The Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame is a true 2K picture frame that arrives at a sweet spot when it comes to cost. With a price tag of $159.99 / £149.99, it remains more affordable than many mid-market and premium frames, while offering pretty decent specs and admirable performance. And since it uses local storage, there are no ongoing subscription costs. In terms of return on investment, then, I’d argue it represents a pretty sweet deal.
Getting started with the Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame is super easy. Once you’ve plugged it in and connected it to your Wi-Fi, you can scan a QR code to download the third-party Frameo app. Then all you need to do is press the 'Add a Friend' button on-screen, type the code that appears into the app and you can start sending images to your heart's content. Naturally, this also allows you to connect friends and family, so they can also add photos to your frame.
For anyone wary of uploading photos of their nearest and dearest to the cloud, there’s some good news here. The Pexar comes with 32GB of built-in storage, which should be plenty; that’s enough to store almost a quarter of my photos and I’ve been snapping them since 2010. Should you want more space, you can easily upgrade the frame’s storage – just add an SD card, USB-A or USB-C stick and you can add up to 1TB.
(Image credit: Future)
Adding photos is as easy as it is with many of the best digital photo frames, although there are some peculiarities. You can scroll through your whole phone’s image library or each album, either tapping on individual photos or selecting up to 10 at a time – if you want to upload more than this in one go, you’ll have to upgrade to Frameo+ for $1.99 / £0.99 a month or $16.99 / £7.99 a year. You’ll then have a chance to add captions, before selecting a circular focal area the Pexar will ensure remains framed in either portrait or landscape orientation. Note that you can’t resize this focal area, and sometimes it frames things oddly – honestly, I’d rather just have the option to crop each photo manually.
However, once images have been uploaded on the Pexar, they generally look sumptuous. Its 11-inch screen is true 2K, giving it an impressive 212 PPI pixel density that few frames can rival. You could potentially argue the screen is an odd aspect ratio; 5:3 is an unusual ratio for photos compared to 4:3 or 16:9, but I do actually find its slimline portrait and super-wide landscape format pretty striking, even if it does mean losing a little more of my snaps.
For showing off your pictures, the Pexar does an excellent job. Every image displays superb contrast, making my black-and-white photography really pop. Meanwhile, the color profile seems unerringly precise – the ochers and umbers of Fuerteventura’s stark landscape looked suitably brooding, while my close-up shots of rhododendrons at the arboretum were a riot of vivid purples, reds, oranges and yellows. Even by the iPhone’s very exacting color standards, the Pexar didn’t seem to struggle to match what I saw on my phone screen.
(Image credit: Future / Josh Russell)
The matte screen also makes images look super-realistic and feels nice to the touch. While it inevitably attracts the odd fingerprint, I can’t say I noticed all that many smears and smudges. Also, the anti-glare feature does a decent job of keeping reflected light from spoiling your snaps – although the British weather meant there wasn’t much direct sunlight during my testing period, so I was able to position the frame facing my large sash windows without it having a significant effect on the viewability of my photos.
You don’t just have to make do with static images, though: you can also share videos with the Pexar – although if you want these to be any longer than 15 seconds, you’ll again need to upgrade to Frameo+. And while I was skeptical about how these would translate to the screen, I was pleasantly surprised; color balance and contrast are solid, even if they don’t quite match the HDR brilliance of my iPhone 13 Pro’s display. Motion definitely isn’t 120Hz, but it’s fluid enough that your videos still look true to life. The only place it lets itself down is sound quality: as with TV screens, there’s been much less investment in the Pexar’s speakers and this is readily apparent. Most of my videos sounded echoey and unpleasant and, personally, I’d be happier just leaving the sound off entirely.
Generally speaking, the auto-rotate feature works well – when stand-mounted, you just pop out the magnetic stand, attach it to the other side of the frame, and place the frame down in its new orientation; images will spin to match. Wall-mounting is easy, too. You can hang it in either orientation using nails or picture hooks, although rotating it won’t be as easy using this mounting option – there’s no swivel mount here.
(Image credit: Future)
When it comes to the rest of its design, it looks smart. The white bezels around the screen give it a classy vibe and make it feel much more like a real photo frame and mount. Meanwhile, the black frame is nicely understated, purposely doing as little to distract from your photos as possible. Admittedly, I’m not super into the scored, textured effect that’s been applied to it, but you can only really see that very close-up and it does at least improve your grip when you pick it up.
Ultimately, the Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame is a great compromise between picture quality and cost. For its relatively modest $159.99 / £149.99 price, you get a crisp 2K picture, decent color reproduction, and offline storage for added security. There are some limits: uploading a bulk lot of photos using the app will take a long time without a Frameo+ account; the aspect ratio is definitely unusual; and the built-in speakers aren't worth the bother. But that doesn’t change the fact that this digital photo frame offers far more than most others – and even some that cost a fair bit more – at this price.
(Image credit: Future / Josh Russell)
Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame review: price & release date
$159.99 / £149.99
Launched in the US and UK September 5, 2024
Frameo app free or $1.99 / £0.99 a month for Frameo+
The Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame was released on September 5, 2024, and is now available direct from the Pexar store, as well as from major retailers such as Amazon.
Retailing for $159.99 / £149.99, it sits somewhere in the middle of the market – it’s more expensive than cheap and cheerful options such as the 10-inch Aeezo Portrait 01, but it costs half the price of the premium Aura Walden.
One thing that’s worth factoring in is that you don’t need to pay for a cloud subscription to get started with the Pexar: its local storage means you can upload photos using the Frameo app for free. However, you may find you want to upgrade to Frameo+: for $1.99 / £0.99 a month or $16.99 / £7.99 a year, the upgraded tier will allow you to upload 100 photos at a time, rather than 10, and upload videos up to two-minutes long, rather than 15 seconds. It also provides access to cloud backups for your photos and allows you to browse the images sent to your Pexar through the smartphone app.
(Image credit: Future)
Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame review: specs
(Image credit: Future / Josh Russell)
Should I buy the Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame?
Buy it if…
You want really high resolution The Pexar’s 2000 x 1200, 11-inch screen gives it a seriously impressive pixel density of 212 pixels per inch. Compare it to something like the 133 pixels per inch offered by the $299 / £299 Aura Walden, and you can see what a good deal the Pexar presents.
You’re concerned about your family’s privacy With its offline storage, you don’t have to worry about whether your personal photos are vulnerable to interception in the cloud with this frame. This makes the Pexar a great choice for anyone with a family or who values peace of mind.
Don’t buy it if…
You want to show your snaps at their largest While an 11-inch screen isn’t bad, there are larger frames out there. For example, the Vieunite Textura comes in at a whopping 27 inches, which is perfect for displaying art in larger rooms.
You want unlimited storage On the flipside, the lack of cloud storage on offer here does mean that the Pexar’s total capacity is finite. You can add an extra 1TB via USB or SD card, so it’s unlikely to be a problem for most people; but it's something you’ll need to bear in mind if you want to drop a lifetime of photos on there.
Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame review: also consider
Aura Walden The Aura Walden is a seriously attractive premium option, offering a larger 15.6-inch screen and a gorgeous finish to its mount and frame. Its app is also easy to use and it offers free unlimited cloud storage – which definitely gives it the edge over subscription-based products. It does come in at a much higher price though, and its lower pixel density does show off some pixelation at close range. Read our full Aura Walden review.
Aeezo Portrait 01 If you’re looking to spend a lot less, the $69.99 / £55.99 Aeezo Portrait 01 is likely your best option. It also utilizes the Frameo app to allow friends and family to share photos and videos and offers internal storage or the option to add an SD card / USB stick to give you more space. Unfortunately, it isn't as solid a performer as the Pexar: its 1280 x 800 pixel resolution is much lower and it’s much less bright at 227 nits. Read our full Pexar 11-inch review.
How I tested the Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame
I tested the Pexar 11-inch Digital Picture Frame over a period of two weeks. I uploaded a variety of photos using the Frameo+ app and set up several other people so they could share photos with the frame as well.
I uploaded a range of images, including portraits and landscapes and everything from brightly colored shots of animals and flowers to black-and-white scenery. I also uploaded a series of videos to assess their resolution and refresh rate. I tried the frame in multiple positions around my home and the TechRadar office and changed its orientation between portrait and landscape.
I’m an experienced photographer, having spent many years shooting both on my Canon DSLR and my iPhone 16 Pro. I’ve taken over 40,000 photos over the years and have spent many years doing post-production on photos and preparing images for print, meaning I have a keen eye for how images should display to look as natural as possible.
The Blink Mini 2 is a home security camera that can be used indoors, and outside when combined with the Blink Weather Resistant Power Adapter sold separately. It has a list price of $39.99 / £34.99 / AU$69 and is available to buy at Amazon.
Blink has followed in many other brands footsteps and requires you to pay a subscription fee to access recordings and most of the Blink Mini 2’s features. However, the camera does have the benefit of manual recording backup, though this will require an additional purchase of the Blink Sync Module 2 and a compatible USB drive.
The setup process was blissfully straightforward, and the Blink Home Monitor app worked well for the most part, aside from a couple of random glitches and the over-complicated process of getting to the device settings from the homepage.
(Image credit: Future)
The design of the Blink Mini 2 is small and simple; the camera is cube-shaped and sits on a ball joint that connects it to the compact circular base slash bracket, depending on whether it’s placed on a surface or fixed to a wall or ceiling. The ball joint only allows for manual repositioning, so regrettably, unlike many of the best home security cameras, there’s no capacity for remote control movement, meaning I could only view one static area at a time. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a privacy cover, so while camera and audio feeds can be disconnected in the app, if multiple people have access there’s no guarantee of privacy while the camera is operational.
The activity and privacy zones did their job well. However, the process to select the areas was basic and was limited to a square or rectangular shape, which isn’t ideal if you want to block off your neighbor's yard but the boundary isn’t straight or at the right angle. The privacy zones were also unsightly on the feed and recorded footage, replacing the area with an expanse of grey.
In terms of performance, the Blink Mini 2 didn’t bowl me over. The video and audio quality were disappointing, but not bad considering how cheap the hardware is. The footage was grainy on the default standard image quality setting, and the picture pixelated when there was movement on the screen. The best picture quality setting fared better, with little pixelation and a slight improvement to the graininess.
(Image credit: Future)
For the most part, motion detection and person detection worked well. I needed to up the motion sensitivity from the default level of five to seven as it didn’t detect me on my return to the room. The Blink Mini 2 didn’t detect my cats when it was set to this sensitivity level, but there were a few occasions when it recognized my cats as people when I upped it to the maximum setting of nine.
Overall, I wasn’t blown away by the Blink Mini 2, but for the price, it’s a good basic camera for those who don’t require crystal-clear footage or audio, and are just looking for something that won’t cost the earth to keep an eye on a particular area. If you’d like to check out some alternatives I recommend checking out our best home security cameras buying guide, which features several alternatives tailored to specific requirements.
Blink Mini 2 review: price and availability
List price: $39.99 / £34.99 / AU$69
Availability: US, UK, and Australia
Release date: May 2024
The Blink Mini 2 is available at a list price of $39.99 / £34.99 / AU$69, which is fairly low cost for a smart indoor/outdoor home security camera. It was released in May 2024 and is available to purchase at Amazon, which is no coincidence when Blink is in fact an Amazon company.
An upgrade to the previous generation, the Blink Mini, the Blink Mini 2 has been given some welcome new features including color night view, a wider field of view of 143 degrees and a built-in spotlight as standard. Additionally, it offers person detection and can be used outdoors, but additional purchases are required.
It’s a big positive that it’s possible to store recordings locally, which requires an additional Blink device and a compatible USB drive. As with other smart home security cameras, it also offers a cloud subscription service that gives access to recordings and additional features via the Blink Home Monitor app, downloadable from the App Store, Google Play, or Amazon Appstore.
If you intend to store your recordings locally, you’ll need to purchase a Blink Sync Module 2, and a suitable USB flash drive, which will save photos and videos from up to ten Blink cameras. Without a subscription plan, you’ll have access to your recordings if you’re backing them up via the Blink Sync Module 2 (but you’ll have to back them up manually), will receive motion-activated notifications, and can access the live view for up to five minutes at a time. It’s worth stressing here that if you choose not to continue with the initial free trial all recordings will be deleted, so make sure to back them up first if you take this route.
Value score: 4 / 5
Blink Mini 2 subscription options
Blink Basic Plan: In addition to the features available without a plan, you also get live view and motion event recording, unlimited cloud storage for up to 60 days, automatic local storage backup every 24 hours, instant video access, video sharing, person detection, and photo capture. Applicable to one device only. Price: $3 / £2.50 / AU$4.95 per month, $30 / £24.99 / AU$49.95 per year
Blink Plus Plan: Along with the benefits of the Basic Plan, you’re able to snooze notifications, get 10% off Blink device purchases at Amazon, and use the Blink Moments feature, which seamlessly stitches together multiple events into one video. Applicable to all Blink devices. Price: $10 / £8 / AU$15 per month, $100 / £80 / AU$150 per year
Blink Mini 2 review: specifications
Blink Mini 2 review: design and features
Easy setup
No privacy cover
No remote control capabilities
The setup process was fairly quick and simple, I just needed to download the Blink Home Monitor app, scan the barcode on the back of the Blink Mini 2, and follow the step-by-step instructions. The only small stumbling block was when the app claimed that my phone failed to connect to the Mini 2’s Wi-Fi hotspot automatically and to select it manually in my Wi-Fi settings. Before I got to my settings, the app pinged me a notification to let me know that the camera had connected successfully, so we got there in the end.
Available in black or white, the Blink Mini 2 is similar in size to its predecessor and has a rather dazzling spotlight above the camera lens that can be toggled on or off from the app. The camera sits on a sturdy but easily adjustable ball joint that connects it to the base, but this is only for manual positioning, meaning it cannot be moved remotely.
(Image credit: Future)
As an indoor/outdoor camera, the Blink Mini 2 can sit happily on a flat surface on its stand or can be screwed to a wall or ceiling using the bracket that's integrated into the base. It’s worth noting that to use outside it will require the Blink Weather Resistant Power Adapter, which is sold separately.
Along with the Sync Module 2, the Blink Mini 2 can connect to other Blink devices, such as the Blink Video Doorbell, transforming the Mini 2 into a plug-in chime every time the doorbell rings.
Unlike some other indoor cameras, such as the 4.5-star rated Ring Pan-Tilt Indoor Cam, the Blink Mini 2 doesn’t feature a privacy cover, so there’s no way to manually cut the audio and visual feed to the camera short of just unplugging it. It was possible to block the camera view via the app if necessary by setting a privacy zone, though.
(Image credit: Future)
When I set one of these zones up myself to check how efficient they were, the live feed kept showing me the spinning-wheel-of-doom and wouldn’t load, so it seemed to struggle with this extra requirement initially. The video clips still recorded when spotting movement, however, and it was undoubtedly clear where the privacy zone was, as the image in this area was covered by a grey rectangle. By the time I’d finished testing this, the live feed had gotten itself back together, and the privacy area was again marked by a grey block, so nothing was viewable within that area.
It’s also possible to disable video recording and, as promised, it didn’t record anything after I switched it on. There’s also a setting to disable the audio connection, and true enough after applying this setting it cut off the feed to the microphone both on the live view and in recorded footage, so it was still possible to see what was going on but no sound was present. So while these are good features, privacy cannot be guaranteed if others can access the camera feed.
