing Headphone (1) is good, to be clear. But for their price, 'good' isn't good enough.
They're well-balanced across the frequencies, so the different elements of songs feel well represented, and no part seems to particularly overwhelm the others – as you'd hope, given the promise that the sound has been tuned by KEF.
The bass is muscular and impactful, but it still leaves space for the mid-range to feel solid. The treble is prominent without sticking out awkwardly, and delivers a reasonable amount of detail.
The problem is that it all feels bizarrely small and compressed. There's a surprising lack of expansiveness, and while the treble, mid and bass are all very well balanced they also feel shackled to each other, stuck dancing in a small group when then should be moving and spreading around the dance floor.
The sound never feels bigger than the earcups, and for this price, it should. I did direct listening comparisons, using the same music source, with the Sony WH-1000XM5, and you can feel that the music has more room to breathe in the latter.
Instruments separate better, voices sound more natural, the bass is more nimble and nuanced, the transient details are more defined in a way that gives the sound more solidity and realism, and there's a more expansive feeling to the mix.
The Nothing cans feel like they're lacking the fifth gear that other premium headphones have – when a song is supposed to open up into a climax of energy, the Nothing don't have any more headroom to offer.
If the Sony XM5's sound feels like it's coming from a pair of bookshelf speakers, the Nothing Headphone (1)'s sound feels like it's coming from a really good Bluetooth speaker; enjoyable enough given the limitations of the source, but simply lacking the scale and clarity you'd want.
I said that I was initially inclined to compare them to the Sennheiser Accentum Plus, and I'd put these two headphones roughly on a par. I prefer the Sennheiser's more open sound and extra touch of dynamism with small details, but the Nothing's energy and full bass will have their fans.
That's especially true if you activate the Bass Enhancer feature. I really like this! It adds more resonance and viciousness to low frequencies, in a good way. It won't be everyone's cup of tea, but it reaches deeper while maintaining total control over the sound. I would use this day-to-day with the headphones personally, for sure.
Bass Enhancer also gives you some fun extra flexibility choices when using the equalizer – for example, the Vocal preset on its own wasn't to my taste, but the Vocal preset with Bass Enhancer on was actually a tempting new option to listen with for a while.
The Sony XM5 are boomier in the bass than the Nothing, and with Bass Enhancer on I would say Nothing have the edge for low-end control and thrill, but it doesn't change the fact that I prefer the overall audio advantages of the Sony.
The spatial audio options ranged from middling to disappointing, in my opinion. They don't make music sound worse, but they don't really add to it. I felt no sense of anything new in the tracks with the basic non-head-tracking spatial mode enabled, I think mainly because it can't overcome the headphones' aforementioned overall problem of feeling like the sound is stuck right in the drivers next to your ears.
Switching to head tracking threw up an odd wrinkle, in that it always started with the 'centering' of the track being directly to my right, for whatever reason. If I kept my head looking forward it corrected itself after a few seconds.
The head tracking is good, but the lack of meaningful spatial upscaling means you don’t feel like you’re immersed in a performance in the way you can with Dolby Atmos head-tracking on the AirPods Max. It feels like sitting in front of a set of speakers; but, you know, not a very expansive set of speakers, because the headphones can't do that.
I'll also note here that spatial audio is no good with podcasts, since it throws a load of reverb into the mix, which just muddies things.
I tried movies as well as music, and the headphones' dynamic limitations really show themselves here. Epic movies feel smaller than they should, with dialogue trapped within the overall crush of the mix.
And spatial audio is even weaker here than it is with music – there was actually less directionality from the source soundtrack than when just listening in normal mode, I found. To go back to the Sony XM5, they delivered way more exciting movie audio, at a bigger scale, with harder impacts, and offering far clearer speech at the same time.
This has been quite a negative sound quality write-up, but I want to emphasize what I said at the top – they sound good. There's detail and good balance across the range, but you can get arguably better sound for half the price from Sennheiser, and definitely, in my opinion, better sound for the same price from Sony.
Sound quality score: 3.5 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Nothing Headphone (1) review: Design
Weighty, but comfortable to wear
Headband adjusts further up than most headphones
On-ear controls are excellent
Before we get into the practical side of the Nothing Headphone (1)'s design, we need to talk about the aesthetic side.
This is one of the most divisive pairs of headphones we've had in TR Towers for a while, and conform strongly to Nothing's penchant for clear cases and the feeling that the tech inside is showing – but mixed with Apple-esque clean, milled aluminum.
The gamut of responses in the office has run from "I love the look of them" to "I really like what they're doing, but I don't think I'd wear them" to "I think they're straight retro cool" to "If they were round I think I'd like them more" to "These are the ugliest headphones I've ever seen".
I'm not going to dwell on the aesthetics here because it's so personal – I think they're charming, but they're not really my style.
They feel high-quality, though – there's basically no give in the construction where there shouldn't be, and the finish on the aluminum and plastic elements is really premium.
(Image credit: Future)
The earpads and headband cushion are leather, with no vegan option, so take note if you'd rather avoid that. The black leather really picks up skin oil, whether that's from your fingers while holding them or your head while wearing them. It wipes off instantly, but just know that it'll really show.
In terms of fit and comfort, the wireless headphones they most remind me of are AirPods Max. At 329g, they weigh a little less than 384g AirPods Max – but notably more than the 250g of the Sony WH-1000XM6 – and like the Max they use a fairly strong clamping force to stay on.
