The GameSir X2s Type-C Mobile Controller is ready to make your mobile gaming so much better. Wrap the telescope design around your iPhone 15 to be ready for your favorite RPG, FPS and other advanced games.
It boasts Hall Effect sticks and triggers in a familiar arrangement, but is always ready for you to pick it up and go.
I tested it with my iPhone 15 and had quite a lot of fun. It also works with Androids. And if you’re still rocking a Lightning-enabled iPhone, don’t feel left out — GameSir has a version for you, too.
This post contains affiliate links. Cult of Mac may earn a commission when you use our links to buy items.
GameSir X2s Type-C Mobile Controller review
I get it: you don’t want to line up three gems or match tiles. You want to play serious games on your iPhone. But on-screen, virtual controls can be frustrating with first-person shooters or role-playing games.
A mobile game controller makes all the difference. One of these brings the familiar buttons and sticks to your iPhone (or Android) so you don’t find your characters walking off cliffs or firing off in random directions.
Controllers come in a variety of sizes and designs. The GameSir X2s Type-C Mobile Controller emphasizes portability but without sacrificing playability.
It’s for iPhone 15 and future Apple handsets with a USB-C port. It is also compatible with Androids for cross-platform households. All you need to do is plug it in and start playing.
The telescope design of the GameSir X2s means it’s portable but fits the largest iPhones. Photo: Ed Hardy/Cult of Mac
GameSir X2s Type-C Mobile Controller is designed to make your iPhone function like a Nintendo Switch, with the standard buttons, triggers and sticks on either side of the screen.
Without the handset, the accessory is 7.0 inches by 3.3 inches by 1.5 inches. It weighs a mere 0.4 pounds.
It’s very portable, fitting easily into a backpack or even a large purse. But be careful, the outer casing is plastic and it’s covered in controls. A bit of abuse might break this gadget.
When it comes time to play, the GameSir X2s telescopes to fit my iPhone 15 Plus.
Standard layout of buttons, sticks and triggers
GameSir X2s doesn’t leave out shoulder buttons and triggers. Photo: Ed Hardy/Cult of Mac
I’ve spent more hours than I can count with a game controller in my hands. My fingers know exactly where all the buttons, sticks, etc. are supposed to be.
The GameSir X2s has close to the standard Xbox layout. On the left side is a joystick and D-pad. On the right side is a second joystick and ABXY buttons. Plus L1/L2 bumpers and R1/R2 triggers. I say “close to the standard” because the front-facing joysticks and buttons are lined up above each other, not diagonally as they are on Microsoft’s controller.
The buttons are reasonably clicky. They aren’t quite as good as the ones on a name-brand Xbox controller but they certainly didn’t interfere with hours of enjoyable gameplay.
As a nice touch, the sticks and triggers use the Hall effect so they won’t develop drift.
While I appreciate the portability, during long gaming sessions I miss the ergonomic shape of the GameSir G8. It’s much more curvy and the bigger grips make it fit more comfortably in my hands. The grips on the X2s are barely there. But the G8 is also significantly larger and therefore less easy to carry around.
Lean back and play
I started tested the GameSir X2s by playing Cypher 007, a James Bond-themed action game. The controller performed flawlessly, and makes playing much more enjoyable than on-screen controls. And I tested the clip-on accessory with Spyder, another Apple Arcade game I enjoy.
Support for game controllers like this one is built into iOS. But game developers have to add support too. To find out what’s available, you can find a list of hundreds of iOS games that the X2s definitely works with on the GameSir website. And most Apple Arcade games support controllers, too.
All of the cloud-gaming services I’ve tried recommend players use a controller, so they definitely support them. If you want to play Fortnite on your iPhone again, you can.
But not every iPhone game supports controllers. It’s frustrating. All you can do is check ahead of time.
iPhone game controller with convenience of USB-C
GameSir’s new game controller has the USB-C connector used by the latest iPhone models. And a USB-C port, too. Photo: Ed Hardy/Cult of Mac
One of the best features of the product is right there in the name: GameSir X2s Type-C Mobile Controller. The built-in USB-C connector makes this a plug-and-play device. Literally.