Design and features score: 3 / 5
Blink Mini 2 review: performance
Some lag and pixelization
Privacy areas work well, but they’re unattractive
Standard IR night vision performs better than best daytime setting
I used the Blink Home Monitor app to enable the different settings for testing and to view the live feed and recordings. In my opinion, the process required to get to the camera’s settings is somewhat inefficient. To access the camera settings for the Blink Mini 2 from the homepage I had to go into the settings menu, into device and system settings, then into Office (which is what I’d named my location), click on an inconspicuous all devices button, then click on TechRadar Office (the name of my Blink Mini 2), before I’m finally shown the device settings that I need. Admittedly, if I clicked on the three dots icon from the live view and then tapped device settings, it got me there too, but if you install a few cameras or devices at once, getting to the devices' settings all gets a bit long-winded.
Video quality is set to standard by default, and although I wasn’t impressed with it, it was acceptable for the low price. The footage and live view were quite grainy, and some pixelization occurred when movement was present on the screen. This isn’t what I expected to see after viewing the marketing material, but at a $40 price tag, I suppose you get what you pay for.
The other two settings available were saver mode, which reduces video quality, and best, which is meant to be higher quality. The best footage was still grainy – but not as severely as it was in standard mode – and it did seem to pixelate less when there was movement present, so there was some improvement.
(Image credit: Future)
As was the case with the Ring Pan-Tilt Indoor Cam, the Blink Mini 2’s Night View in Color was only functional with enough ambient light. I found that I needed an LED lamp on in the corner at medium brightness for the image to be colored, and it did a good job of that. But if the environment was any darker than this it reverted to the standard black and white mode that we’re used to from other indoor security cameras. The black and white infrared night vision picture quality was great, and an improvement on the normal quality that’s recorded in daylight.
The audio quality left me unimpressed. There was loud static noise when there wasn’t any sound to relay, and voices weren’t particularly clear – but it was adequate enough for a cheaply priced security camera.
It was frustrating that clips didn’t auto-record if I happened to be viewing the live feed when an event happened. There was a button to save the recording on the bottom right of the screen, which is helpful and means that the clip can be saved. But I can err on the forgetful side, so if I happened to be looking at the feed when a burglar broke in, for example, I might well forget to hit save before coming off the feed to call the police.
(Image credit: Future)
I tested out the privacy and activity zones and found that the selection process is a little more restricted than in other brand’s apps, like Ring, for example. Instead of having adjustable multi-point areas, the Blink Home Monitor app only offers square privacy zones, with just four adjustable points. The activity zone area selection was even more basic, with an 8x8 grid of selectable rectangles. There was an advanced button I could click, but this only zoomed in on the image and offered more rectangles, so setting up the activity zones proved far more laborious than I’m used to. Nonetheless, the privacy zones worked, although it meant dealing with large grey squares over the live view and footage where I’d set them, which wasn’t the most aesthetically pleasing.
Although my iPhone 12 Pro worked fine for viewing recorded content, and I could view it on my iPad too, I would have liked the option to view it on a browser as I could with some other brands' camera feeds. So if you wanted to use Blink cameras to watch over your business, or to keep track of your pets around the house, you’re limited to smaller screens to do this.
I kept the motion sensitivity on the default setting of five, to begin with, and for the most part, it worked well. Unfortunately, though, it missed me a few times when I came back in from leaving my living room. It had detected me each time I left, but despite me facing the camera each time I reentered a little while later, it didn't react upon my return. I raised the sensitivity level to eight, and it detected me that time, so it’s worth testing out which sensitivity works best for you if you purchase a Blink Mini 2.
(Image credit: Future)
At the same time, I was testing the motion detection, and I also tested out the person detection setting, which is meant to limit motion recordings and alerts to only trigger when a person is present. My two Maine-Coon-cross cats were the perfect test subjects for this experiment. They didn’t set off the motion recording when the motion sensitivity was set to seven; however, when it was set to nine, which is the highest setting available, it detected my bigger cat, Mr Jinkx, on a few occasions that he wandered through the viewing area. On the other hand, it only detected his daintier sister, who is only slightly larger than the average cat, on one occasion when she jumped onto the TV cabinet (and made a lot of noise while doing it). So I’d wager that you may get away with not receiving unnecessary notifications if you have a standard-sized pet cat, but it could be a different story if your pets are any larger.
It was really easy for me to share recorded videos. I simply had to swipe left on the clip I wanted to send from the list, and it showed me the options to share or delete. Unfortunately, though, the first time I did this it caused the app to fall over. It returned to the clip list with the share screen still visible, and wouldn’t acknowledge any of my taps, so I had to force quit the app and reopen it. The recording did send, however, so that’s a positive, and the camera continued to detect my movements. I’m pleased to say I didn’t experience any further issues sharing clips after this occasion, though.
When I tried to share a clip of Mr Jinkx sitting on the window sill, I found I couldn’t unlink it from the next clip, which also included me, having to tell him that he can’t jump through a closed skylight. Eventually, I found that the icon of a film snippet and a clock on the “cloud storage” bar at the bottom of the screen was to switch the list of recorded footage from moments to separate events. I’m glad the function was there, but as it looked more like a scheduling icon I didn’t find it very clear.
Performance score: 3.5 / 5
Should I buy the Blink Mini 2?
Buy it if...
You want to store your footage without paying monthly Although there’s an extra cost involved, as you’ll need to purchase the Blink Sync Module 2, it’s reassuring to know that you won’t need to tie yourself to a subscription plan in order to back up the recorded footage.
You don’t want to blow your budget Although the Blink Mini 2 may not have all the bells and whistles we’d like, at this price it’s a good option if you just want a lower-cost camera that’s quick to set up and easy to view the live feed.
You want a compact outdoor camera Thanks to its IP65 rating, the Blink Mini 2 is all good to use outdoors, and its small size means it’s less likely to stand out to passers-by. It’s worth keeping in mind that the camera still requires plug-in power though, so you’ll need to purchase the Blink Weather Resistant Power Adapter for peace of mind.
Don't buy it if...
You want a 360-degree view Unfortunately, the Blink Mini 2 doesn’t possess remote movement functionality, so you’re limited to the static view from where the camera is placed.
You value your privacy There’s an unfortunate lack of privacy cover on this home security camera, which may not be an issue for some, but if multiple people have access to your feed it would be reassuring to have a manual privacy cover for peace of mind when you’re home.
You want a perfect picture It’s still clear to see who people are and what they’re up to on the Live feed and recordings, but the image quality isn’t the best. The footage I viewed and recorded was often a bit grainy, and the feed often pixelated slightly when there was movement onscreen.
Blink Mini 2 review: Also consider
Ring Pan-Tilt Indoor Cam This camera will require a little more investment, and sadly doesn’t allow for any kind of local storage, but it has fantastic image quality that didn’t present any lag or pixelization during testing, and you have access to a vast viewing area thanks to its 360-degree rotation and 169-degree tilting capabilities. If you’d like to read more, check out my full Ring Pan-Tilt Indoor Cam review by clicking on the link.
Wyze Cam v3 Another example of an indoor and outdoor security camera, except you don’t have to make an additional purchase to use it outside, as it already has a rubber sleeve to protect the camera's inlet, along with the IP65 water resistance rating. You can learn more about it in the full Wyze Cam 3 review.
How I tested the Blink Mini 2
I tested it for a week at home and in a busy office
I tested the sound and video quality, live and recorded
I tested the ease of setup, usability, privacy settings, and motion detection
I reviewed how easy the Blink Mini 2 was to set up, and tested its app and features.
I tested the Blink Mini 2 in our busy TechRadar reviews office along with a quieter area of my home to establish how sensitive the motion detection was, and how efficient the privacy and activity zones were.
I tested the frequency of notifications and reviewed live and recorded footage, paying close attention to the visual and sound quality, and evaluating how well the camera handled movement.
I observed how well the Night Color Vision worked in different environments, testing how well it performed in darkness and with varying levels of ambient lighting.
I compared the Blink Mini 2 against our previous camera reviews, and benchmarked it against other indoor cameras I am currently testing.
The Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max is a simple-to-use and space-saving air purifier. It’s available from Amazon in the US and the UK at a list price of $69.99 / £79. It’s far from the most high-tech air purifier on the market but it seems to do a good job of purifying the air, despite its lack of bells and whistles and low price point.
Replacement Particle and Carbon filters are cheap, costing $21.99 / £18, and should theoretically last a long period, with BlueAir stating that they can last up to six months of 24-hour use. There are other filter options available, namely Allergenblock and Smokeblock, which offer more tailored protection.
An ideal air purifier for desktop or nightstand use, the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max measures only 11.4 x 6.8 x 5.9 inches / 172 x 172 x 289mm and is impressively lightweight. The reason behind this portable purifier weighing so little is down to the lack of protective casing over the filter itself. The colored fabric covering doubles as a washable pre-filter over the filter, and other than some structural plastic on the inside, that’s all the base consists of.
(Image credit: Future)
It’s possible to purchase further pre-filter coverings, and they’re available in a range of different colors, which is always a bonus for me. While this design is innovative and sustainability-conscious, it does mean that the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max could be at higher risk of damage than heavier plastic-covered alternatives.
The Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max is as low on features as it is in price, but that’s fair enough. It has no automated fan settings or particle detection, just three fan speeds that can be cycled through via the fan touch button on the top of the purifier. It is helpful enough to monitor the condition of the filter, however, showing a yellow indicator when the filter is due to be changed soon, and red when it needs changing.
The Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max was a breeze to set up and operate. The touch buttons were responsive and the air purifier reacted quickly upon switching settings. Even though the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max lacked any kind of contamination indicators, the change in air quality was noticeable when the purifier was in operation. It had a surprising cooling effect on the surrounding environment, but as I was using it on a chilly November morning in the south of England, I consider this to be an indicator of how well the Blue Pure Mini Max was circulating the air.
(Image credit: Future)
In terms of volume level, the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max operated very quietly on the lowest fan speed, so it was no problem sleeping or working next to it. The two higher settings are more noticeable, but still at a satisfyingly low volume, with the top speed giving me a reading of just 47 dB.
Overall, you’re getting what you pay for with the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max. The price for the air purifier is great, and the filters are good value, especially considering their longevity and the cost savings from the filter subscription plan available in the US currently.
In closing, I was pleasantly surprised by the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max. I didn’t expect to be impressed due to this mini air purifier's low price point and lack of features, but the ease of use, good performance, and innovative design really won me over, and could see it sneaking its way into our selection of the best air purifiers before too long.
Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max review: price & availability
List price: $69.99 / £79
Available now in the US and UK
The Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max is a simple, desktop-sized, small-room air purifier that’s available in the US, and UK at Amazon for $69.99 / £79.
One element that often has the potential to catch people out is the cost of replacement filters compared to the initial cost of an air purifier itself. I’m pleased to say this isn’t the case with the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max, as replacement Blueair Particle and Carbon filters cost just $21.99 / £18, which is particularly good considering the filters can last up to six months, even when used 24 hours a day. This cost can be brought down further still with Blueair's filter replacement subscription, but at the time of writing the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max and associated filters are only showing up on the Blueair website, so we’ll have to wait for them to become available on the official site to take advantage of this offer in the UK.
There are other filter types available too: the Allergenblock filter, designed to reduce our exposure to dust allergens, pollen, and pet dander, and the Smokeblock filter, with double the activated carbon intended to remove wildfire smoke, plus heightened protection against other wildfire emissions.
Value for money score: 4.5 out of 5
Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max review: specs
Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max review: design and features
No display
Long-lasting filters
Machine-washable fabric pre-filter
This is a very simple example of an air purifier, with no app support, visual display, or automatic detection – but at this price point, it’d be unfair to expect much more. The fact that the low-cost filters can last up to six months when running for 24 hours a day is certainly an attractive feature, and one thing the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max can monitor is the filter life, displaying a yellow light on the top of the unit to indicate that the filter will need changing soon, turning red when it actually does.
The outer fabric looks nice from a distance, but the finish gives away the budget cost of the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max; the fabric is a little loose, and the seam is wiggly and uneven, bulging out where it goes over the tan leather effect Blueair tag. The reason for this looseness becomes apparent as it’s not simply an aesthetic covering; it’s designed to be a washable fabric pre-filter.
(Image credit: Future)
I’ve never seen a design quite like this, as most air purifiers have plastic casing to protect the inner filters whereas the body of the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max is simply some structural plastic sitting within the particle and carbon filter, covered in the washable pre-filter. This goes to explain its very light weight of 2.5 lb / 3.4kg but could make it vulnerable to damage.
Despite its minor flaws, it’s a nice touch that Blueair made the pre-filter part of the overall aesthetic, which has meant less material and wasted plastic, which we’re always happy to see at TechRadar. It’s also an advantage that they are machine washable and extras can be purchased in a range of colors, just in case you don’t want to wait for one to dry, or want to switch things up occasionally.
Not only is it delightfully light, it’s dinky in size, too. Measuring just 11.4 x 6.8 x 5.9 inches / 172 x 172 x 289mm. This cylindrical 360-degree design enables the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max to be placed in a variety of spaces, as there’s plenty of opportunity for it to pull air in.
(Image credit: Future)
There is no display panel on the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max, with only a power button, a fan button, a filter indicator light, and three fan speed indicator lights on the top of the air purifier. The fixed power cable extends out of the lower portion of the white plastic top section of the purifier. I found this placement odd at first but, of course, as the base is simply composed of the filters and plastic frame, this was the only logical place to put it.
There’s not much to dislike about the aesthetic of the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max. The finish along the seam of the fabric pre-filter could be better, and the cable placement looks a little unusual, but all things considered, it lives up to its name. It's satisfyingly small and lightweight, making it a perfect option for anyone wanting to relocate their purifier regularly, or for those who struggle with maneuvering things.
Design score: 4 out of 5
Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max review: performance
No display or smart features
Operated quietly
Easy to use
The Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max proved easy to set up and operate. It was essentially just a case of removing the packaging and plugging the air purifier in, job done. The touch buttons were responsive, so it was quick to turn the purifier on and off and to cycle between fan speeds. The reaction speed was satisfyingly quick when changing between fan settings, whereas some purifiers take time to slow down, even when quickly cycling past the highest setting to get back to the lowest.
Despite the lack of air quality data to review, the Blue Pure Mini Max made the air around me feel fresher quickly upon first use when running it at fan speed 2. It had quite the cooling effect straight off the bat, which I’ve not encountered with other air purifiers, with cold air blowing quite strongly through the air vents at the top of the unit. This suggested to me that the air was circulating well, but after a while, on a grey November morning in the South West of England, it made the room uncomfortably cold, so that’s worth bearing in mind if you plan to use your air purifier in the winter.
(Image credit: Future)
In a 13 x 16 ft / 4 x 5 meter room, the sound of the air purifier is noticeable when on its second speed setting if there’s no other sound to drown it out. The pitch of the noise is interesting: it reminded me of the sound of a blowtorch, which is ironic considering it was cooling the room down. Blueair claims that their lowest fan speed is quieter than a whisper, and while I didn’t get a reading as low as they’ve stated, it was pretty darn quiet at 26 dB. It was barely audible to me from around four feet away. If I listened hard, I could hear a low humming, but it didn’t prove disruptive in the slightest when I was trying to sleep or working away at my desk.