This fit will also be a little divisive – some people really prefer just a lighter-weight headphone that doesn't need to grip so much – but I found them more comfortable than the AirPods Max, and fine to wear for a good stretch of time. The well-padded earcups help with this, holding firmly but softly, and they didn't struggle to fit around my glasses. Still, I was certainly aware of the weight more than when wearing my trusty Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones.
I could see this kind of firm, clamping fit being popular with gym-goers, as is the case with the AirPods Max – and also just as with the AirPods Max I'm not sure it's a great idea, for sweat-related reasons.
(Image credit: Future)
Having an IP52 rating for dust and water is better than having no rating at all, but it means they're rated only for very limited water ingress protection; I'd suggest that IPX4 is what you want to protect against sweat properly. But it's better than nothing, which is what most rivals offer.
There is one physical design I element I really dislike here, though, and it's the positioning of the adjustable portion of the headband near the top of the head, rather than down by the earcups. My usual method of adjusting headphones for a tighter fit is to to grip the earcups with my palm, hold the armband with my fingers and pull them a little higher when needed.
Here, you have to reach for the top of the headband, which feels much less precise, and my brain had a lot of trouble adjusting. I'm counting this as an "If it wasn't broken, why fix it?" design change.
On the other hand, I absolutely love the physical controls on the Headphone (1). On the back of the right-hand earcup is a 'Roller' control, which you can rotate to change volume, press once to play/pause, and press and hold to change between noise cancellation and Transparency mode.
It moves really smoothly, the finger grips it just the right amount, and I never accidentally rolled it when I meant to press it, or vice versa. It's a wonderful bit of design, and might be my favorite piece of physical control design on any headphones ever. I should note that my colleague Becky Scarrot found that the Roller made a noise that irritated her when she used it – I didn't have any issue, though.
(Image credit: Future)
Below this is a rocker control, which you can push forward or back quickly to skip tracks, or hold in either direction to fast-forward and rewind – perhaps not a necessary control for many people, but as a podcast fan who's used to skipping through ads or being able to go back if I became distracted, I liked having the option.
Another button near the top on the outside of the rear earcup is totally customizable – used with a Nothing Phone handset, it can be used to change which music service you're listening to; on other phones it'll activate a voice assistant as one option. I ended up setting it to change spatial audio modes.
On the bottom of the right earcup are a physical on/off switch, the USB-C port, and the 3.5mm jack.
Design-wise, then, the Nothing Headphone (1) are an odd mix of things I love, things I dislike, and things that really got the TR office talking. The controls and build quality lead me to conclude that they're well-designed on balance, but how you feel about the look will probably be the deciding factor, and I can't make that call for you.
Design score: 4 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Nothing Headphone (1) review: Value
Excellent, well-implemented set of features
High price sits well with feature list and build quality
The sound drags the value way down, though
As I've said elsewhere in this review, the Nothing Headphone (1) not only justify their premium price when it comes to their features, they actually manage to feel like something of a bargain. Only the lack of Bluetooth LE Audio and Auracast prevents them from feeling truly future-proof, and those aren't widely used yet, so I can't really knock the value score on account of their absence.
They feel expensive too – whatever you think of the look, the quality under your fingers (and on your head) is clear, and elements as simple as the excellent roller control give you a little shot of satisfaction every time you use it, and reassure you that these are a well-made piece of tech, and that your money was well spent.
Alas, the sound is an anchor dragging all of that down. I think they sound arguably on par with, or perhaps slightly weaker than, the Sennheiser Accentum Plus headphones, which can be regularly found for a street price that's less than half of what Nothing is asking for the Nothing Headphone (1).
Balance it all out and they just about convince me that they're not actively bad value, but they're not good value either.
Value score: 3 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Should I buy the Nothing Headphone (1)?
Buy them if...
You want a unique look They're the most striking pair of mainstream headphones in years, and are extremely well-built.
You want tons of control and customizability Useful sound options, and the fully customizable button to add unique functionality are all really nice to have, and they have lots of connection options.
You'll use a Nothing Phone They offer even more interesting options for Nothing Phone owners, including AI skills and instant switching between audio apps.
Don't buy them if...
Audio quality is your top priority While they don't sound bad, they also don't sound good enough for the price – a lack of openness will frustrate both music and movie lovers.
You make a lot of calls The call quality is average, but hearing your own boomy voice is frustrating, and other premium headphones generally avoid this.
You don't like heavy headphones The Nothing headphones are comfortable, but you can feel their weight compared to far lighter options from Sony and Bose. That's the trade-off for the high-quality metal build.
Nothing Headphone (1) review: Also consider
Nothing Headphone (1)
Sony WH-1000XM5
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones
Price
$299 / £299
About $299 / £279
About $349 / £349
Drivers
40mm dynamic
30mm dynamic
35mm dynamic
Connectivity (wireless)
Bluetooth 5.3, LDAC
Bluetooth 5.3, LDAC
Bluetooth 5.3, Snapdragon Sound
Weight
329g
250g
Connectivity (wired)
USB-C lossless audio, 3.5mm jack
USB-C (power only), 3.5mm jack
USB-C (power only), 3.5mm jack
Sony WH-1000XM5 The newer Sony WH-1000XM6 are out, but they cost way more than the Nothing Headphone (1). The older Sony XM5, however, can now be found for the same price, if not cheaper, than the Nothing – and they sound better, and feel far lighter, if that's your preference. Read our full Sony WH-1000XM5 review for more on the intricacies of these headphones.View Deal
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones Another pair of headphones that are much lighter than the Nothing, and these also have a folding design, so are great for travel. They have better noise cancellation than the Nothing or Sony, and better sound too. Like the Nothing cans, they have a spatial audio mode that works by upscaling sound. They have around half the battery life of the Nothing headphones, though – although that was my only real complaint in my Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones review.View Deal
(Image credit: Future)
How I tested the Nothing Headphone (1)
Tested for two weeks using pre-release Nothing app
Tested at home, in the office, and while travelling
I've been reviewing audio tech for 14 years
I had two weeks to test the Nothing Headphone (1) before their official launch as part of my regular routine, using a pre-release version of the official Nothing app to control their features.