There’s no hassling with Bluetooth setup. Simply put your iPhone with a USB-C port (or an Android) into the telescoping controller and start having fun. This makes sharing the accessory between several iPhones a cinch.
GameSir designed the USB-C connector to swivel up and down, so there’s no danger of damaging it or your iPhone while inserting the handset into the slider.
Those with earlier iPhone models that don’t have a Lighting port aren’t left out in the cold. You want the GameSir X2 Lightning.
For extra convenience, your phone supplies power to the controller, so you don’t need to worry about a second battery. And if your handset battery starts to get low, just plug a USB-C cable into the game controller to charge your iPhone.
GameSir video
The developer of this iPhone game controller created a video to show off the hardware features:
GameSir X2s Type-C Mobile Controller final thoughts
I can get lost in a good game for hours. That’s why I like playing one on long trips. Attach this controller to your iPhone, start something fun and big chunks of boring travel can disappear.
And the accessory is so easy to use. It’s literally plug-and-play.
★★★★☆
Pricing
The GameSir X2s Type-C Mobile Controller is available for purchase for $45.99 / £49.99 / €59.99.
As noted, those with iPhone models from before Apple made the switch to USB-C, you want the GameSir X2 Lightning, which I also reviewed. Alternatively, there’s a Bluetooth version of the X2 for those who want to game on both iPhone and Android. That one costs $59.99.
Those looking for a more ergonomic controller with USB-C should read my review of GameSir G8. It’s not as portable, though.
…and as usual, the Moto G84 is a surprisingly adept and reliable Android handset from one of the world’s most dedicated phone manufacturers, with Motorola continuing its forcible takeover of our round-up of the best cheap phones.
The latest entry in Motorola’s ever-growing G-line of low-cost mobiles, the G84 brings a few clear and concise arguments as to why it should be your next purchase, as well as a few wardrobes that it hopes you won’t be checking for skeletons.
First up, the Moto G84 is the company’s latest collaboration between Motorola and paint company Pantone, with one of its three colors designed by color experts. This is the Viva Magenta one that you can see pictured above, adorned in the shade that Pantone decided was its Color Of The Year 2023.
It’s a distinctive shade (which may put some people off), and we’re big enough fans to add the vibrant and striking look to the ‘Pros’ list above. But for some reason, Moto decided to release two other color options, silver and black, which look pretty boring by comparison.
We go from one of the phone’s touted selling points to something Motorola is barely mentioning: the G84 is a powerhouse for gaming. While I’ve been disappointed by other mobiles brandishing the same Snapdragon 695 chipset used here, the Moto chews through gaming and other intensive tasks. If you’re a gamer on a budget, this is definitely a solid pick.
(Image credit: Future)
It’s at this point in the review (less than a minute into the ‘two-minute review’, so pretty early on) that I should mention the Moto G73. This mobile, released in early 2023 and still ranged by most retailers including Moto itself, has lots of specs in common with the G84.
It has a lower price and the same camera array, same rough design, same software, same battery size, same charging speed and same screen size. Admittedly it’s screen quality is worse, it doesn’t have an under-display fingerprint scanner, it’s less powerful and it doesn’t catch the eye quite like this Viva Magenta-clad beast. But if you want to save some cash and don’t mind these tweaked features, it’s a very real competitor that may sway your attention.
‘Close competition’ is nothing new for Moto phones, given how many similar-looking budget mobiles it releases each year. Neither is my other major gripe with the handset: its cameras are anything but impressive, with photos that look a little dull and unexciting.
Picking up a Motorola phone and being surprised that its cameras aren’t amazing, is like picking up a dumbbell and being surprised it’s heavy – that trait is just par for the course. The cameras aren’t terrible either, they just won’t suit passionate smartphone-centric photographers.
And overall, the Moto G84 is a terribly impressive phone, when you consider its feisty look, gaming power and low price; it’ll just fit some users better than others.
Moto G84 review: price and availability
Released in September 2023
Costs £249.99 (roughly $315, AU$475)
Not for sale in US or Australia
(Image credit: Future)
The Moto G84 was released in the UK in mid-September 2023, after coming out in India and Europe in the weeks prior. It was joined by the low-end Moto G54 and premium-leaning Moto Edge 40 Neo.