Naturally, the higher fan speeds were louder, with fan speed 2 giving a reading of 35 dB, and speed 3, the highest setting, giving a reading of 47 dB. This was of course much more noticeable and made my cats a little wary at first, but compared to other air purifiers, such as the Molekule Air Mini+ whose lowest fan speed was 39 dB, it’s satisfyingly quiet.
As with other low-priced air purifiers I’ve tested, the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max couldn’t remove cooking smells. It did have some impact on the intensity, however, as I noticed that the cooking odor got a little stronger once I’d switched the purifier off, so I was pleased that it managed to make a small impact at least.
Overall, using the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max was a pleasant experience. It was small enough and light enough that I could find a space for it in every room, and it worked at a low enough volume that it wasn’t distracting.
Performance score: 4.5 out of 5
Should I buy the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max?
Buy it if...
You want multiple air purifiers without breaking the bank The Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max works hard despite its small stature, and its low cost means that it isn’t above the realm of possibility to purchase more than one so that you can enjoy its effects in multiple spaces.
You want a lightweight air purifier you can relocate with ease Due to this purifier’s petite size, and the base consisting of a lightweight frame, the filter, and the pre-filter, the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max is gloriously easy to pick up and carry.
You want some peace and quiet The sound of the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max is barely audible when on the lowest setting, making it a perfect nighttime purifying companion. Naturally, it is much more noticeable at higher speeds, but it’s still much quieter compared to other small purifiers I’ve tested.
Don't buy it if...
You want automated purifying A budget price means basic features, and so this air purifier lacks particle detection. This means it can’t be left to its own devices and settings must be adjusted manually for it to clear the surrounding air efficiently.
You want something robust It’s certainly a big pro that this air purifier is light and doesn’t possess a load of excess materials, however, the internal filters aren’t the most robust and are only covered by a layer of fabric. On the plus side, though, at least the filters are replaceable.
You want a display There’s no display or companion app with this low-cost air purifier. There are no settings to alter other than the fan speeds and, as expected, without particle detection there is no contamination data to review, either.
Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max review: Also consider
Levoit Core 300S Smart True HEPA It’s double the cost, but it features an insightful and intuitive companion app, and it performed well during testing. It’s larger than the Blueair purifier but has the added benefit of automatic detection and an LED touch display. If you want to learn more, why not check out our full Levoit Core 300S True HEPA air purifier review.
Molekule Air Mini+ A much more premium option for those who value a higher quality of materials and extra bacteria-busting technology. Its communication wasn’t ideal, and so although it is smart and has a companion app, it isn’t always reliable, but used manually it has some great purification features that might take your interest. To learn more about its medical-grade credentials, you can find out more in our Molekule Air Mini+ review.
How I tested the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max
I used the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max for one week
I tested how much of an impact it had on the surrounding air quality
I tested its ability to tackle cooking smells
I checked how easy was to get the Blueair Blue Pure Mini Max set up, how easy it was to operate, and how portable it was.
I tested it in different rooms in my home, and observed how quiet it was at night time and whether it disturbed my sleep.
I assessed its design and structure, paying close attention to quality and any sustainable elements.
I reviewed the impact it had on the air quality in my environment, and how well it handled cooking smells.
As technologies continue to collide, cameras for kids become more and more like camera phones, compared to the point-and-shoot cameras of yesteryear. The myFirst Camera 50 is a prime example: effectively, it's a tiny 4-inch tablet with a custom Android operating system that runs the camera and editing features. There's a 20MP rear camera, and for young content creators there's also a 16MP rear-facing camera and a built-in soft selfie light.
This might sound like a lot of technology for a child to manage, but with the camera designed to be used by children aged from 5-12, the controls are simple. There are just three buttons: the power button, a button to turn the light on and off, and the shutter button. The shutter button acts like one on a ‘proper’ camera, with a half-press focusing and a full press taking the photo.
There are, of course, the usual onscreen controls, such as another shutter button and the ability to touch the screen to focus. There's even the usual slider to adjust exposure. Holding down the onscreen shutter button switches to video recording, and while there's no optical zoom, there is the option of a 1x, 2x, or 3x digital zoom.
The camera is powered by a 2,000mAh built-in battery that's claimed to have a life of up to 240 minutes. In practice, how long it will last depends on what you're doing with the camera, but in the hands of a child, expect it to last a few days before it needs charging via the USB-C socket on the side.
Although the myFirst Camera 50 couldn’t be described as a tough camera, it does have a rubberized plastic finish that will help kids grip the camera, and there is a nice pronounced grip. Personally, I would also add a screen protector, as kids will be kids and the camera will get dropped. Within the box, you should find a wrist strap and lanyard so that kids can hold it safely, but these items were missing from my review sample.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
What kids really want from their cameras these days is the ability to edit images and add photos and stickers, and the myFirst Camera 50 offers this and more.
The custom Android operating system that powers the camera also enables image-editing features. There's a good selection of different filters that can change the color and brightness of images, as well as a few different effects, such as Fisheye, Cross Process, and Vignette.
There's also the option to draw on images or add stickers – kids love stickers. The small array of cartoon stickers proved particularly popular with my children, who enjoyed adding sunglasses and random slices of watermelon to their photos.
Older children will also enjoy the myDiary journal feature. This can be password-protected so that children have some privacy. It allows them to save voice notes alongside images and videos, and then it presents these in a calendar view so that kids can look back on their adventures without needing to have a social media account.
(Image credit: Future)
Something else that can be saved to the myDiary are the AI-generated videos. The user selects a series of photos or videos, and the camera uploads these to a server which analyses the content and edits it to create short video complete with music. I found that it did this chronologically, and I’m not entirely sure how much true AI goes into the process, but it does an okay job of creating short highlight videos. (NOTE: When I was writing this review, there appeared to be a bug with saving the AI-generated videos to the camera and uploading them to myFirst Circle).
Those who are more hands-on can use the built-in templates to load their photos and videos, then have the video edited and music added. It's a basic introduction to video editing and is easy to use, although it may be too basic as your child gets older.
One of the key selling points of the myFirst Camera 50 is its integration with the myFirst Circle messaging service. Once you've connected the camera to a Wi-Fi network you're prompted to download the myFirst Circle app and link your camera to an account. Once set up, photos and videos can be uploaded. Parents can invite family and friends to download the app, and can authorize who's able to see their child’s posts and interact with them.
It is a great way to teach children about social media, and about what they may or may not want to share. It's also great for grandparents and other family members to see what the children are up to and keep in touch with them. It also works with the myFirst Frame Live or Doodle, which are Wi-Fi-enabled digital photo frames; when new photos or videos are uploaded to your myCircle account, they will be shown to those within your circle on the digital photo frame. Again, this allows for a passive way for friends and family to share moments almost in real time.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
I found the process of setting up the Wi-Fi on the camera, and also a myCircle account on my iPhone, straightforward. The app feels rather basic and simple, which is largely by design to make it easy to use. It feels safe and secure, as much as sending any of your images to a random server could be.
Personally, I would rather wait until my child is a little older before they start getting too involved in social media, but a device like the myFirst Camera 50 and myCircle app seems like a good way to develop an awareness of the social etiquettes and understanding of posting online.
Image 1 of 1
(Image credit: Future)
Going back to the image quality of the camera, the images produced are about on par with what you would expect from a cheap smartphone. With good light, colors, and exposure, they look good, although the detail and sharpness of the image do break down when you view at 100% – the deterioration in quality is due to the small size of the sensor and the associated noise reduction. That said, given that most images will only ever be viewed on the camera, or on a smartphone or tablet screen, they're acceptable.
It's a similar story with the selfie camera, with images showing even lower quality when zoomed. The selfie light works surprisingly well, although the soft, warm light can often cause bits of the face that are in shadow to shift to a much cooler color.
Image 1 of 7
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 7
(Image credit: Future)
Image 3 of 7
(Image credit: Future)
Image 4 of 7
(Image credit: Future)
Image 5 of 7
(Image credit: Future)
Image 6 of 7
(Image credit: Future)
Image 7 of 7
(Image credit: Future)
Video is a little below par. While the myFirst Camera 50 can record at Full HD 1920 x 1080, there's no stabilization, and footage can be very shaky as a result. Exposure and autofocus also tend to jump very noticeably when shooting video.
Again, though, most children, certainly younger ones, will care little about these technicalities, and will simply be delighted to capture and share their moments.
All the images and videos can be saved to the built-in 4GB memory, or to a microSD card up to 128GB. It's worth noting that if you save images to the internal memory you will need to connect the camera to a computer to save them; they can't be transferred to a microSD card or via a Bluetooth or WiFi connection. Images also can't be downloaded via the myFirst Circle app.
Overall, the myFirst Camera 50 is a simple camera with basic features that will keep a young child entertained while encouraging their creativity.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: myFirst)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: myFirst)
myFirst Camera 50: Price and release date
Available now in the US, UK, and Australia for $129/ £109 / AU$149
Your kids constantly want to take photos with your smartphone The easy-to-use camera is essentially the same as a smartphone camera. If your children are constantly borrowing your phone to take photos or videos, this should offer them some independence, while you can continue scrolling Instagram.
You want to teach your children about social media The secure, closed-loop MyCircle app allows children to upload videos and images, but parents have the reassurance that they can see all of the images, and have complete control over who sees the images. It's also great for family members who don't see your children often.
You want to foster child's creativity Not only does the first Camera 50 provide a means of taking photos and video, it also offers the ability to edit images and video, and even use templates to add music and voiceovers, while the diary feature encourages journalling and reflection. It's great for creative young minds.
Don't buy it if...
You have an older child Although the camera is recommended for children up to 12 years old, I feel that by the time most children reach around 10 they'll probably be ready for something more advanced in terms of features, particularly when it comes to editing photos and videos, areas where the camera is kept simple by design.
You have a younger child Although my younger 5-year-old son was fine using the camera and taking photos, some of the editing features were still too complex and caused him a little frustration when he started to use them. It's something that he will grow into, but I would say around 7-10 years old is probably the sweet spot for this camera.
You want the best image quality. The camera is inexpensive, and although it can produce half-decent images in good light it falls behind contemporary smartphones. If it's important to capture your child's images in as high-definition as possible, let them use your smartphone, or better yet, buy them an entry-level mirrorless camera.
(Image credit: Future)
myFirst Camera 50: also consider
If our myFirstCamera 50 review has you interested in instant cameras, here are a couple of other options to consider...
Fujifilm Instax Pal Not much larger than a golf ball, the Fujifilm Instax Pal is tiny camera that connects to a Fujifilm Instax Link printer via Bluetooth of via the Instax app. Your kids will have the freedom to run around snapping away without staring at a screen, with the fun of seeing the photos later, and printing them off so they can share them with family and friends.
Camp Snap The Camp Snap is a modern reimagining of a disposable camera. It's a basic digital camera with no screen; you must transfer your images to a computer to see your photos. This makes it perfect for those who want their children to live in the moment rather than spending time staring at a screen looking at or editing images. The image quality may not be very good, but for children, the experience and simplicity make up for it.
My two children aged 5 and 8, both used the camera on holiday
I also tried all of the camera's features
I set up the myFirst Camera 50 and made all the relevant Wi-Fi connections, before I passed it over to my 8-year-old daughter, who used it while on a few days of holiday. She happily shot family photos, mostly of her brother and me, while doing mundane things like eating lunch. She also shot some selfies and even a short vlog, needing no assistance from me.
I then used the camera on our return. I was able to see how easy it was to adjust the exposure and the overall image quality, and how difficult it was to use some of the more advanced features of the camera, such as social media and video editing and creation.
Finally, I connected the camera to my MacBook and transferred the images so that I could view them on a larger screen and upload them for this review.
Note: The SinglePass Smooth X is not to be confused with the SinglePass X. The latter has wider, 1.5in / 38mm plates better best suited for thicker hair and has five temperature settings compared to the Smooth X’s nine. Due to these larger plates, the SinglePass X is less compact than the Smooth X, but still features the same SinglePass technology and CeraGloss plates.
The T3 SinglePass Smooth X may not be at the top of my best hair straighteners list, but when you factor in its design, functionality, tech and value for money, it's not far off. I love its Satin Blush color, and the sleek, pastel pink finish isn't just stylish but practical, as it resists fingerprints and smudges. The rose-gold accents on the hinge and logo add a touch of luxury, while the color of the ceramic plates blends well with the blush tone, giving it a cohesive, high-end feel.
The plates are 1in wide and 20% longer than standard straighteners, which allows for faster styling by covering more hair in each pass. This is a bonus for my long, thin hair and it took a little over two minutes to finish straightening my whole head. Made from T3's CeraGloss ceramic, these plates also help to smooth frizz and add shine and while they might not glide as effortlessly as other straighteners, like the GHD Chronos, (learn more in my GHD Chronos review) they still perform well, especially when curling. The StyleEdge design of these plates, which give them beveled edges, also makes sure curls and waves are created without leaving creases, which is welcomed.
Measuring 11.8in / 30cm long and weighing 14.7oz / 417g, the SinglePass Smooth X is compact, lightweight and well-balanced. I was initially concerned the added length might make it cumbersome, but it was easy to move around my head during styling. The PrecisionControl hinge keeps the plates gliding smoothly without the need for excessive pressure, too, which adds to the overall comfort.
The temperature controls are located near the base of the styler, with a row of nine LED indicators representing its nine heat settings – from 260F / 127C to 410F / 210C. This range gives flexibility for a host of hair types, with lower settings ideal for fine and fragile hair and higher settings best suited for thicker, coarser textures. The SinglePass technology and CeraSync heaters inside the styler then help distribute this heat evenly, reducing the need to go over the same section multiple times and helping to minimize heat damage. This also helps create more uniform curls that last.
During my tests, the SinglePass Smooth X lived up to its name, straightening my fine, naturally curly hair with minimal frizz. However, after straightening, I found my hair looked a little too sleek and flat, which is common for finer hair like mine but was a tad disappointing.
Overall, the T3 SinglePass Smooth X holds its own among the best hair straighteners, with its sleek design, ease of use, and strong performance for both straightening and curling. Minor drawbacks like the placement of the power button, which makes it easy to accidentally change the heat setting, plus the overly sleek results for my thinner hair weren't dealbreakers for me, but did lessen the appeal. However, if you prefer a straight, smooth, frizz-free finish or your hair is long and thick, then chances are you will love it.
Read on for my full T3 SinglePass X review...
T3 SinglePass Smooth X review: price & availability
List price: $149.99
Available: US only
Replaces the T3 Lucea 1" flat iron
The T3 SinglePass Smooth X replaces the Lucea 1in flat iron and costs $149.99. It's only available in the US, and is only sold in a single Satin Blush color.
Its price and technology positions the SinglePass Smooth X in the mid-range of T3's wider straightener lineup. It sits below the $249.99 Smooth ID styler, which has the added feature of real-time personalized heat settings, and the $189.99 Lucea 1.5in styling iron, which has wider plates.
It then costs more, and offers more, in terms of tech and performance than the travel-friendly SinglePass Compact Flat Iron, which retails for $89.99 and has a smaller, more portable design.
The closest model to the Smooth X is the T3 SinglePass Stylemax. It has the same plate size, same SinglePass, CeraGloss and StyleEdge technology and design, and costs the same. Yet it offers more customizable temperature options, and a Curl Mode, which optimizes the heat for curls and waves.