I primarily used them with my iPhone 16 Pro over Bluetooth, and also connected them to my iPad Pro to test the multi-point Bluetooth. I also listening to USB-C lossless audio from these devices, and from my MacBook Air. I used a Fiio M23 music player for LDAC playback.
I tested the active noise cancellation on public transport, walking around city streets, in the TechRadar office, and at home. I listened to the TechRadar audio testing playlist, as well as many hours of whatever music I was in the mood for.
I compared them directly to the Sony WH-1000XM5 and Sennheiser Accentum Wireless headphones in listening tests.
To test the actual battery life I charged the headphones up to maximum, and then left them playing at 50% volume, with active noise cancellation turned on, for long periods, until I ran them down.
I've been testing audio products, including headphones, for around 14 years, ranging from early consumer Bluetooth options through to today's best wireless headphones of all kinds.
The Anker Nano Charger 45W with USB-C Cable is a model that feels almost too good to be true. For a very modest price you get a highly compact, foldable and hi-tech phone charger and a USB-C cable thrown in for good measure – at a very modest price. But the truth is, it really isn’t too good to be true. Anker has, simply put, delivered yet another great wall charger that’s ideal for on-the-go use.
It’s fair to say that ‘Anker Nano Charger 45W with USB-C Cable’ is quite the title… so let’s just stick with Anker Nano 45W from here on out, if that’s OK with you? Ah, great – then let’s power on. The Anker Nano 45W is a single-port wall charger that has plenty of power for most handsets. Some models, like the OnePlus 13 phone, for instance, support 80W charging, but 45W will be plenty for most Samsung phones and iPhones.
Typically, when I’m reviewing the best iPhone chargers and best Android phone chargers, I juice up my trusty Samsung Galaxy S24 FE – which has a 4,700mAh battery capacity – from 0% to 100%. And when testing the Anker Nano 45W, that was no different. I’m pleased to report that the charger got my phone back to full health in around 80 minutes – exactly what I’d hope to see from a charger with this level of power.
Of course, if you’re going to charge up a more power-hungry device like one of the best MacBooks, for example, that 45W isn’t gonna be enough for you, and I’d instead seek out a mightier model like the five-star UGreen Uno Charger 100W. Also, there’s only one port, so it will be a one-at-a-time situation if you’re also looking to juice up a pair of the best wireless earbuds or best headphones.
Regardless, as a single-port charger, you’re getting great performance from the Anker Nano 45W. But this model’s merits go well beyond performance alone.
This charger has fantastic build quality and an intelligent hi-tech design. There’s GaN technology, meaning Anker’s been able to fit a lot of power into a tiny shell – this is a smaller-than-pocket-sized charger that’s also super easy to slip into your pocket thanks to foldable prongs. You’re also getting Anker’s ActiveShield 3.0 tech for smart heat monitoring. The charger will occasionally feel warm, but never so much so that it’s of any concern.
On top of that, its glossy surface and textured outer casing is highly appealing, with the gray-black color hammering home that classy, premium feel. I do still wish that Anker added a few other color options though, as we saw with the great Anker Nano USB-C Wall Charger 30W.
At $34.99 / £24.99 (about AU$50), this is already a great value-for-money option, just based off of its power-to-size ratio and luxury build. But things get even better. There’s a 6ft USB-C cable included in the box, which makes this charger an absolute steal. Yes, you could technically get a 45W charger for even less than this, but given the sheer quality on offer, this is a top-value option.
And really, that sums up the Anker Nano 45W. It’s great value for money, beautifully sized and powerful enough to charge most phones in a jiffy. Sure, you could get even more power, ports and such from rivals. But if one port is all you need, it really doesn’t get much better than this.
Should I buy the Anker Nano Charger 45W with USB-C Cable?
Buy it if…
You want a phenomenal value option With 45W of power, GaN technology and even an included USB-C cable, the Anker Nano 45W is phenomenal value for money. Sure, there are cheaper models around. But if you also want a durable, ultra-compact build, this is the full package.
You need a compact charger that doesn’t sacrifice charging speed So, I mentioned it above, but it really is impressive how much charging power has been packed into such a tiny charger. This model impressed me, charging my phone in around 80 minutes – on par with a lot of great models like the Anker 335 Charger 67W.
You’re looking for a top-class laptop charger So, if you want to charge your laptop, this model might not quite have enough firepower for you. There’ll also be some phones that can harness much more than 45W while wired charging, such as the OnePlus 13 phone. So, if you want great charging speeds for laptops or Macbooks, I’d recommend instead checking out the Anker Charger 140W, 4 Port, PD 3.1 – it even has a display!
Anker Nano Charger 45W with USB-C Cable review: also consider
UGreen Nexode RG 65W Want a charger with a bit more personality? Then let me draw your attention to the UGreen Nexode RG 65W, a robot-shaped, display-enabled wall charger with three ports and a good amount of power to go around. Yep, you’re getting more ports, an expressive screen and a 20W higher maximum power output – not bad! Even though this model has a list price that’s $15 / £10 higher than its Anker rival, I’ve seen it on sale for closer to the $33 / £27 mark. It’s worth noting, though, that there’s no USB-C cable included in the box. Read our full UGreen Nexode RG 65W review.
Jurassic World Rebirth is the latest entry into the beloved dinosaur film franchise, following its revival in 2015 where we were introduced to Jurassic World for the first time. The first movie was great and I loved being back, but since then, it's definitely gone downhill.
By far the worst installment to date is Jurassic World Dominion, which has so far received a very low Rotten Tomatoes score of 29% from the critics, making it the lowest rated film in the franchise.
With audiences left frustrated by the direction that movie went in, there was a lot of pressure on filmmakers to restore it to its former glory, ironically, not unlike their efforts to revive a jurassic theme park as seen in the movies, following the collapse of the original.
It may be reassuring for me to begin by saying Jurassic World Rebirth is nowhere near as bad as Jurassic World Dominion, and is a much better made movie, even though I'm not sure if it really adds much to the story, as it seems to go off doing its own thing once again.
I'm likely not alone in missing the original Jurassic World cast, even though the stars in Jurassic World Rebirth were very strong. With so many big names attached to the project like Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali and Jonathan Bailey, if you're after star power, you're definitely going to get it here. They give it their all, even with a script that doesn't have much substance.
Having said that, it does feel strange not following the characters we're used to seeing in the Jurassic franchise and with no returning faces from older movies, this may come as a disappointment for fans wanting to see some familiar names.
An entirely new cast was a gamble I'm not sure was worth taking, though there's likely going to be some division here from fans. Some may argue that it's nice to see a fresh set of characters, but they didn't grip me the way Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas-Howard did when they dominated the screen in the very first Jurassic World movie.
Still, if you're looking for a fast-paced, loud, exciting trip to the cinema you'll definitely get it here. The action set pieces, when they happen, are great and make good use of a cinema sound system. The sound design is epic as are the visuals, so it's a real bit of escapism.
The T-Rex gets disappointingly little screen time in Jurassic World Rebirth.(Image credit: Universal Pictures)
One thing that disappointed me was that the dinosaurs felt underused. Audiences are flocking to a movie called Jurassic World to be thrilled by the dinosaurs, so it's frustrating when we don't get to see a lot of them. I've had similar criticisms of monster movies like Godzilla v Kong, which took entirely too long for the big monsters to start punching each other. While I'm not asking for a movie devoid of any plot, it's sad when the dinosaurs do seem to take a back seat, when they should be front and center of a movie like this.
The best action movies are ones that don't hold back. These movies don't lull in the middle, whereas I did struggle with some of the pacing issues throughout Jurassic World Rebirth. The script felt weak in places and it's a real shame – I suppose trying to fix the mistakes of Jurassic World Dominion was no easy task, I'm sure.
It's certainly not the worst in the franchise, but for me, even something like Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, which received divisive reviews, entertained me more than Jurassic World Rebirth.
I liked the way Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom leaned into darker topics and borrowed from the horror genre, for example, and there was nothing quite that memorable here, save for one stand out scene involving a T-Rex and a raft, but even then they could've done so much more.
There are worse ways to spend an afternoon at the movies, though, and this one will help you switch off and escape into some beautiful visuals and a good score, but it does make me worried for whether or not this franchise has a future, or if its at rapid risk of extinction just like its subject matter.
WiZ Gradient Light Bars are a clear dupe of the Philips Hue Play Light Bars (in fact they're produced by the same parent company, Signify), and like their Philips counterparts, they’re mainly designed to be used alongside a HDMI Sync Box to extend its screen-mirroring light effects.
Alongside the light bars themselves, the kit includes two variants of bracket (standing and mounting), and a separate USB-A plug. That second inclusion won’t mean a whole lot to most people but as someone who is constantly hurting for spare outlets on my power strip, being able to connect the bars’ wire to my TV or games console is a godsend.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Abigail Shannon)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Abigail Shannon)
Both the mounts and the light bars themselves are light but hardily-constructed, delivering impressive quality considering the $60 price tag. Really, the only qualm I had with the design was the placing of the light bars’ wires: they jut out from one end of the bar and the standing mounts don’t provide a gap for the wire to go through. As a result, you have to bend the wire at quite a sharp angle and press the bar against it. This is fine for now (albeit a little unsightly) but I am a tad concerned about what impact this might have on the longevity of the wire insulation.
This is a small oversight in what is otherwise a cleverly-designed mounting system. The centre of each WiZ Gradient Light Bar is magnetized, allowing them to slot securely into the mount without worry of it falling out. Because of this magnetization, you could even mount them on the top of a TV niche for some effective downlighting. Fair warning: these lights are really versatile, so when you first unbox them, you’ll likely spend a good while experimenting with different placements to find your favorite.
Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Abigail Shannon)
Image 2 of 3
(Image credit: Abigail Shannon)
Image 3 of 3
(Image credit: Abigail Shannon)
A placement that works best in one layout might not work so well in another. For example, my TV unit isn’t a great deal wider than the TV itself and as a result, the WiZ Gradient Light Bars’ inclusion alongside the HDMI Sync Box Kit’s LED strip felt a tad redundant. Without sufficient spacing between the two light sources, they sort of just blended into each other in a way that made them feel lost in the layout. In that same vein, mounting them on the back of the TV didn’t make much sense either.