Outside of T3, similar rivals in terms of features and design include the $160 Moroccanoil Perfectly Polished Titanium flat iron, and the £109 mdlondon Strait which has similarly long, bevelled plates and multiple heat settings but is only sold in the UK and ROI.
In comparison to most of its siblings, and rivals, the Smooth X's price – which initially felt high – represents much better value than may first appear. Largely because of its built-in tech, and design as well as its performance. You get more features with the SinglePass Stylemax for the same price, but that model is less attractive, less sleek and doesn't have the longer plates, which are a bonus on the Smooth X.
You can buy the SinglePass Smooth X in the US directly from the T3 website, as well as third party retailers like Amazon US.
Value score: 4 out of 5
T3 SinglePass Smooth X specs
T3 SinglePass Smooth X review: design
1-inch wide, ceramic-coated plates
9 different heat settings
Longer-than-usual plates
T3 is renowned for making attractive and elegant stylers and the SinglePass Smooth X is no exception. It comes in a single, pastel pink-rose color, officially called Satin Blush, and has a soft, matte finish.
This not only looks and feels premium, but means it doesn't pick up fingerprints or show up grease like black stylers tend to do. Even the plates match the main blush color, and there are rose gold metal accents on the hinge, logo and controls.
(Image credit: Future)
The plates are noticeably longer – 20% longer than standard – than other straighteners I've used, including the GHD Platinum Plus, but are on par with plates on the mdlondon STRAIT. They're made from what the brand calls CeraGloss ceramic, which is ceramic material coated in a gloss-like finish.
This is the default for plates across the T3 straightener range and has been designed to smooth frizz and add shine without snagging or pulling the hair. In my experience, this works well and while it's not the smoothest flat iron I've tried (that prize goes to the GHD Chronos) it does a great job.
These plates also use a so-called StyleEdge design. This means their edges are beveled and smooth making them great for creating curls and waves without causing creases or kinks.
(Image credit: Future)
In terms of size, the plates are one inch wide and the overall dimensions of the straightener is 11.8 x 1.2 x 3.6 in / 30 x 3 x 9.1 cm in size. It weighs 14.7 oz / 417g. This makes it compact and light enough for easy handling and for packing in a suitcase or bag, without being too small to work on longer hair.
I found the straightener to be well-balanced. I was initially concerned that the added length would cause my wrist to ache or be slightly cumbersome while moving it around my head, but this wasn't the case. It isn’t too heavy, but it has enough weight to feel sturdy and comfortable.
The PrecisionControl hinge keeps the arm tension just right, allowing for a smooth, even glide without any stiffness or looseness. You don't have to squeeze too hard to get the best results, nor do the plates aggressively spring back into position. This all adds to the premium feel.
The Power button on the Smooth X doubles up as a temperature control and is found near the base of the styler near the 360-degree, 9ft / 2.7 meter swivel cord. Above this button is a slim row of nine LEDs, each one representing a different temperature setting as follows:
260F / 127C
280F / 138C
300F / 149C
320F / 160C
340F / 171C
360F / 182C
380F / 193C
400F / 204C
410F / 210C
The lower settings (1-4) are designed for fine or fragile hair, the medium settings (5-6) are better for normal or "medium-textured" hair, while the 7-9, high settings are ideal for thick or coarse hair. That said, T3 does suggest dropping the temperature down 1-2 settings if your hair color-treated.
(Image credit: Future)
When the straightener reaches your chosen temperature, the flashing lights turn solid to let you know it's ready to use. The Smooth X will then remember your chosen setting for the next time you use it. A small downside is that the position of the power button makes it easy to accidentally change temperature mid-style.
If you have thicker or longer hair, or your hair has been damaged from chemicals or over styling, you'll likely get much more use and benefit from having a wide temperature range. I've never been overly fussed about having a range of temperatures choices as my fine hair is pretty malleable. However, I welcomed the ability to drop or increase the heat as and when needed.
Features-wise, the Smooth X uses the same SinglePass technology found in all of the stylers in the SinglePass range. This technology uses a microchip that continuously monitors the temperature, preventing hot or cool spots. This means you can style your hair in a single pass, reducing the need to repeatedly glide over the same section. This not only saves time but helps reduce heat damage.
The CeraSync Heaters inside the styler then make sure the heat is distributed evenly across the plates for fast and consistent styling. These heaters work in tandem with the ceramic plates and SinglePass tech to keep an optimal and steady temperature. All of this combines to make the Smooth X a good-looking, easy-to-use and effective styler for a wide range of hair styles and types.
Design score: 5 out of 5
T3 SinglePass Smooth X review: performance
One pass is enough to smooth hair
Longer plates allow for faster styling
Excellent straightener for curling
The well-thought-out design and functionality of the SinglePass Smooth X really comes to life when you start using the flat iron for different styles and finishes. For me, with my long, thin and naturally curly hair, the extra-long ceramic plates are a particular strength. They not only glide smoothly through the hair, for both straightening and curling, but the added length and SinglePass technology means I can finish styles quickly and efficiently.
It took a little over two minutes to straighten my long hair, and I styled the majority of sections with a single pass on my preferred temperature setting of 340F / 171C, or setting 5. Technically, my hair is fine and color-treated so, based on T3's advice, I should be styling on setting 2 or 3. However, I found that while it still styled my hair well at this temperature, the style didn't hold anywhere near as well.
The consistent, even heat across the plates seemed to make a difference in speed, but also in minimizing frizz. This was particularly noticeable when curling my hair; other straighteners tend to create curls that are uneven, the Smooth X heated every part of hair and curl evenly ,meaning the shape was more uniform from top to bottom.
The beveled edges of the plates then allow for smooth curling without leaving creases in the hair, something I’ve struggled with when using other straighteners with more blocky plates. The shape, size and design of the Smooth X also makes creating waves a doddle, and the results during my tests were always polished and consistent.
(Image credit: Future)
Sadly I was underwhelmed with how my hair looked after being straightened. This is partly due to how thin my hair is, but also, ironically, because of how well the plates glide and flatten frizz. As my hair is naturally curly, I usually only use a flat iron to knock out this frizz. I don't like to create super sleek, straight styles as they tend to leave my thin hair looking limp, flat and greasy. This was the case with the Smooth X, unfortunately.
It almost straightened my hair into submission and there was very little movement. It is possible to bring movement to straight hair without having to sacrifice a smooth finish – as I experienced with the mdlondon Strait – but the Smooth X did not achieve this balance. That said, if you have thicker hair or love sleek looks, the Smooth X will likely work exactly as you expect, and want.
(Image credit: Future)
Plus, moving the tool around my head was always comfortable, no matter which style I created. The swivel cord gives plenty of room and movement, and the weight of the straightener is balanced enough that it didn’t feel too heavy, even after styling for a while. The heat-up time is fast too, reaching setting 5 in just 10 seconds and setting 9 in 15 seconds.
I found that the power button, though convenient for switching settings before styling, can easily be pressed during use, which can be a bit annoying mid-styling. Some online reviewers have also said that the hinge tension can loosen over time, which can make it harder to maintain even pressure across the plates. I didn’t experience this myself during my review, but it’s something to keep in mind for long-term use.
Performance score: 3.5 out of 5
Should I buy the T3 SinglePass Smooth X?
Buy it if...
You have long or thick hair
The extra-long plates coupled with the wide range of temperatures available make the Smooth X a great choice for people with thick, long hair.
You like to curl your hair with straighteners
The Smooth X's biggest strength is the way it creates curls and waves. The long plates, streamlined shape and even heat make it quick and easy to curl your hair in minutes.
You prefer or need multiple heat settings
With nine temperature settings, you can easily adjust the heat on the Smooth X to suit your hair type and avoid damage.
Don't buy it if...
You're on a budget
While you get a lot of tech, and quality with the Smooth X, its $150 price tag may push it out of the reach of people on a budget.
You need a travel-friendly tool
While compact, the Smooth X's extra length means there are other, smaller stylers that may be better for travelling. It's also not dual-voltage, which can be limiting for international travel.
You have short or mid-length
The Smooth X's extra-long plates are welcome for long and thick hair but if you have a style that takes little effort, you may not need the longer plates.
How I tested the T3 SinglePass Smooth X
Tested a range of temperature settings
Created a range of straight and curly looks
For my T3 SinglePass Smooth X review I spent a month using it as my main hot styling tool. I created a series of different looks for different occasions including straight, curly and wavy styles and put a range of temperature settings to the test. I timed how long the styles took to complete and monitored the finish and condition of my hair.
Herman Miller Aeron gaming chair: One-minute review
The Herman Miller Aeron has had a refresh and is now being marketed as a gaming chair. Now made with ocean-bound plastic, it's essentially exactly the same as its office döppelganger, with slightly different pricing. Still, whether I'm pitting it against those on our best office chairs, or best gaming chairs list, it has to do something really special to get my attention at a whopping $1,805 / £1,371.
The Herman Miller Aeron places itself as a premium, office-style gaming chair with ergonomics placed firmly at the forefront, and really makes an effort to deliver the goods. While it's certainly one of the most comfortable gaming chairs going, and brings a highly adjustable edge to a battle for ergonomic perfection, I can't help but expect a little more for my money.
In the premium gaming chair landscape, there are two kinds to look out for – those with headrests and those without. The Aeron sits firmly in the no-headrest classification, meaning as comfortable, ergonomic and adjustable as it might be, there's no way to kick back and have a nap when it all gets too much. The lack of width adjustability on the armrests is a little disappointing, and it's almost offensive to omit a headrest for the price, especially when you can get ergonomic wonders like the highly adjustable Humanscale Freedom chair for less.
Let's be fair, with a Herman Miller chair you're paying for a known variable. A brand name that's synonymous with comfort, and one you can expense to whatever corporate tower you're currently filing papers in. The Aeron really does exemplify Herman Miller's attention to detail and mechanical prowess, and it does so with time-poor gamers with corporate design sensibilities in mind. I just wish there was somewhere to lay my head and lament all that money I just spent.
(Image credit: Future)
Herman Miller Aeron gaming chair: Price and availability
List price: $1,805 / £1,371
Available at the Herman Miller online store
Available in the UK and US
The Herman Miller Aeron Gaming Chair comes in two sizes. Unlike its office counterpart, it isn't as configurable and isn't made to order, but it is cheaper. The Herman Miller Office Aeron with chair tilt, adjustable lumbar support, and 3D armrests costs $1,995/£1,558, but you can opt for less adjustability to push that price down a little. The Aeron Gaming chair, however, doesn't confuse us with configuration options. It's a single price point of £1,371 / $1,805.
There's a Herman Miller premium added to whatever configuration you choose, though I appreciate the fact that both sizes come in at the same price. It's also a bit cheaper than the Herman Miller x Logitech Emobdy gaming chair too ($1,995 / £1,570).
Unfortunately, the Herman Miller Aeron is not available in Australia, but UK and US residents can get hold of it on the Herman Miller online store. There are also more height options in the US.
Herman Miller Aeron gaming chair: Specs
Herman Miller Aeron gaming chair: Design and aesthetics
Highly adjustable
Kinda retro corporate design
Not as configurable as office counterpart
The first thing I noticed getting the Herman Miller Aeron out of the box – fully built might I add – is its retro design. The frame's intense curvature makes it look like it was designed for one of those '60s minimalist mansions. The mesh back and seat mean it could easily blend into a corporate office, but I've never seen mechanisms quite this… liquidious. It's almost like the armrests are melting like a clock in a Dali painting. Still, it's an attractive chair if you're going for that corporate vibe.
There are no colour options, just jet black and that's your lot. There's no option to have bright colour configs like the Herman Miller x Logitech Vantum, for example, but it's a lot more refined and unassuming.
As far as adjustable forward tilt and adjustability for something called PostureFit. It's essentially a fancy word for lumbar support, which has a nifty little roller handle that sits behind your back to push it in. While the mechanisms provide an immense amount of movement, it's missing a couple of things that other, cheaper chairs still manage to deliver. Namely, the lack of armrest width adjustability and an actual headrest.
(Image credit: Future)
Herman Miller Aeron gaming chair: Comfort and Adjustability
Premium feeling mechanisms
Lacking armrest width adjustability
Design forces ergonomics on you
There are a few things you want a gaming chair to do, other than be comfortable. You want the mechanisms to be intuitive and safe, you want it to fit against your desk, and you want it to be sturdy. The Herman Miller Aeron Gaming Chair does all this without any fuss. Sitting in it for a week straight, I can say I've had a blast using it. None of the mechanisms are clunky, and all are relatively intuitive. Their silicon handles give them a nice premium feel, too, and it means they don't slip through your hand while you're using them.
There's a lovely bounce when you sit down in the Aeron that's very satisfying. It's not like the clunk of sitting on your average office chair – there was thought that went into giving it butt suspension. The whole time I've been sitting in it, not once has it felt wobbly or unstable either. There's zero rattle on the arms, which are extremely well-padded and have a fantastic Y-axis rotation. They slide all the way back, too, so you can get right up against the desk. The arms do slide forward without locking which can be a problem for some chairs, but they're nowhere near as easy to trap your fingers with as the Herman Miller Vantum, for example. There's a slow, purposeful step to all the mechanisms that really exemplifies the impressive build quality.
The main problems I've encountered have been with the plastic surrounding the backrest and the bucket-style seat. Due to the lack of a headrest, I've found myself threading my fingers behind my head to make up for it. The issue is that I appear to be just the right height that my shoulder blades then dig into it. It might just be worth checking the exact back height versus where your shoulder blades rest before purchasing – thankfully the chair is the same price whether you choose small, medium, or large.
Similarly, any time I try to tuck my feed up under myself I'm thwarted by the plastic surround on the bucket seat that loops up and around my posterior. Essentially, its ergonomic prowess comes from forcing you to sit in a specific position to keep you from ruining your posture. Clever, though not the best for anyone who sits awkwardly like me.
(Image credit: Future)
Herman Miller Aeron gaming chair: Assembly
The fact the Aeron comes with no assembly necessary is also a blessing, especially if you can't spare the assembly time. For your average gaming chair that could be anything from 30 minutes to an hour. And who has that to spare during a busy day of ergonomic gaming?
Having no assembly necessary bar opening the box and rolling the chair out is convenient but also inspires confidence too: there's no need for you to even attempt at getting bits misaligned or connected wrong, and the experts have done it for you already.
(Image credit: Future)
Should you buy the Herman Miller Aeron gaming chair?
Buy it if...
You stand for impeccable build quality The Herman Miller Aeron is one of the most sturdy and well-built chairs we've tested. While it's missing arm width adjustment, the suspension, and other mechanisms are fantastic.
You haven't got time to assemble The Aeron comes fully assembled, which means you don't have to spend the best part of an hour on the floor with an Allen key putting it together.
Don't buy it...
You're trying to save money Even in its most basic configuration, the Aeron is going to rip your wallet a new one. For less you can get far more adjustable chairs, though you'll forgo the Aeron's superior quality.
You prefer to sit askew The Aeron is highly ergonomic, and forces you to sit with both legs bolted to the floor. It's for people who are serious about ergonomics.
Herman Miller Aeron gaming chair: Also consider
If you're still not sure whether the Herman Miller Aeron is for you, there are a few other options to consider that are more customisable, and might save you money. As far as premium build quality goes, though, the Aeron is very hard to beat.