For my purposes, I found lying the light bars under my TV a better fit; this also had the added benefit of making up for the slight gap in light caused by the lack of LED strip on my TV’s bottom edge. That said, popping them on a bookshelf nearby produced a truly lovely effect too. Which is a nice reminder that if you don’t have the HDMI Sync Box Kit or just don’t fancy making your WiZ Gradient Light Bars part of your media setup, you really don’t have to.
Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Abigail Shannon)
Image 2 of 3
(Image credit: Abigail Shannon)
Image 3 of 3
(Image credit: Abigail Shannon)
Alongside the screen-mirroring effects made possible by the HDMI Sync Box, the light bars are capable of all the usual static and dynamic light effects found in the WiZ app, and can even be programmed independently of each other. In each lighting mode, the light bars output a beautifully smooth and vibrant gradient glow that looks wonderful diffused against your wall or enjoyed directly. They can also be used for WiZ’s very rudimentary Music Sync mode (you’ll have to check out my review of the WiZ Gradient floor lamp to catch up on the beef I have with that).
Another activation you (theoretically) can set up in the app is SmartSense, WiZ’s motion detection function. Given that SmartSense requires two Bluetooth-enabled WiZ lights, I assumed that the Gradient Light Bars were the perfect candidate for testing this feature. Unfortunately, as far as SmartSense is concerned, the bars count as one single entity. This is a bit of a shame given they can be placed far away enough from each other to meet the setup requirements, but they likely have a shared Wi-Fi receiver that would make SmartSense impossible and the app recognizes that.
(Image credit: Abigail Shannon)
If you’re picking up the WiZ Gradient Light Bars, I’m not sure I’d recommend buying a third light source solely for the purpose of using SmartSense. In my testing (using the Gradient Floor Lamp as my third light), I found the motion detection disappointingly unreliable. After a good deal of troubleshooting, jumping up and down like an idiot, and four recalibration attempts, I resigned myself to the fact that there were a lot of things these versatile little light bars could do — and do very well— but motion detection was not one of them.
WiZ Gradient Light Bars: specifications
Connectivity
Wi-Fi (2.4GHz only), Bluetooth
Smart home compatibility
Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant & Matter
Brightness
Not specified
Light temperature
2,200-6,500K
Dimensions (with standing mount)
12.6 x 4.3 x 9.6in / 32 x 11 x 7.5cm
Dimensions (without mount)
11.8 x 1.9 x 1.2in / 30 x 5 x 4cm
WiZ Gradient Light Bars: price and availability
Price: $59.99 / £54.99 (not sold in Australia)
Where to buy: WiZ (US only), Amazon
The WiZ Gradient Light Bars have an MSRP of $59.99 in the US, and are available to purchase on WiZ’s site and on Amazon. However, at time of writing, the bars are sold out at WiZ and are 10% off at Amazon – that certainly makes for an easy decision on where to pick them up.
If you’re in the UK, you’ll be able to check out WiZ’s product lineup on their site but when it comes to actually ordering them, you’re better off heading to Amazon. There, you can purchase the light bars for £54.99.
Should you buy the WiZ Gradient Light Bars?
Buy them if
You want a smart light that’s versatile and doesn’t take up too much space
These little light bars are small but mighty, delivering a powerful glow in a compact package. They can also be placed standing, lying down, or mounted wherever you fancy putting them.
You have a WiZ HDMI Sync Box
While it’s definitely not a prerequisite, the WiZ Gradient Light Bars pairs really well with the HDMI Sync Box and can be used to deliver even more screen-mirroring ambient light around your living space.
You’re on a budget
At $60, the WiZ Gradient Light Bars are a fairly low-cost lighting fixture that offers double the bang for your buck thanks to the fact that it includes two bars in one kit.
Don't buy them if
You want to place your light bars in separate rooms
While the wire linking the WiZ Gradient Light Bars allows for over 7ft of distance between each bar, they are still connected to a single power supply. If you’re hoping for a two-for-one deal that helps you pop a smart light in every room of your house, look elsewhere.
You’re buying WiZ Gradient Light Bars hoping they alone can be used for SmartSense
Technically when you buy the WiZ Gradient Light Bars, you fit SmartSense’s requirement of having two Bluetooth-enabled smart lights that can be placed 6.6ft apart from each other. However, the two light bars count as one unit for the purposes of SmartSense.
WiZ Gradient Light Bars: also consider
If you’re still shopping around, why not consider these alternatives: Govee Table Lamp 2 and Philips Hue Play Light Bars offer very similar functionality at differing price points.
WiZ Gradient Light Bars
Govee Table Lamp 2
Philips Hue Play Light Bars
Price
$59.99 / £54.99
$69.99 / £69.99
$79.99 / £59.99
Number of units included
2
1
1
Smart home compatibility
Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant and Matter
Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant & Matter
Amazon Alexa, Apple HomeKit, Google Assistant (via Philips Hue app)
Brightness
Not specified
500 lumens
500 lumens
Color temperature
2,200-6,500K
2,700-6,500K
2000-6500K
Dimensions (without mount)
30 x 5 x 4cm / 11.8 x 1.9 x 1.2in
4.7 x 11 x 4.7in / 12 x 28 x 12cm
10 x 1.7 x 1.4in / 25.3 x 4.4 x 3.6cm
How I tested the WiZ Gradient Light Bars
I installed the WiZ Gradient Light Bars in my main living space
I used the lights for two weeks, both independently and synced with my TV
I tested various settings and customization options
I tested the WiZ Gradient Light Bars for two weeks, while paired with the WiZ HDMI Sync Box Kit. I used them while they were synced to content from my TV and as standalone smart lights. During periods where they were not synced to the TV, I controlled them via the WiZ app and through voice controls made to my Amazon Alexa. For more details, see how we test, rate, and review at TechRadar.