Also consider the Herman Miller X Logitech Embody While the Herman Miller Embody has even less adjustability on the armrests, it at least comes with a lovely headrest and just as much configuration around the rest of the chair. It's a little more on the expensive side, however.
Steelcase Series 2 Task Chair A highly configurable office chair alternative, and currently the one sitting at the top of our best office chair list is the Steelcase Series 2 Task Chair. In plain, monochrome colouring, you can get this sturdy beast with a headrest for a lot less.
Sitting in the chair several times a week for a couple of weeks, I got a good feel for the mechanics by switching them up a lot and trying to push them beyond their limits on purpose. I sat in a range of positions to see how well it coped with awkward sitters. Above, I made comparisons to cheaper chairs that almost match the level of adjustability and customisability of the Aeron and considered what you would need to sacrifice to get more out of an office chair for less money.
This model has slightly different names and product codes in different territories:
US: Shark Cordless Pro Vacuum IZ562H (Amazon only) UK: Shark Cordless Pro Vacuum IZ562H (Amazon only) AU: Shark Cordless Pro With Clean Sense IQ IR300
For this review, I tested the US version. There may be minor differences between different countries' models.
The Shark Cordless Pro is one of this brand's most affordable cordless stick vacuums, and delivers excellent value for money. While not the most advanced Shark vacuum based on specs or features, it punches above its mid-range price tag with features such as automatic suction adjustment based on dirt levels. At full price it sits in the mid-range price bracket, but it's often heavily discounted in the US, taking it into the budget category.
Shark has an excellent track record when it comes to producing reliable, long-lasting products, and the Cordless Pro is no exception. If you want something fairly simple but effective and budget-friendly, I think this is one the best Shark vacuums you can buy, and perhaps even one of the best cordless vacuums overall.
Considering the Shark Cordless Pro is a budget-friendly cordless vacuum, it still packs in decent suction, cleaning up most debris on hard floors in just one to two passes while in its lowest Eco mode. The automatic suction adjustment worked as promised, and was genuinely useful because rather than only relying on my eyes, this so-called 'Clean Sense IQ technology' would let me know when a spot was clean and I could move on. It helped me tackle fine dust and hair that may not have been otherwise visible.
The Cordless Pro is an ideal vacuum for hard floors and lighter cleaning needs, and did a decent job on carpet too, although if you have lots of carpet you might want to invest in something a little more heavy-duty. During my tests, I found it could struggle with pulling concentrated debris on this type of flooring in my testing, even when in the highest Boost mode.
I found it relatively easy to maneuver with a good rotation range to get into nooks and crannies, but a flexible wand – included with most Shark vacuums – would've been helpful to reach under furniture. As with most cordless stick vacs, it can be converted into a handheld.
I should also give a special shout-out to the anti-hair wrap brushroll. Many brands make big claims about their tangle-busting features, but this actually delivered. It still looks as good as new after two weeks of testing. There are more useful design features too: when it's time to store the Shark Cordless Pro, it slots into a stable notch right on the wand, and the battery is removable for charging anywhere. Just don't expect to get a crazy long runtime out of this vacuum, as it taps out after a maximum of 40 minutes.
Sure, there are more powerful and feature-packed vacuums on the market if you're willing to shell out a bit more. But for your average, everyday cleaning needs, it's hard to beat the compact, solidly built Shark Cordless Pro. Read on for my full review.
(Image credit: Future)
Shark Cordless Pro review: price & availability
List price: $399.99 (regularly discounted) / £334 / AU$499.99
Available: US, UK and Australia
The Shark Cordless Pro has a list price of $399.99. Originally, it was available to buy direct from Shark, but it now seems to only be available via third party retailers like Amazon. Shoppers in the UK can also purchase it via Amazon, but it's an imported model from the US.
In addition to the main vacuum components, the US version I tested comes with two attachments: a Duster Crevice Tool and a Pet Multi-Tool. Additional accessories like replacement Odor Neutralizer cartridges, attachment tools, and wands are available, ranging in price from about $10 to $40.
The Shark Cordless Pro can also be found in Australia, retailing for AU$499.99. Both territories feature similar configurations, though in Australia, the attachment accessories are slightly different, with a Crevice Tool and Dusting Brush on offer.
If purchasing in the US, it’s common to find the Shark Cordless Pro discounted and often steeply. A discount of $100 off is common, and on Amazon it has occasionally dropped as low as $250. That's one of the very cheapest Shark vacuums you can buy, and especially if you want a cordless model – the Shark Stratos Corded Stick vacuum is cheaper at $299.99, but you'll have to put up with being tethered to the wall.
At ticket price, the Shark Cordless Pro sits in the mid-range price bracket, but it regularly dips into the budget category. Given the solid build quality and excellent performance, I think it's good value even at full price. There are also features that I'm surprised to see at this price point – namely, automatic suction adjustment based on dirt levels. If you're willing to pay more, you'll unlock features like longer battery life and higher levels of suction, but the Cordless Pro is excellent value for what it delivers.
Seasonal sales are always a good time to shop for home appliances, and I suspect this model will feature amongst the best Black Friday deals this year. Given that this model is no longer available to buy direct from Shark in the US, I'm not convinced it's going to be sticking around much longer, so if you do spot a deal, snap it up.
Value for money score: 4.5 out of 5
Shark Cordless Pro specs
Shark Cordless Pro review: design
Button-operated, with LEDs to indicate mode and battery level
No flexible wand, as found on most Shark vacuums
Notch to enable it to stand on its own when not in use
The Shark Cordless Pro doesn't revolutionize the design of cordless stick vacuums, keeping a look and size similar to most others with its floorhead, wand, and motor/dustbin – all of which come apart for use as a handheld vacuum. Weighing 8.25 pounds and measuring 11.42 x 10.43 x 51.18 inches, it's easy to handle. During testing, the only time it felt cumbersome was when attempting to clean a ceiling fan. A sleek light blue, white, and black finish helps differentiate the Shark Cordless Pro from the rest of the range, and the solid metal and plastic build held up perfectly over my few weeks of testing.
Setting up the Shark Cordless Pro was a breeze, taking me around 5 minutes; all that's required is to snap the stick vacuum components into each other. The most difficult aspect of the installation was popping in the Odor Neutralizer cartridge; it slots right into the floorhead and is meant to keep your vacuum smelling fresh.
Shark also recommends charging the battery to full before your first use. That battery is removable if you prefer to charge it detached from the vacuum. LED lights will pulse as it charges, indicating the current level of the battery, and shutting off when finished.
(Image credit: Future)
There's no wall mount option, but Shark has added a notch on the front of the wand where the main part of the vacuum can be clipped when not in use. It remains relatively secure in that spot and can even be wheeled around.
The floorhead, referred to as the PowerFins Plus floorhead (this guide to the Shark vacuum technologies is a helpful companion when navigating this brand's various jargon), is ready to work on both hard or carpeted floors and is full of useful features.
On the underside is one plush, microfiber roller that features flexible silicone fins to help pick up various debris sizes including fine dust, while preventing hair wrapping. Should anything get stuck in the roller, it's removable, although it does take a bit of effort to unlock it from the floorhead. Unfortunately, there's no option for the brush to lift or stop spinning on certain flooring.
Around the front of the floorhead, two LED lights help highlight dust and dirt in your path that might otherwise be missed. These are helpful, although nowhere near as bright or effective as the lasers you'll find on the (far pricier) Dyson Gen5detect or Dyson V15. On top of the floorhead is the Clean Sense IQ Clean Indicator LED – part of a highlight feature on the vacuum.
(Image credit: Future)
Clean Sense IQ uses sensors inside the nozzle of the handheld vacuum to automatically boost power in areas with higher levels of dirt and debris. While testing, I could hear and feel the increase in suction, but an indicator light strip on the floorhead will also illuminate to show when the vacuum detects a particularly dusty bit of floor. The highest amount of dirt causes the strip to be fully lit. When the space is clean, the light will recede.
This is a surprising inclusion at the relatively low price point, but pricier Shark vacuums take things a step further on the automation front. The Detect Pro and PowerDetect lines can both adjust suction based on when they move from hard floor to carpet, and around the edges of rooms, for example.
(Image credit: Future)
Cleanse Sense IQ is switched on via the Mode button on the handheld part of the vacuum. The only other button on the vacuum is the power on/off button, so it's all straightforward and easy to navigate.
Beyond Clean Sense IQ, there are two other power modes: Eco to save on battery life and Boost for an extra burst to pick up the messiest of messes. An LED screen on the handheld vacuum will indicate the power mode it's in as well as the battery level.
(Image credit: Future)
The handheld vacuum component also houses the bagless dustbin, which holds 0.72L of dirt. An anti-allergen seal is in place to keep fine dust and dander from releasing back into your space. When the dustbin is ready to be emptied, there's a no-touch release to drop everything in the garbage without getting your hands dirty. However, you may need to reach your hands in the dustbin to remove stuck hair or dust occasionally. More advanced Shark vacuums, such as the Shark Detect Pro, have an optional auto-empty dock, but that's not available here.
The wand that holds the floorhead and handheld vacuum together is solid. The two vacuum components feel secure when slotted into the wand and easily release from the catch when needed. A rigid wand is actually fairly unusual for this brand – many Shark models have so-called 'MultiFlex technology', where you can press a button and the wand will bend forward, enabling you to reach easily under low furniture. I'd have loved it if that had been included here. At least the floorhead offers a wide swivel range for easier access to tight spots.
(Image credit: Future)
Beyond being a stick vacuum, the Shark Cordless Pro is an effective handheld vacuum. The US version has a Duster Crevice Tool and a Pet Multi-Tool, making cleanup even easier. Those tools slot into the handheld vacuum or the wand, providing extra versatility. However, there's nowhere to store them when not in use.
Design score: 4 out of 5
Shark Cordless Pro review: performance
Decent suction, great on hard floors
Clean Sense IQ's automatic power adjustments work commendably
Loud, and struggles to clean larger debris on carpets
The Shark Cordless Pro is an absolute breeze to use and performed admirably in most of my testing. Whether I had it in stick mode on my laminate hard floors with various low-pile rugs or cleaning my window sills and couch cushions as a handheld vacuum, it managed to pick up most of the debris in its path within one to two passes. Sure, it might not have the suction of a corded vacuum but it works great for lighter cleaning needs and is much easier to deal with. (Both the Shark Stratos Cordless and Shark PowerDetect Cordless Stick vacuum pack more power, too, but you will need to stump up more money for those.)
In stick mode, performing regular cleaning tasks, I often left the vacuum in the Clean Sense IQ setting, which allows the vacuum to recognize bigger messes and automatically increase suction. When there were obvious, larger amounts of debris in the floorhead's 10-inch path, the vacuum would increase the suction power.
It was handy that in addition to visibly hearing that change, I could see it represented on the light bar at the top of the floorhead. I knew I was clear to move on from a spot when the light subsided. Sometimes, the vacuum would notice the dirt that wasn't visible to my eye, which was a huge boon, ensuring the cleanest home possible.
(Image credit: Future)
There are two other modes on the vacuum: Eco and Boost. Swapping to those modes involves pressing the mode button near the LED screen on the vacuum, and cycling until the desired mode is reached. Admittedly, I often pressed the power button, mistaking it for the other and vice versa. After becoming more familiar with the vacuum, this became less of a problem.
As for the other two modes, during daily tasks, I found Boost mode was unnecessary most of the time. It worked fine but is only needed for those large concentrated messes. Eco mode also easily cleans up dog hair and dust within one or two passes. Overall, I preferred the convenience of Clean Sense IQ mode automatically increasing the suction where needed, and I was happy to sacrifice battery life for the cause.
One feature I didn't think I'd love as much as I did was the two LED lights at the front of the vacuum. They did an excellent job highlighting fine hair and light dust that I couldn't initially see. It's amazing how much debris gets all over your space daily.
I'd also be remiss not to mention the self-cleaning brushroll. To my shock, no hair has gotten stuck around it yet. It looks almost completely new, with little to no wear after two weeks. If it needs to be removed for cleaning, a coin allows you to unlock and remove the brush. Just note that it does do a good job of sucking up power cords and rug edges, so be aware as you maneuver it around your space.
(Image credit: Future)
Speaking of maneuvering, generally, the Shark Cordless Pro navigates with ease, even making sharp 90-degree turns to fit into corners (it's not quite as maneuverable as a Dyson). It feels almost effortless to use on hard flooring, only getting tripped up on certain rug edges and becoming a little more challenging to push on rugs and carpets. The floorhead is also relatively shallow, allowing it to squeeze under most furniture. Unfortunately, the wand isn't flexible like other Shark models, so it didn't reach completely under my couch or bed.
The bagless 0.72 qt dustbin holds a good amount of dirt. I only had to empty it every once in a while, depending on how often I was vacuuming. It's easy to take the vacuum off the wand and hold it over the garbage, pressing the release to open the bin door. Some hair can get wrapped around certain components, making it necessary to reach in and pull stuck-on gunk on occasion.
As with all vacuums, the filters require semi-regular cleaning (and must also be replaced periodically). Shark provides clear instructions for this: they just need to be rinsed with water. The Clean Sense IQ sensor inside the vacuum will also need to be wiped down occasionally, and an FO error code will flash on the display panel when the sensor is fully blocked.
For some reason, Shark continues to include the pointless (in my opinion) Odor Neutralizer, which releases a clean scent as you vacuum. The smell lasts all of two minutes, so I'd never waste my money replacing it. (Ed's note: other testers have been extremely enthusiastic about this feature, so your mileage may vary!)
Beyond daily vacuuming tasks, I put the Shark Cordless Pro through more vigorous testing to see how it handled fine dust using flour and larger debris with oats on both hard floors and carpet. Even on the lowest setting, Eco, the vacuum easily picked up the flour with just one pass. There was super light sprinkling left, that I had to touch to feel. A second pass picked up everything that was left. Using Clean Sense IQ and Boost mode, the flour was fully cleaned up after one pass. I had similar results on the rug.
(Image credit: Future)
As for the oats test, I was pleasantly surprised that most oats were cleaned in just one pass in Eco mode on the hard floor. However, on carpeting, it was a completely different story. It took multiple passes (around five or six) on Clean Sense IQ and Boost to pick up all of the oats. The vacuum even managed to throw some oats around. That's slightly disappointing, but not all that unusual – typically, I find corded vacuums are the way to go in heavily carpeted homes.
(Image credit: Future)
During testing, I also used a decibel meter to measure noise levels. In Eco mode, the Shark Cordless Pro averaged about 75 dB. It's definitely not quiet and on par with average vacuum cleaner noise levels (i.e. loud enough to disturb others in your space when it's in use). In Boost mode it got even louder, hitting around 80dB. The noise is tolerable but not pleasant. Luckily, I was usually not in this mode for long. The Clean Sense IQ setting tended to shuffle between 75dB and 80dB; usually staying towards the quieter side of the range.
(Image credit: Future)
Of course, this stick vacuum also converts to a handheld, and the attachments it comes with depend on the territory. I'm in the US, so I received the Duster Crevice Tool and Pet Multi-Tool. Both feature brush tops that can be removed. The Duster Crevice Tool gets into tighter spaces like between books on my bookshelf and the window sills, though it didn't always pick up all the dust or dirt.
During testing, I just so happened to start fostering a puppy with fine fur, and the Pet Multi-Tool was a godsend. It got the hair off my couch, duvet, and more with relative ease, though I found the tool tended to perform better without the brush attached. The only problem with the handheld vacuum is it gets a bit heavy at times, especially with the wand attached and reaching for higher spots like ceiling fan blades.