The Sony ULT Field 3 is one of the latest portable Bluetooth speakers to enter a market stuffed to the gills with options. This one promises “impressive power”, “easy portability” and a build quality that'll play your music “anywhere, in any weather”. But with rivals such as JBL and Ultimate Ears going all-in on the whole rough-and-ready portable speaker thing, it begs the question… can Sony outdo its red-hot rivals?
At a glance, you may well think so. This speaker is packed with a ton of features. We’ve got multi-point, customizable EQ, environment optimization and, of course, ULT mode for enhanced bass output. That’s all very neat, and as always, Sony has done a great job with its Sound Connect app, which enables you to access all of these features and more.
This is also a highly durable speaker, with excellent build quality, IP67 dust and waterproofing and an adjustable strap, meaning it’s easy to transport and play in any environment. But, in order to outdo the best Bluetooth speakers around, the thing that truly matters in my book is sound quality.
Unfortunately for the Field 3, this is the one key reason that it fails to stake its claim as a class-leading option. Even with ULT mode on, which plays to the speaker’s strengths – beefy low-end output – you’ll notice significant compression at higher volumes, some harshness in the treble range and a slight lack of nuance.
Even if you want a more balanced listen, the ULT-off tuning simply didn’t cut it in my experience. You can achieve decent audio using the Sound Connect app’s seven-band equalizer, but still, you can’t expect well-separated, perfectly balanced audio.
And given the list price of this speaker – just under $200 / £180 / AU$330 – I think that middling sound quality is pretty disappointing. Some issues, like limited bass extension and mono-only sound (unless you pair to a second Field 3 model) are typical for a speaker of this size – but I’d still expect clearer, more controlled audio from a Sony product at this cost.
Again, a serviceable listen is certainly achievable on the Field 3. But some aspects are more than serviceable. More than anything, that includes battery life, which is very good for a speaker in this weight class. You get up to 24 hours with ULT on – admittedly not playing at high volume, though. Still, the Field 3 should have plenty of juice to last a long listening session, and it can even charge external devices with its USB-C port – which is a most welcome inclusion.
When all’s said and done, the Sony ULT Field 3 has some strong qualities, but just doesn’t have enough sauce to stand out in a talented crowd. Perhaps if it gets a juicy price cut in sales events I’d be able to say it’s worth checking out. But for the moment, I’d suggest looking elsewhere for a summer-ready Bluetooth speaker. Other models, such as the JBL Charge 5 or even the smaller, yet Wi-Fi-enabled Sonos Roam 2 would be better picks, just to name a couple.
(Image credit: Future)
Sony ULT Field 3 review: price and release date
$199 / £179 / AU$329
Launched in April 2025
The Sony ULT Field 3 launched alongside its sibling, the Sony ULT Field 5 in April 2025. It has a list price of $199 / £179 / AU$329, but there’s good news – I’ve already seen it on sale for less through various online retailers. In the UK, for instance, Sony has already run a slashed-price offer, which allows you to pick the ULT Field 3 up for less than £160, so keep your eyes peeled for a bargain buy.
You can grab the ULT Field in three different colorways: Black; Forest Gray; and Off White. The variant you chose should have little to no impact on the price you pay for this model.
Sony ULT Field 3 review: specs
Drivers
1x 86 x 46mm woofer, 1x 20mm tweeter
Dimensions
10.1 x 4.4 x 3.1 inches / 256 x 113 x 79mm
Weight
2.6lbs / 1.2kg
Connectivity
Bluetooth 5.2
Battery life
24 hours
Waterproofing
IP67
(Image credit: Future)
Sony ULT Field 3 review: features
ULT mode for enhanced bass output
Sound Field Optimization
Great battery life
As is typically the case with Sony, you’re getting a solid suite of features on the ULT Field 3. You get the standard stuff like multi-point connectivity, fast-pairing and multi-speaker pairing – which unlocks stereo mode – but there’s so much more to uncover.
Perhaps the main attraction is the ULT mode, which gives bass a gigantic boost. It’s well worth having this on if you want the most powerful, party-ready sound available, but I’ll drill into that a little more later. You can also listen with ULT mode off or set your own custom EQ using a seven band equalizer.
Another audio-related feature that interested me was Sound Field Optimization. This essentially detects noise from your surroundings and fine-tunes audio output to be as clear as possible for your environment – something that’s particularly useful in busier outdoor areas.
But if you dive into the Sony Sound Connect app, there’s a little more at your fingertips. There’s STAMINA (yep, in all caps) mode, which provides a boost to battery life while restricting elements like different sound modes. There’s also an option to prioritize connection quality over sound quality or control playback from your music apps.
One more feature that you don’t always find is an integrated mic that enables hand-free calling. I tested this out and found that my voice came through clearly and my friend's speech on the other end of the line never had any noticeable tinniness or distortion.
Does the ULT Field 3 have the most fleshed out feature-set I’ve ever seen? Well, not quite. There’s a distinct lack of EQ presets, no LED lights or similar, no Auracast over Bluetooth LE audio and omission of wired listening.
Still, there’s plenty overall – even a USB-C charging port that can juice up external devices or serve as a medium to charge the speaker itself. While we’re here, let’s talk battery life too. I was impressed with the ULT Field 3’s playtime – in fact, it’s one of the best things about this speaker. You get up to 24 hours of battery life – of course, if you’re listening at high volumes with ULT mode on, that’s gonna be lower. But still, this speaker is more than capable of keeping the tunes bumping well into the early hours.