Performance score: 4 out of 5
Shark Cordless Pro review: battery life
Runs up to 40 minutes in Eco mode
Takes about three hours to recharge
Battery is removable
The Shark Cordless Pro's battery is located right on the back handle of the device. It can juice up while still attached to the vacuum or snap off to charge – a handy feature if you store the vacuum in an area away from an outlet, and also useful if you want to buy a second battery to hot-swap in.
(Image credit: Future)
On one charge, I found the battery lasted around 35 minutes in Eco mode using the floorhead with the rotating brush. A little more juice can be eked out of the vacuum as a handheld, putting it right at Shark's claim of 40 minutes. Clean Sense IQ and Boost mode will drain the battery quicker. On test, I got about 25 minutes of vacuuming time with Clean Sense IQ, but that time varies depending on how much dirt is detected in a space. Boost mode lasted just under 15 minutes, which isn't surprising given the strong suction power.
That battery performance is average for cordless vacuums. Most will find that's sufficient time to clean up your space. I had no problem hitting almost every inch of the floor in my sizable two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment when in Eco and Clean Sense IQ modes, and there was even enough juice for a quick handheld vacuum of the window sills and furniture. However, if you have a larger home, there are models that offer up to an hour of cleaning on one charge – or occasionally a little more. Those vacuums will cost you more, though.
Shark makes it simple to tell when the battery is running low, as the vacuum's LED screen has three bars to indicate the level of charge, and when the final bar begins blinking, your time is running out – I usually had four more minutes of vacuuming time once that started.
A slightly longer battery life would be nice, as it'd be great not to worry about charging the battery after almost every use. Recharging takes a while, at about three hours. You'll know it's done when the charging light on the actual battery goes out.
Battery life score: 4 out of 5
Should I buy the Shark Cordless Pro?
Buy it if...
You're on a budget
This is one of the cheapest Shark cordless vacuums, and often discounted too. Given the features and build quality, it's excellent value for money.
You want to be sure your floors are clean
This vacuum is able to automatically adjust based on how dirty the floor is, with indicator lights showing when there's no dust left. Dust-illuminating LED headlights also help ensure you don't miss any spots.
You want something simple but effective
This is a straightforward design, and on test I found the process of emptying, and charging the Shark Cordless Pro is as easy as can be. It's even set up for storage without wall mounting.
Don't buy it if...
You need a vacuum that reaches under low furniture
Although the floorhead on this vacuum is relatively shallow, the wand doesn't flex like other stick vacuums, making it hard to reach under deeper sofas, chairs, and beds.
Your home is heavily carpeted
The Shark Cordless Pro performs best on harder surfaces. It does a solid job of picking up finer dirt and dust on carpets and rugs but takes several passes to clean up larger debris.
You have a very large home
At the maximum, this vacuum offers around 40 minutes of cleaning time in Eco mode. That time drops significantly when using Boost mode. It's far from the worst battery life in a stick vacuum, but pricier models will deliver longer cleaning times.View Deal
How I tested the Shark Cordless Pro
I used the Shark Cordless Pro for over two weeks in my two-bedroom, two-bathroom home with hard floors and low-pile rugs. Beyond average, daily cleaning tasks like vacuuming messes in the kitchen in stick mode or using the handheld attachments to get my foster dog's hair off furniture, I did further testing. These tests involved scattering oats and flour on hard and carpeted flooring in a concentrated area, observing how well it picked up debris of varying sizes in each of the vacuum's three modes. I ran the battery fully down in each of the three vacuum modes as well to see how long it could be expected to last.
Apple’s new MacBook Pro 16-inch isn’t a revolutionary release like the new, smaller, Mac mini (M4, 2024), and instead is more of a specs refresh for the company’s most powerful laptop.
So, you don’t get any new design tweaks with the new model – but you do get the very latest M4-series chips which represent the pinnacle of Apple’s mobile hardware.
This is good news for people who are looking for an incredibly powerful workstation laptop that offers exceptional build quality and the kind of performance that many desktop PCs would struggle to achieve. For those of us who have been waiting for the M4 chip to show up in a device that can take full advantage of its power (this year’s iPad Pro, which debuted the M4 chip, is limited by running iPadOS, an operating system designed for tablets, with rather basic apps to match), the 16-inch MacBook Pro Apple announced in October 2024 could be just what you’ve been waiting for – though there are caveats.
Both of the new 16-inch and 14-inch MacBook Pros feature, for the first time, the M4 Pro and M4 Max (depending on configuration), which are even more powerful versions of the M4 – which has already proved to be a powerful chip in its own right. The model Apple sent me to review comes with the M4 Pro, a chip with up to a 14-core CPU consisting of up to 10 performance cores and four efficiency cores, and a GPU with up to 20 cores (twice that of the base M4 chip).
While this isn’t the most powerful Apple chip (the M4 Max comes with a CPU with up to 16-cores, featuring 12 performance cores and four efficiency cores, and a GPU with 40 cores), the M4 Pro will likely be more than enough for people who want a laptop that can handle professional tasks such as code compilation, 3D animation and video editing.
For people who just want a laptop for browsing the web, creating documents, and editing home movies and photos, this will be complete overkill. As the core balance of the M4 Pro shows, with more performance cores than efficiency ones, Apple’s focus with the new 16-inch MacBook Pro is all about extreme performance (the chip will switch between cores depending on the kind of task you’re doing – if you want a lot of power, the performance cores are used, for lighter use, the efficiency cores kick in).
(Image credit: Future)
This means unless you’re a creative professional, the 16-inch MacBook Pro (M4 Pro, 2024) really won’t be for you. And, with a starting price of $2,499 / £2,499 / AU$3,999 for the base configuration, which comes with the M4 Pro chip and 24GB of unified memory, this is the kind of investment that you should think very carefully about. That’s even more true of the M4 Max model, which starts at $3,499 / £3,499 / AU$5,699. Sure, you’re getting one of the most powerful laptops in the world for that price, but if you’re not going to need that kind of power, you’ll just be wasting money.
If you’re the kind of person who needs the very latest and most powerful hardware you might also be tempted – but don’t forget that it’s very likely we’ll see an M5 model next year. Should you buy the new MacBook Pro 16-inch, however, you should be confident in the knowledge that you’ll not need to upgrade again for a very long time.
For anyone hoping for a major redesign, then you will be disappointed. One thing I’ll say in Apple’s defense here is that the current design of the MacBook Pro 16-inch is pretty great – there’s not much I’d actually change about it. Even though the screen isn’t OLED (rumors suggest we could see that in 2026), the Liquid Retina XDR screen remains one of the finest you can get in a laptop – and there is at least a new nanotexture coating option that reduces reflections and screen glare, which will be welcome for people looking to use the new MacBook Pro out in daylight, or in brightly lit offices or studios – though this does come at an extra cost.
So, once again Apple has created an absolutely phenomenal laptop… that I can’t really recommend to everyone. If you’re a creative professional who is looking for a portable workstation to chew through some seriously taxing tasks, then this could be an excellent investment that could even save you money in the long run (with projects completing faster, you can take on more clients, and you won't need to buy a new laptop for many, many years).
That said, if you own an M2 Pro or M3 Pro model, the M4 Pro doesn’t offer enough of a performance leap to justify buying a new MacBook Pro just yet. The best move in that case would be to wait a few more years. If the M6 Pro MacBook Pro in 2026 does indeed come with a major redesign, then an upgrade is more justifiable, as the performance improvements should also be more noticeable. This isn’t a knock on the M4 Pro – it’s just that the M2 Pro and M3 Pro are just so good, you really shouldn’t feel like you need to upgrade just yet.
If you don’t need the kind of power that the new MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) offers, then I strongly recommend you look at the 15-inch MacBook Air (M3, 2024) instead, which is far more affordable, offers excellent performance and is all wrapped up in Apple’s iconic build quality and design.
(Image credit: Future)
MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) review: Price and availability
Starts at $2,499 / £2,499 / AU$3,999
Same price in US as M3 model
Cheaper in UK and Australia than M3 model
It should come as no surprise that the new MacBook Pro 16-inch is a very expensive laptop. This is a workstation designed for professional use and packed with some of the most powerful and cutting-edge mobile technology you can get, along with a gorgeous and expansive 16-inch screen.
Still, with a starting price of $2,499 / £2,499 / AU$3,999 for the M4 Pro model with 24GB of unified memory, this is one heck of an investment and one that should be carefully considered.
As with previous MacBook Pros, there’s scope to configure the 16-inch MacBook Pro before you buy by adding more memory and a larger SSD (up to 128GB of memory and 8TB of SSD storage with some models), but the price rises exponentially. You can also get a base model with the more powerful M4 Max chip, which starts at $3,499 / £3,499 / AU$5,699, and again you can up the memory and storage.
You can also add a nano-texture display which reduces reflections and screen glare, which may prove very helpful for people who work in industries where graphics are essential (such as photography, digital arts, and filmmaking), but this is also an additional cost – it’ll add $150 / £150 / AU$230 to an already high price tag.
Interestingly, while the base model of the MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) remains the same price as the M3 Pro and M2 Pro models launched at in the US ($2,499), in both the UK and Australia the new M4 Pro base model is actually slightly cheaper by £100 and AU$300.
If you want something more affordable, your options are limited. There’s no 16-inch MacBook Pro with the base M4 chip – you’ll have to go for the 14-inch MacBook Pro for that. The smaller model, which starts at $1,599 / £1,599 / AU$2,499 for a configuration with the M4 chip and 16GB of unified memory now occupies the space the now obsolete 13-inch MacBook Pro used to – a more affordable pro device with more modest specifications for people who want more power than a MacBook Air can provide, but without costing the sort of astronomical figures that high-end MacBook Pros demand.
The 14-inch model with M4 Pro starts at $1,999 / £1,999 / AU$3,299, so if you want to save $500 and don’t mind a smaller screen (the rest of the specs are the same as the 16-inch model), then this is worth considering.
Compared to Windows 11 alternatives, there’s the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga Gen 8, which costs around $1,000 / £1,000, and offers some decent specs and a solid build quality, and a gorgeous screen – plus it’s a 2-in-1 laptop which you won’t get with any MacBook.
Other Windows 11 workstations offering similar performance are around the MacBook Pro’s price, such as the Asus Zenbook Pro 14 Duo OLED, which comes with a second screen built above the keyboard (think the Touch Bar, but much larger). While this could also be dismissed as a gimmick, both Asus and Lenovo show that Windows 11 laptops have a far larger variety of form factors and designs.
Value score: 3.5/5
MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024): Specs
(Image credit: Future)
MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024): Design
No new design
Screen remains one of the best in a laptop
Awkward to use when commuting
Once again, Apple has kept the design of the MacBook Pro unchanged – so from first glance you won’t really notice any difference. It’s still got the rather chunky dimensions of 14.01 x 9.77 x 0.66 inches (356 x 248 x 17mm) and a weight of 4.7 lbs and 2.2kg. While it’s a stylish-looking laptop with that unmistakable Apple aesthetic, this is a large laptop that a lot of people might struggle with.
Whilst writing this review on the MacBook Pro 16-inch, I traveled into London on the train, and the sheer size of the laptop made using it on the drop-down desk quite awkward – it certainly made me miss my 13-inch MacBook Pro.
The size of the MacBook Pro 16-inch is understandable, as there are a lot of powerful components that need plenty of airflow to keep cool, and the large screen also means the overall size of the laptop needs to be on the bigger side. But if you’re looking for a portable laptop you can whip out while commuting, you may be better off looking at the 14-inch model, or going with a MacBook Air.
That said, when walking around with the MacBook Pro in my backpack, it didn’t feel uncomfortably heavy – and the 16-inch screen really is a joy to work on.
Superficially, port selection for the 16-inch MacBook Pro seems the same, with a MagSafe 3 port for attaching the power supply, two USB-C ports, and 3.5mm headphone jack on the left-hand side, and a USB-C port, HDMI and SDXC memory card slot on the right.
This is a decent selection of ports, though not mind-blowing. The memory card slot continues to be a welcome inclusion for photographers and videographers, as you won’t need an adaptor, and the HDMI port makes plugging the 16-inch MacBook Pro into a monitor, TV, or projector incredibly easy. The lack of USB-A ports means if you have older peripherals you’ll need an adapter to use them.
(Image credit: Future)
On the surface the ports may seem the same, but Apple’s made quite a drastic change with the USB-C ports, which are now all Thunderbolt 5 compatible. This offers far faster data transfer speeds (up to 120Gb/s) than the Thunderbolt 4 ports included in the previous model (which offered up to 40Gb/s). While Thunderbolt 5 devices are currently few and far between (and quite expensive), it does set the MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) up as a future-proof device – and if you work with very large files, this new standard will be very welcome.
On the other hand, if you’re perfectly happy with the speeds your current USB-C SSD offers, then it’ll work just as well with the new MacBook Pro, and Thunderbolt 5 is backward compatible.
The 16-inch 3456 x 2234 Liquid Retina XDR display remains the same (with mini-LED, 1,000 nits sustained brightness, wide color P3 gamut, ProMotion technology) as previous models. The screen offers a sharp image quality thanks to its 7.7 million pixels, resulting in a pixel density of 254ppi (pixels per inch). However, you can now configure the new MacBook Pro 16-inch to come with a nano-texture surface, which gives the screen a matte quality that minimizes reflections and glare.
The model of MacBook Pro that Apple sent me to test came with that nano-texture surface, and in the bright overhead lights of our London office, the effect was subtle yet pleasant – there was no glare or reflections, and I can imagine outside in direct sunlight the MacBook Pro 16-inch is just as comfortable to use (as it’s October and I’m in the UK, direct sunlight isn’t really a thing).
(Image credit: Future)
Whether or not it’s worth the extra $150/£150/AU$230 will really depend on personal taste and professional needs. While the nano-texture isn’t an upgrade that will immediately wow you, it can be useful if you work in bright environments. You might also feel that when spending the kind of money Apple is asking for the new MacBook, an extra $150 isn’t too egregious – and remember, once you’ve bought the MacBook Pro, you won’t be able to add the nano-texture.
This leads to an ongoing complaint about Apple devices. While there’s no doubt they look great, they are very difficult – if not impossible – to open up and repair. Upgrading components is also out of the question. While the fact that the unified memory is part of the M4 chip, so adding additional memory isn’t possible, it’d be nice to be able to add extra internal storage, for example.
Of course, this has never been the way Apple does things, but when even its competitors like Microsoft are getting better at allowing users to upgrade and fix their devices, Apple is increasingly out of touch – and the difficulty fixing a faulty MacBook Pro sits uneasily with Apple’s eco-friendly messaging in other departments.
There’s one final change to the design of the new MacBook Pro 16-inch that people might miss at first – but it’s a doozy. The webcam has been overhauled with a new 12MP ultra-wide sensor. Using the Center Stage feature, the MacBook Pro crops footage and uses machine learning to keep you centered on the screen – even if you move about. This is the first time Center Stage has been added to a MacBook – in the past the feature has been limited to iPads and the Studio Display monitor.
It works well, and while it’s far from essential if you sit still when on video calls, it’s nice to see it included in a MacBook. Even more impressive is the Desk View feature, which allows you to simultaneously record footage of yourself as normal, while also recording footage of your desk.