Features score: 4/5
(Image credit: Future)
Sony ULT Field 3 review: sound quality
Standard ULT-off tuning sounds poor
But with it active, you get improved, bass-heavy audio
No advanced codecs, not even LDAC
OK, to be frank, I was initially pretty disappointed with the audio performance of the Sony ULT Field 3. I started off by listening with ULT switched off and tuned into Black Eye by Allie X which sounded… underwhelming. The meaty drum machine lacked its bite, taking the rhythmic bounce of the track down a peg. At higher volumes, the vocals had a slightly tinny edge to them too. But much of this could be rectified.
Yes, I simply pressed the ULT button and things vastly improved. The deep bass of that drum machine reared its lovely head, finally giving the track some much needed uplift in the low end and, in turn, I was gifted a more full-sounding delivery. In addition, dance tracks like Last One Standing by Kolter and Sidney Charles sounded better this way, with strong low-end output and decently crisp vocal sections.
But even with ULT mode on, I did encounter some issues. All songs sounded noticeably compressed as I gradually pushed the volume higher and higher. By the time I’d reached 80-100%, there was little breathing room for each instrument, resulting in quite a muffled, narrow sound. Treble especially could get pretty harsh with loudness pushed to the max. At medium volume, I’d argue that vocals, percussion and strings were all relatively clear, and the audio can just about fill a medium-sized room. But don’t expect phenomenal separation or microscopic levels of detail even here.
On that note, you won’t get any ‘hi-res’ Bluetooth codecs with the Sony ULT Field 3. Even Sony’s proprietary LDAC has been left out. Then again, this is more of a fun and convenient party speaker rather than a device pitched at audiophiles. And there are a ton of great alternatives if you want a more revealing listen – just look at the Bose SoundLink Max (or newer, smaller, cheaper SoundLink Plus) for instance.
There are a couple of other issues I ran into that are worth noting. Even with ULT mode on, the speaker didn’t quite have the might to handle dark sub bass. For example, The Boys Are Back In Town by Yung Gravy – marked by imposing deep bass running throughout – wasn’t replicated all too well. The speaker just didn’t quite have that extension in the low-end to make every boom sound ultra-clear, with the deepest notes tailing off a bit, even in ULT mode. For a speaker of this size, that’s fairly common – but it’s worth considering if you want the ultimate bass-heavy audio companion.
Speaking of that, there’s a seven-band equalizer that you can access via the Sound Connect app, which does enable you to forge a better sound than the standard ULT off tuning. But that’s it. There aren’t any other presets, which is pretty disappointing if you just want a swift way to adjust the sound to you. There’s also no EQ test, as seen on Sony’s recent smash hit headphones, the Sony WH-1000XM6.
Still, with a custom calibration, I did find that tracks with more emphasis on vocals – rather than big booming bass – could sound fairly clear. Rains Again by Solji had solid balance across the frequencies, with expressive vocals and soft strings coming through with enhanced clarity. And for tracks like this, where ULT mode will afford too much emphasis to the low-end, that quality is most welcome. All in all, decent audio is achievable with the ULT Field 3, but it’s far from the best-sounding speaker I’ve tested.
Sound quality score: 3/5
(Image credit: Future)
Sony ULT Field 3 review: design
IP67 dust and waterproof rating
Adjustable and detachable strap
Looks-wise not my fave, but fairly compact and durable
The Sony ULT Field 3 is certainly designed to be a rugged, outdoorsy speaker and it serves that purpose nicely. That’s largely thanks to its up-to-scratch IP67 rating, which means it's both dustproof and able to survive 30 minutes of underwater submersion, up to one meter – something I’d expect from any of the best waterproof speakers.
On top of that, there’s a really solid feel to the Field 3. It has a robust, durable, and fairly chunky build – if you dropped it I think it might break the ground rather than the other way round. Weighing in at 2.6lbs / 1.2kg, it’s got some serious weight for its size. Overall, it really does feel as if the ruggedness of this speaker is its selling point, rather than sound quality.
No matter the environment, you’ll be able to take the Field 3 around with ease, thanks to a fabric strap that’s pre-attached to the speaker (it can be removed). Some models like the Tribit Stormbox Lava come with a handle that you can swap in for transportation over shorter distances – something I would’ve liked to have seen here – though you can adjust the strap to make it shorter for handheld use if you’d prefer.
In terms of looks, I wasn’t loving the Field 3, though that’s fully down to personal preference. I just didn’t quite dig its rounded brick-like aesthetic and the color options were a bit on the bland side for me, but you might love it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
And there’s certainly stuff here that I do like, including simple yet effective button controls, a tab hiding the USB-C port, and a decently compact build. So yes, plenty to admire about the Field 3 as far as design goes – especially if you want something that’s ready to brave any setting, from living room through to the beach.
Design score: 4/5
(Image credit: Future)
Sony ULT Field 3 review: value
Audio not good enough for the price
A lot of rivals can still offer the ruggedness too
Ultimately overshadowed in a tough market
The Sony ULT Field 3 is by no means an inexpensive speaker. At $199 / £179 / AU$329, it’s not quite in the premium tier, and its sibling the ULT Field 5 will come at a substantially higher price. But there are tons of similarly sized rivals offering great sound, build quality and features at a similar – or even lower price.
Value for money is simply not the ULT Field 3’s strong-suit. That's mainly because audio quality is pretty disappointing. You can definitely achieve a decent listening experience with ULT on for bass-heavy tracks, or custom calibration for softer genres and podcasts, but still – there are some issues, like underwhelming sound with ULT off and prominent compression at high volumes that hold this model back.