(Image credit: Future)
For tutorials, unboxing videos, and more it’s a nice feature and it’s very clever how the webcam captures the footage at the same time using a single camera – usually, you’d need to use two separate cameras for the different angles. This solution is easy and elegant, and while the quality of the footage won’t compare to using two external cameras, it’s a cool feature to have.
Overall the MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) design doesn’t contain many surprises, but the ones it does are pretty nifty. If you’re after a more innovative laptop design, however, then you may still be disappointed.
Design score: 4/5
(Image credit: Future)
MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) review: Performance
Not a massive leap over M3 Pro
Still very impressive performance
Handles even the most intensive tasks well
Unlike the 14-inch model, there’s no base M4 option with the 16-inch MacBook Pro, making the M4 Pro-toting model the ‘entry level’ choice. It features a 14-core CPU with 10 performance cores four efficiency cores, and a 20-core GPU.
The base model also comes with 24GB of unified memory with a bandwidth of 273GB/s, and you can configure it to come with 48GB (though you’ll need to up the M4 Pro chip to the model with a 16-core CPU).
If you go for the M4 Max, that starts at 36GB of memory and can be configured with 48GB, 64GB, and 128GB. Memory bandwidth is also increased to 410GB/s for the 14-core CPU M4 Max and an absolutely huge 546GB/s bandwidth for the 16-core CPU model.
Putting jargon aside, any model of this year’s MacBook Pro 16-inch is going to offer excellent performance for pretty much any task. According to Apple’s own numbers (which should obviously be taken with a degree of salt), you should see around two to three times the performance of an Intel MacBook and double that of the M1 Pro MacBook. The gap between the M3 Pro and M4 Pro is less pronounced, which considering the M3 Pro only came out last year, is not too surprising.
Benchmarks
Here’s how the MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) performed in our suite of benchmark tests:
The model of 16-inch MacBook Pro Apple sent me to review is the version with a 14-core CPU, 20-core GPU, and 48GB memory – so essentially the mid-range model.
In our benchmark tests, the M4 Pro MacBook Pro saw a decent bump in numbers compared to an M3 Max model, such as in Geekbench 6, where the multi-core score was 23,030 compared to the M3 Max’s 21,345. Not a groundbreaking difference, admittedly, but it shows a reliable increase in performance between generations. I certainly wouldn’t recommend anyone with an M3 Pro MacBook Pro – or even an M2 Pro – shelling out to upgrade to the M4 Pro model based on these results.
Of course, synthetic benchmarks only tell a part of the story, and in my time using the MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024), I was extremely impressed with the overall performance. macOS Sequoia ran fast and smooth, and there was no sign of lag or slowdown even when I had several apps open at once (including the Chrome web browser with almost 20 tabs open).
The new MacBook Pro 16-inch, as with previous models, is pretty overkill for day-to-day tasks. Still, it’s good to see those essential tasks performed so effortlessly – and there was not a single crash or error during my time using it – something I can’t always say about similarly-priced Windows 11 devices.
Apple’s complete control over both the software and hardware of MacBooks has again paid dividends, and even if you don’t like the way the company does some things, there’s no denying that it often results in extremely polished and dependable products – like the new MacBook Pro.
(Image credit: Future)
For more demanding tasks such as video editing, the MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) again barely broke a sweat as I stitched together 4K footage in Premiere Pro. To be honest, to really make use of the power of the M4 Pro – let alone the much more powerful M4 Max – you’re going to need to be a professional filmmaker or 3D animator working on Pixar-quality productions. Everything I threw at it barely gave the new MacBook Pro pause.
Of course, this is a great thing – it’s a workstation laptop that can rival pretty much any desktop PC and can handle even the hardest workloads. But then, there’s always that nagging feeling that you’re not making the most of it. It’s a strange contradiction that in the end is a testament to what Apple continues to achieve with its M-class chips.
Throughout my time, the fans barely kicked in, so while Apple’s focus with the M4 Pro is more about performance than efficiency, this is still a very efficient machine that is virtually silent when in use.
Performance score: 5/5
(Image credit: Future)
MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) review: Battery life
Over 21 hours in benchmark test
Slightly shorter than previous model
M4 Pro focuses on performance over efficiency
Ever since switching from Intel chips to its own M-class silicon, Apple’s MacBooks have benefited from industry-leading battery lives. While Windows 11 laptops are slowly catching up (especially ones with the new Snapdragon X Elite chip, which like the M4 Pro is ARM-based), if you want a laptop that can go through an entire workday without charging (and isn’t a basic Chromebook), then modern MacBooks are the way to go—and the new 16-inch MacBook Pro is no exception.
Thanks to a combination of the efficient M4 Pro chip and a larger body that allows Apple to include a bigger battery, the 16-inch MacBook Pro offers one of the longest battery lives of any MacBook or Windows laptop.
In our tests, it lasted a huge 21 hours and 32 minutes – an absolutely incredible result that suggests you could go multiple workdays on a single charge. However, it didn’t quite match the battery life of the M3 Max 16-inch MacBook that I reviewed last year, which lasted for 24 hours and 35 minutes in similar circumstances, but that could be down to the M4 Pro’s emphasis on performance over efficiency.
Still, it’s an incredible result considering the power on offer. I worked on the M4 Pro model for an entire train journey from Bath to London (around an hour and a half – England really is quite a small country), and the battery levels hardly dipped. It’s a workstation laptop that you can feel confident working on without having to search for a power supply, and when on battery power, it doesn’t feel like performance is sacrificed either.
Battery life score: 5/5
MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024): Should you buy it?
Buy it if…
You need a powerful workstation for heavy duty creative tasks The MacBook Pro 16-inch with M4 Pro is one of the most powerful laptops out there, and will make short work of even the most demanding tasks.
You haven’t got an Apple Silicon Mac yet If you’ve not experienced Apple’s M-series chips the new 16-inch MacBook Pro with M4 Pro is a brilliant showcase of why Apple Silicon has proved to be so revolutionary for not just MacBooks, but laptops as a whole.
You want a laptop that can go multiple days without charging The battery life of the new MacBook Pro 16-inch can last almost an entire day of constant use - and that means you could work on it for multiple work days on a single charge.
Don’t buy it if…
You don’t need ultra-performance While it can be tempting to go for the highest of the high-end when buying a laptop, the MacBook Pro 16-inch is a big investment - and it offers a level of performance that most people simply won’t need - go for an M3 MacBook Air or the new Mac mini M4 instead.
You want a compact laptop The MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) is a large laptop, and while that has its benefits (bigger battery, nice large screen to work on), it’s a bit too big to work on when commuting or traveling.
You have an M3 Pro or M2 Pro MacBook The M4 Pro is an upgrade over its predecessors, but not enough to make owners of the past two generations of MacBook Pro need to upgrade - they remain excellent laptops that continue to perform brilliantly.
MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro) review: Also consider
If our Apple MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro) review has you considering other options, here are two more laptops to consider...
MacBook Pro 14-inch M4 Pro 16GB If you like the sound of the M4 Pro-powered 16-inch MacBook Pro, but are worried that the screen (and overall size of the laptop) is too large, then check out the 14-inch model, which offers similar performance but in a smaller (and slightly cheaper) package. Check out our MacBook Pro 14-inch (M4 Pro, 2024) review
MacBook Air 15-inch (M3) After a large-screen MacBook but don't need the power, and can't afford, the 16-inch MacBook Pro? Then consider the 15-inch MacBook Air. The M3 chip remains a great performer, and it's a lot less expensive, yet still offers that Apple build quality and design. Check out our MacBook Air 15-inch (M3) review
How I tested the MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro)
Spent several days testing and using the MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro)
Ran our suite of benchmark tests
Used it to work while commuting
Ever since I received the new MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro, 2024), I've been using it as my main laptop for working on. This included day-to-day tasks, such as writing up articles in Microsoft Word and sending emails, as well as browsing the web in both Chrome and Safari (with multiple tabs open) - both at a desk in an office, and on a train travelling between cities.
I’ve been testing MacBooks for many years at TechRadar, including all the previous MacBook Pro 16-inch models, including the Intel-based one, and that experience has helped inform this review.
The Baseus Bowie 30 Max headphones are a perfect example of some cans that bite off more than they can chew. At a glance, you’d think these are an incredibly competent pair of Bluetooth headphones. They offer LDAC higher-resolution audio, proprietary head-tracking technology, active noise cancellation, customizable button controls and incredible battery life. But something may throw up a red flag fairly quickly – the low price.
That’s right, although the Baseus Bowie 30 Max have a list price of $149.99 / £109.99, you’ll realistically never have to pay quite so much. They’re already discounted on Amazon and the Baseus website has them available for less than that too. We’ve already spotted them going for as little as $69.99 in the US – that’s really cheap for some headphones with all of the above features. So is it too good to be true?
Frankly, yes it is. In fairness, getting up to 65 hours of listening is excellent, better than even some of the best headphones around, but things go pretty downhill from here. Head tracking, though functional, will worsen overall audio quality – though admittedly not as badly as the ‘fixed’ spatial audio option, which leaves you with almost sub-nautical sound littered with tinniness.
General audio quality isn’t amazing either. Out of the box, bass is thin and treble sounds are pretty grating at higher volumes. And sure, there’s a Bass Boost option in the Baseus app, or even custom EQ options, but these are only able to improve – not cure – the Bowie 30 Max of their sonic shortcomings. This means that the added detail you’d expect to uncover with the inclusion of LDAC never truly comes to fruition and fundamental flaws in sound means these headphones are held back from competing strongly against budget rivals.
It isn’t all doom and gloom. These are some decent looking cans with a relatively attractive rectangle-like design. Mic and call quality is decent too and ANC, though far from silence-inducing, is able to dull external noise competently. You can also customize the function of the headphones’ ANC button, which is a neat inclusion.
However, these are ultimately small wins in the context of disappointing audio quality. Unfortunately, if you’re in the market for some cheap ANC headphones, there are better options available to you. I have some personal recommendations in the ‘Also Consider’ section of this review, but if you’d like, you can consult our guide to the best cheap headphones, where we run you through some incredible alternatives that offer plenty of bang for your buck.
Baseus Bowie 30 Max review: price & release date
$149.99 / £109.99 (around AU$230) list price, but already discounted
Launched in the US and UK September 2024
Australia release date and pricing TBC
To be honest, reader, I’m a little confused on pricing for the Baseus Bowie 30 Max. They have a list price of $149.99 / £109.99 (around AU$230) on Amazon US/UK, but just head over to the Baseus website and these are only $79.99 (or $69.99 with an in-site coupon). On top of that, despite only releasing in September, these have been hit with discounts and coupons on Amazon. So really, I’d aim to pay around that $70/$80 mark if you really want to grab these.
The Baseus Bowie 30 Max are available now in the US and the UK, although the company isn’t planning to sell them to the Australian market. They’re available in one color option – Black, although this is pretty clean in fairness (more on this later).
(Image credit: Future)
Baseus Bowie 30 Max review: Specs
Baseus Bowie 30 Max review: features
Decent head-tracked spatial audio
Companion app compatibility
Adequate ANC
When it comes to features, the Baseus Bowie 30 Max appear to pack in some seriously impressive options for often sub-$100/£100 cans.
I’m mainly talking about head tracking – a great inclusion for some budget headphones, but one that produces mixed results. Audio does dynamically shift with head movement quite well, which is ideal for following sound across a screen when viewing video content.
The catch? You take a hit to audio quality. When listening to Wasurechau Hitotoki by Fishmans, vocals and percussion became very tinny with head tracking active, which frankly, made it unpleasant to listen to. But as I say, this feature is predominantly for video, so I tried watching some Final Fantasy VII: Rebirth gameplay on YouTube. And again, although audio did shift as I turned my head, the actual quality was noticeably worse than when head tracking was turned off, making for a disappointing user experience.
Even worse was the Fixed spatial audio option. But when listening to Rock With You by Michael Jackson I didn’t get expansive, spacious sound at all; instead it sounded as if I’d journeyed around 10ft below sea level. Vocals sounded warped and inauthentic while percussion lacked sharpness, so I switched this off again pretty quickly. The out-of-the box audio didn’t exactly make this song sound amazing either, so I found myself playing around with EQ options a fair bit – but I’ll get onto that in the ‘Sound quality’ section.
OK, maybe spatial audio might not quite hit the spot, but how do the other features fare? Well, ANC wasn’t too bad. At around 60% volume a lot of outside sounds were fairly dulled, although a lot of sounds – whether lower or higher-frequency – still crept through with relative ease. For instance, even at around 75% volume, I could make out the sound of my colleague typing next to me. So don’t expect the near-silent listening experience you’d get from some more premium cans, like the Bose QuietComfort Ultra, for example.
The story so far is certainly one of disappointment, although Baseus didn’t let me down on battery life. I kept the LDAC ‘hi-res’ codec activated throughout almost all of the testing process and predominantly listened at quite high volumes, but found my playtime to be in-line with the 50 hours ANC claimed. You even get up to 65 hours with ANC off, which is an excellent serving of battery life. So, if you’re someone that often forgets to charge their devices, this shouldn’t matter too much with the Baseus Bowie 30 Max – they can keep going (and going) for quite some time.
Features score: 3/5
(Image credit: Future)
Baseus Bowie 30 Max review: sound quality
Thin bass out of the box
LDAC audio support
Highs can get quite tinny
I’ll be upfront – the Baseus Bowie 30 Max didn’t offer the best listening experience out of the box. When listening to I Want You by Moloko, I felt that percussion and higher-pitched vocals were pretty grating at higher volumes and even sounded a bit tinny. I should mention too, that was with LDAC audio turned on – the benefits of which never felt truly realized.
Something that puzzled me was Baseus’ claim that the Bowie 30 Max have “super bass”. I definitely didn’t feel that initially. When listening to Love Foolosophy by Jamiroquai, the groovy bassline was relegated to a small-part background actor and the choppy guitar riff and vocals sounded too forward. Admittedly, the thin low-end was improved significantly when I toggled on Bass Boost in the Baseus app, but of course, the grating highs didn’t stop.
I knew what I had to do… I took to the EQ settings to make amends to the Bowie 30 Max’s sonic shortcomings. Unfortunately, I found the different presets – including Baseus Classic, Clear Vocals, Hi-Fi Live, Pop and Rock Classic – lacked enough definition. There were noticeable differences between them, sure, but it was pretty minimal for the most part. Instead, I found the best solution was to create my own custom tuning, with a bit more low-end weight. A lot of users may be OK with tailoring their own sound, but if you’re someone that wants straightforward, hassle free listening that could be a bit of a turn off.
So, after customizing my own sound were my woes overcome? Well, not entirely. Despite having a bit more bite, bass and electric guitars in Walk Up by Geordie Greep sounded fairly muddy and instrumental separation was lacking. Vocals in White Mustang by Lana Del Ray also sounded boxy and constricted, resulting in an unnatural-sounding delivery. I would say, though, that lower-frequency sounds were no longer hidden away to a frustrating degree and the overall listening experience became at least adequate. So if you do decide to snap these up on a discount sale, it’s 100% worth shifting away from the top-heavy Baseus Classic EQ calibration.
One aspect sound-wise that was somewhat redeeming was mic quality. When recording the opening of Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, my voice was pretty clear-cut, with only a bit of ambience in the background. Call quality, meanwhile, was a bit more middling in terms of quality, but still totally passable. I was still, however, underwhelmed with the audio on offer from the Baseus Bowie 30 Max – especially given the manufacturer's claim that they offer “superior audio quality”. I’m sorry to say that this is not the case.
Sound quality score: 2.5/5
(Image credit: Future)
Baseus Bowie 30 Max review: design
Tidy design for the price
Although the headband is a little plasticky
Customizable button controls
I’ve been quite critical of the Baseus Bowie 30 Max so far, but one area I think they succeed more in is design. When at a discounted price, these headphones look great for the price you pay. They have a more rectangular, classic look than a lot of cheap options and small ring lights on each can add a nice splash of style too.
The headband isn’t the most padded thing in the world, but I was able to happily listen for multiple hours on end. Looks-wise it is a tad plasticky – and the glossy finish means you can see fingerprints fairly easily, but it’s not particularly ugly or anything.
Speaking of a plasticky look, the button controls suffer from a similar issue, feeling a little cheap. They are, however, nicely laid out and, despite volume down, up, and play/pause being quite close together, they’re easy to use. There’s also an ANC button that can handily be customized using the Baseus app to switch between noise cancelling modes, EQ settings, or spatial audio options.
The Bowie 30 Max are also decently portable. They’re not as compact as a model like the Anker Soundcore Space One Pro or anything, but they can be folded up for carrying in a backpack or tote bag. These are fairly lightweight headphones too weighing in at 11.3 oz / 320g and have decently soft earpads, so they’ll not be too uncomfortable for longer listening sessions, even if the headband isn’t top quality. My main complaint here though is that these cans don’t come with a carry case or similar for keeping them safe during longer journeys.
Finally, don’t expect anything super-fancy or hi-tech from these design-wise. There’s no waterproofing or touch controls – although this isn’t too bad if you’re getting them on discount for around $70/£70. What you do get though is an AUX port for wired listening and USB-C charging, the latter of which can give you as much as 14 hours of playtime from a 10-minute recharge – not bad.
Design score: 3.5/5
(Image credit: Future)
Baseus Bowie 30 Max review: value
Even when discounted, rivals perform better
Head tracking nice at this cost, but mixed quality
Ultimately, sound quality not good enough against competitors
If we’re going by their $149.99 / £109.99 list price, I’d argue that the Baseus Bowie 30 Max are totally outclassed by a wide array of competitors, competing against competitors in the same ballpark, like the Sony WH-CH720N, for instance (more on those later).
However, from early discounts, I suspect these will be available for far less for a lot of the time. Early sales and coupon offers on Amazon US/UK even put these as low as $69.99 / £68.79, so don’t look to pay much more than that. And sure, at this price, getting features like spatial audio is undoubtedly impressive. But, what matters above all is good sound quality and I would argue that’s adequate at best with these headphones. Some of the best cheap headphones – like the Earfun Wave Pro – will likely prove to be a much better value pick.
Value score: 3/5
(Image credit: Future)
Should I buy the Baseus Bowie 30 Max?
Buy them if…
You want head tracking at a low-price Although sound quality isn’t top-rate, head tracking is still functional here. It’s not going to give you truly exceptional 3D sound, but if you simply want audio that will dynamically shift as you peer across a screen this is a budget option.
You’re looking for a splash of style For all of my criticism, I do like the look of the Baseus Bowie 30 Max, they have a fairly unique appearance. There are no color options and the headband is a little plasticky, but overall they have a clean, attractive design.
Don’t buy them if…
You’re an audiophile If you checked out the ‘Sound quality’ section, this will come as little surprise. Out of the box, bass is too thin, highs often sound tinny and the ‘hi-res’ details don’t really get the chance to breathe. Even with EQ adjustments, these aren’t going to cut it for the most keen listeners.
You want the ultimate value pick The world of wireless headphones is truly vast. There are so many amazing options out there for you, regardless of your budget. There’s no need to spend an arm and a leg to get top features like ANC – I’ve picked out some stronger budget options below that, in my view, offer cleaner audio and a better user experience overall.
(Image credit: Future)
Baseus Bowie 30 Max review: also consider
1More Sonoflow The 1More Sonoflow still sit proudly in our guide to the best noise-canceling headphones – and for good reason. You get 50 hours of battery life with ANC on (and 70 hours with ANC off), solid overall sound, what is (in my opinion) quite a stylish build and solid ANC. Now that’s value. Read our full 1More Sonoflow review.
Sony WH-CH720N I’ve owned the Sony WH-CH720N for over a year now and highly recommend them if you’re looking for a strong budget option. Yes, at first these may look a fair bit more than the discounted Baseus Bowie Max – but these cans are regularly available for closer to $90/£70. You get commendable ANC, quality customizable audio, DSEE upscaling and so much more. You can even choose from some neat color options, ensuring these are an excellent alternative. Read our full Sony WH-CH720N review.
Baseus Bowie 30 Max review: How I tested
Tested across the course of a week
Used in the office, while on walks and on public transport
Predominantly tested using Tidal on the Samsung Galaxy S24 FE
I spent a week testing the Baseus Bowie 30 Max headphones in a number of settings, including: my apartment; a train; bus; and while on walks. This let me get a real taste for ANC quality, regardless of environment.
When listening to music, I played the entirety of the TechRadar testing playlist and listened to hours and hours of tunes from my own personal library. I predominantly tested using Tidal to make use of LDAC, but I also tested the headphones using Spotify, YouTube and Messenger (for calling). I mainly connected the headphones up to the Samsung Galaxy S24 FE when conducting tests.
Where appropriate, I compared these headphones to the Sony WH-CH720N, judging them side-by-side with the Baseus Bowie 30 Max to gauge audio quality, features and design choices.
The Beyerdynamic MMX 330 Pro brings the German brand’s noted pro audio pedigree to the gaming world, in the form of an open-back gaming headset that’s light on features, but promises big things in the realm of sound.
At first glance, you’d be forgiven for not realizing this is a piece of gaming hardware, given the lack of flair. The monotone palette is only slightly alleviated by specks of orange, but if you’re willing you can customize your own design via Beyerdynamic’s website.
Compared to some of the best wired gaming headsets, the MMX 330 Pro is pleasingly slim. It’s also light, which makes it comfortable. The plush ear pads and thoughtfully designed headband also help in this regard, although I did find the MMX 300 Pro to be slightly more comfortable, as the inside of its drivers didn’t push into my ears as much as those on the MMX 330 Pro.
The detachable analog cable is thick yet doesn’t weigh down the headset. The strain reliefs aren’t the strongest, so I don’t have complete confidence they’ll resist splitting over time, but they offer more protection than on some other gaming headsets. The inline controller has a volume wheel and a mute button, although there are no mic volume controls as there are on the MMX 300 Pro, which is an odd omission, but not one I missed greatly.
Unlike the MMX 300 Pro, the MMX 330 Pro sports an open-back design, intended to impart a more natural sound and create a greater sense of space. I didn’t find this added to the immersion or increased my perception of the in-game ambiance, but I personally prefer closed-back designs. There is also a loss of low-end compared to the MMX 300 Pro, which was already lacking in that department.
All this isn’t to say that the sound of the MMX 330 Pro is poor, though. True to many of Beyerdynamic’s headphones and headsets, the audio balance is superb, with most frequencies coming across clearly and precisely. In this regard, it certainly ranks among the best gaming headsets.
The microphone quality is similarly great, rendering voices with clarity and doing a good job of preventing unwanted sound from being picked up. It’s also very well made, with the gooseneck design making it easy to manipulate yet secure enough to remain in position. It can also be rotated out of the way easily.
There’s no denying that the MMX 330 Pro is incredibly expensive, even eclipsing some of the best wireless gaming headsets. Oddly, it’s also more expensive in North America, which Beyerdynamic claims is due to certain market conditions and launch timeframe concerns.
Whatever the reasons, the fact is there are gaming headsets available that pack in more features for less money, yet still provide terrific audio quality. If you don’t mind sticking to cables, then the Epos H3 wired gaming headset is a brilliant alternative, and for those who want less clutter, the Razer BlackShark V2 Pro is one of the best wireless gaming headsets around.
(Image credit: Future)
Beyerdynamic MMX 330 Pro review: price and availability
$329 / £259 / AU$499
Black only (unless customized)
More expensive in the US
The MMX 330 Pro costs $329 / £259 / AU$499 and is available in black only. However, you can customize it with your own designs via Beyerdynamic’s website, letting you add engravings and your own photos to have emblazoned on the drivers.
The MMX 330 Pro costs the same as the MMX 300 Pro in the UK, EU, and Australia; in the US, however, it’s more expensive: $329 as opposed to $299 for the MMX 300 Pro. Having contacted Beyerdynamic, a representative explained the increase comes down to regional costs and distribution logistics, as well as the headset's launch timeline. Regardless, it’s still a bad deal for those in North America.
The only major difference between the 300 and the 330 is the open and closed-back designs. I did, however, notice a softer earpad material on the MMX 330 Pro, and the lack of mic volume controls on the inline controller.
For a wired gaming headset, the MMX 330 Pro sits towards the higher end of the market. The Epos H3, one of the best wired gaming headsets, is much cheaper. In our Epos H3 review, we were very impressed with its detailed audio quality, which made it great for both gaming and listening to music. There is also a wireless version available in the form of the Epos H3 Hybrid, although this is close to the same price as the MMX 330 Pro.
The MMX 330 Pro is also considerably more expensive than the best wireless gaming headset, the Razer BlackShark V2 Pro. Not only does this headset ditch the cables, but it also has more features, including software that allows you to alter various sound settings and modes.
Beyerdynamic MMX 330 Pro review: specs
(Image credit: Future)
Beyerdynamic MMX 330 Pro review: design and features
Surprisingly slim
Not quite as comfortable as the MMX 330 Pro
No extra features
In line with Beyerdynamic’s other headsets, the MMX 330 Pro adopts a muted aesthetic, with only a few dashes of orange contrasting with the monochromatic color scheme. It certainly isn’t as brash as some other gaming headsets, which may or may not please players depending on their preferences.
For a gaming headset, the MMX 330 Pro is refreshingly slender, with minimal protrusion from the drivers. Beyerdynamic’s other headsets can verge on the unwieldy, including the MMX 200 Wireless, which is also less comfortable. The MMX 330 Pro still isn’t what you’d call portable, though, and the lack of driver swivel means they aren’t the easiest to hang around your neck.
Compared to the MMX 300 Pro, the earpad material here is more plush and feels slightly baggier but also softer. The thickness of the cushioning is about the same, but it didn’t feel quite as comfortable, with the inside of the drivers pressing into my ears with more force than those on the MMX 300 Pro. This isn’t to say the MMX 330 Pro is uncomfortable, but fatigue did set in sooner than it did with the MMX 300 Pro.
The headband, though, is just as excellent as it is on the MMX 300 Pro. The fontanelle that helps to relieve pressure at the top of the head really does work, and I experienced hardly any aching on the top of my head after extended sessions with the MMX 330 Pro, which I am liable to feel with many other headsets. It also seems durable, although it is easily replaceable (as are the earpads).
The detachable 3.5mm analog cable feels premium, although the strain reliefs don’t appear to be the most resilient, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they began to split over time. They also attract dust too easily, which is hard to remove. It’s also hard to tell when the plug is fully inserted into the headset socket – again similar to the MMX 300 Pro – as there’s no audible click or physical feedback, but this is a minor gripe.
(Image credit: Future)
Despite its length, the cable has no noticeable effect on the weight of the MMX 330 Pro when wearing it. And as with the best PS5 headsets, it’s unobtrusive when plugged into a DualSense controller, making it easy to use with the console.
The in-line controller feels well-made too. It features a volume wheel that operates smoothly and a mic mute button. However, there are no mic volume controls as there were on the MMX 300 Pro, which may bother some people, but I rarely used them when they were present.
One issue that’s plagued every Beyerdynamic headset I’ve tried is the poor driver height adjustment, and the MMX 330 Pro is no exception. The mechanism feels clunky and stiff, making it hard to maneuver, and while it does offer a secure hold once set in position, the engineering isn’t on par with the rest of the headset – and isn’t what you’d expect from a gaming headset at this price point.
The microphone is, however, up to the standards you would expect. The gooseneck is easy to adjust yet secure, and the cloth tip feels thicker and more durable than on other gaming headsets. Although it doesn’t detach or retract, it can be rotated 360 degrees, allowing you to move it out of the way completely.
As with the MMX 300 Pro, there are no extra features on the MMX 330 Pro. The simplicity is refreshing, letting you plug and play without having to worry about connectivity and setups. However, for a gaming headset at this price, more adjustments and settings would’ve been welcome, so you could dial in the perfect sound according to your individual preferences.
(Image credit: Future)
Beyerdynamic MMX 330 Pro review: performance
Great gaming sound
Open-back design lends more space
Weaker low-end than the MMX 300 Pro
Beyerdynamic’s famed audio quality is present and correct on the MMX 330 Pro, with frequencies appearing crisp and clear. Beyerdynamic claims the open-back design adds a greater sense of space, allowing you to perceive sounds more naturally.
While gaming, I did notice a more airy sound, but I wouldn’t exactly call this an improvement. The claim that it makes it easier to tell where sound is coming from wasn’t something I experienced during my time with the MMX 330 Pro.
Personally, I prefer the isolation and depth of sound you get from closed-back headsets. Beyerdynamic points out that it has less bass than the MMX 300 Pro because of the open-back design, and this is noticeable. The low-end of the MMX 300 Pro was already a touch on the weaker side, but here it is even more so. It’s not completely devoid of impact, but if you’re going to be using a headset for listening to music as well as gaming, then the 300 Pro is the slightly better choice.
As with the MMX 300 Pro, the microphone on the MMX 330 Pro renders voices with clarity and precision, and blocks unwanted noises from registering with aplomb, including coughs and other plosive sounds.
(Image credit: Future)
Should I buy the Beyerdynamic MMX 330 Pro?
Buy it if...
You want an open-back design The open-back design of the MMX 330 Pro means a greater sense of space, so if that’s what you prefer, this fits the bill.
You want a simple headset No setup, no buttons, no software: the MMX 330 Pro is plug-and-play all the way.
Don't buy it if...
You want to tinker with settings Unfortunately, the aforementioned simplicity means there are no sonic adjustments to make or different modes to select, so you’re stuck with what you get.
You’re on a budget The MMX 330 Pro is one of the most expensive wired gaming headsets on the market, and US customers will be especially aggrieved that it’s more expensive for them.
Also consider...
Beyerdynamic MMX 300 Pro The closed-back counterpart to the MMX 330 Pro, the MMX 300 Pro offers a deeper bass response as a result of its tight isolation. I found the comfort levels to be slightly improved too, and it’s also cheaper in the US than the MMX 330 Pro. However, it still suffers from the same lack of features and connectivity options, being a wired-only headset also.
Razer BlackShark V2 Pro If you have your heart set on a gaming headset with no cables, then you can’t do much better than the Razer BlackShark V2 Pro, as it’s our pick as the best wireless headset around. Not only is it cheaper than the MMX 330 Pro, it also has more features thanks to its integration with Razer’s Synapse software – and we still found its audio quality to be class-leading.
I have over 20 years of gaming experience, and I have tested numerous headphones and headsets during that time. These include Beyerdrynamic’s other gaming headsets, such as the MMX 200 Wireless and the MMX 300 Pro.