When you have rivals like the JBL Charge 6 on the market that offer impressive audio, an even higher IP rating and the same battery life, there simply aren’t many reasons to recommend the Field 3.
Is this a bad speaker? No, no it’s not. The ULT mode is the key draw, offering solid bass response for a speaker of this stature. You also get a ton of playtime and great protection against the elements. But I’d argue that’s not enough given the competition from, of course JBL – but also the Sonos Roam 2 (below), Ultimate Ears Everboom, and Tribit Stormbox Lava.
Value score: 2.5/5
(Image credit: Future)
Should I buy the Sony ULT Field 3?
Attributes
Notes
Rating
Features
Some omissions, but great battery life, environment optimization is a nice touch.
4/5
Sound quality
Needs ULT on to sound its best, at high volumes compression is noticeable.
3/5
Design
It's not the sleekest, but the Field 3 is rugged and ready for any environment.
4/5
Value
Average audio at a not-so-cheap price makes the Field 3 a tough sell.
2.5/5
Buy it if...
You want a speaker capable of handling any environment I have no doubts that the Sony ULT Field 3 is capable of enduring almost any setting, thanks to its brilliant IP67 dust and waterproof rating. That means it can even survive being dunked underwater for 30 minutes – pretty impressive. If you want to bring your music anywhere and everywhere, the Field 3 has you covered.
You need a speaker with plenty of battery to go around One of the best things about the ULT Field 3 is undoubtedly its battery life. You can get up to 24 hours here, which is enough to keep the tunes blasting throughout a beachside bash or house party for the ages. You can also use the Field 3 to charge external devices via its USB-C port, so when it comes to power, this really does have it all.
Don't buy it if...
You want great all-round audio In terms of sound quality, the Sony ULT Field 3 is unlikely to wow you. Without ULT mode on, bass sounds too thin, but even when it is active you’ll notice a lot of compression at high volumes and treble especially can get quite harsh. I’d recommend checking out our guide to the best party speakers if you want a more sonically talented alternative.
You’re on a budget The ULT Field 3 simply isn’t great value – particularly when it’s not on sale. You can do better for $199 / £179. But you don’t even have to spend that much. If you want a great speaker without having to spend all too much, I’d recommend checking out options like the five-star JBL Flip 7, or for something a little larger, the Anker Soundcore Boom 2.
Sony ULT Field 3 review: also consider
Sony ULT Field 3
JBL Charge 5
Sonos Roam 2
Price
$199 / £179 / AU$329
$179.95 / £169.99 / AU$199.95
$179 / £179 / AU$299
Drivers
1x 86 x 46mm woofer, 1x 20mm tweeter
1x 30W woofer, 1x 10W tweeter
1x tweeter, 1x mid-woofer
Dimensions
10.1 x 4.4 x 3.1 inches / 256 x 113 x 79mm
8.7 x 3.76 x 3.67 inches / 221 x 96 x 93 mm
6.6 x 2.4 x 2.4 inches / 168 x 62 x 60mm
Weight
2.6lbs / 1.2kg
2.1lbs / 960g
1lbs / 440g
Connectivity
Bluetooth 5.2
Bluetooth 5.1
Bluetooth 5.4, Wi-Fi
Battery life
24 hours
20 hours
10 hours
Waterproofing
IP67
IP67
IP67
JBL Charge 5 If you’re looking for a great-value rival to the Sony ULT Field 3, the JBL Charge 5 is right up there. You get well-balanced, clear audio, plenty of power and a highly durable design. Its battery life is very good, but not quite as high as Sony’s speaker and we still noticed distortion at peak volume. But overall this is a great speaker. With the Charge 6 recently arriving (review coming soon, and we’re expecting great things), you’re also able to pick the Charge 5 up at a massively cut price right now. I’m talking $139 / £119 – that’s amazing value! Read our full JBL Charge 5 review.
Sonos Roam 2 This one’s something a little different, but well worth checking out. Yep, the Sonos Roam 2 is a fair bit smaller than the ULT Field 3, weighs less than half of Sony’s speaker and can’t come close in terms of battery life. But still, I’d choose it over the ULT Field 3, personally. You get surprisingly powerful, yet rich sound quality, Wi-Fi connectivity for seamless streaming, and the same IP67 ruggedness. We’ve also seen it on sale for less than $140 / £140 in 2025, so keep an eye out for juicy deals if you’re sold on this Sonos speaker. Read our full Sonos Roam 2 review.
Sony ULT Field 3 review: how I tested
(Image credit: Future)
Tested for one week
Mainly used in our music testing facility at Future Labs
Predominantly tested using Tidal
I put the Sony ULT Field 3 to the test for a one week period (after a thoroguh run-in of 15 hours), tinkering with all of its features, blasting hours worth of tunes and assessing all aspects of its design. I predominantly tested in our music testing room at Future Labs in order to judge audio quality in an isolated, controlled environment.
When listening to music, I mainly used Tidal, but I occasionally played songs via Spotify too. I initially streamed tracks from our carefully curated TechRadar reference playlist, but I also listened to music from my own personal library.
I’ve tested all sorts of audio gear during my time here at TechRadar, from flagship headphones like the Sony WH-1000XM6 through to home cinema products like the Marshall Heston 120. I’ve reviewed a large array of speakers along the way from brands like Sony, LG and JBL, so I have a strong understanding of the ULT Field 3’s rivals, as well as what it takes to stand out as a strong candidate in a highly competitive market.