You can pick up the phone for £249.99 (roughly $315, AU$475), which lodges it firmly in the category of ‘cheap Android phone’, perfect for people on a budget who want a reliable mobile. That’s Moto’s whole schtick, after all. There’s no information on a US or Australian launch, but they seem unlikely even several months after the phone’s release.
Rivals at that price include Samsung’s Galaxy A23 5G, Redmi’s Note 12 5G, OnePlus’ Nord CE 3 Lite and several of Motorola’s own mobiles, like the Moto G73 5G and Edge 40 Neo, which are all at roughly the same price point. But for its price and the performance it offers, the G84 is solidly good value.
Moto G84 review: specs
The Moto G84 has many traits in common with other budget phones, but it exceeds its class in a few areas too.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Moto G84 specs
Header Cell – Column 1
Dimensions:
160 x 74.4 x 7.6mm
Weight:
166.8g
Screen:
6.5-inch 20:9 FHD+ (2400×1080) 120Hz p-OLED
Chipset:
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695
RAM:
12GB
Storage:
256GB
OS:
Android 13
Primary camera:
50MP, f/1.9
Ultra-wide camera
8MP f/2.2
Front camera:
16MP f/2.5
Audio:
Stereo speakers, 3.5mm headphone jack
Battery:
5,000mAh
Charging:
30W wired
Colors:
Viva Magenta, Marshmallow Blue, Midnight Blue
Moto G84 review: design
Vibrant Pantone-designed red shell
Repositioned under-display fingerprint scanner
3.5mm headphone jack and USB-C port
(Image credit: Future)
Motorola isn’t exactly in the business of revolutionizing smartphone design (well, at least for its budget mobiles, though you can say what you like about the Moto Razr). So if you’ve seen a Moto G in the last few years you’ve seen the G84.
It’s a standard Android mobile measuring 160 x 74.4 x 7.6 mm – a few years ago we could’ve called it “a little on the big side” though you could probably consider it average now. It’s surprisingly light at 166.8g, which means the phone sits a little comfier in the hand than most phones with a flat edge.
You’ve got the usual accouterments of a Moto: a USB-C port and 3.5mm headphone jack underneath, a power button and volume rocker on the right edge. But Motorola has made one big adjustment in its budget phones of late, and that’s in replacing the side-mounted fingerprint scanner with a more premium under-display one. And it’s a great change too, as unlocking the phone is much easier than in previous Motos. The scanner is a bit lower down the phone than on most others, but it’s something I got used to.
There are three different color options for the Moto G84: a silver and a black option, and also an eye-catching red version called Viva Magenta. This latter was created by paint company Pantone, and it’d make the phone very attractive if it wasn’t for the big Pantone-logo color swatch on the bottom. You can’t remove this, it’s part of the phone.
Still, if the G84 was in a line-up of 10 random other phones, it’d be the most attractive one the vast majority of the time – its red is a little richer than Apple’s Product Red and the glossy alternatives some Chinese phones offer.
In terms of protection, you’re looking at IP54: it’s partly dust proofed but not against all solids, and is splash-proof but can’t be dunked in water. That’s all to be expected at this price.
Moto G84 review: display
Big 6.5-inch screen
FHD+ resolution and 120Hz refresh
Automatic brightness issues
(Image credit: Future)
The Moto G84 has a 6.5-inch display, which is pretty average for a smartphone these days, but the Moto’s specs are anything but average.
The phone packs an FHD+ display (that’s 1080 x 2400) and a 120Hz refresh rate, which means the display updates its image 120 times per second, over the old standard of 60Hz. Lots of budget mobiles tout this spec now but certainly not all of them, and it brings a marked improvement when you’re scrolling around the menus.
Another unusual trait is the use of the DCI-P3 color gamut with over 1 billion colors – this was designed for use in movies and it makes videos look that little bit better than on another budget phone.
One other display feature worth flagging is that the punch-hole that houses the front-facing camera is very small, reducing the amount of screen space you’re losing from it.
A small issue I had with the phone was with its display and the automatic brightness features. Often, the phone would default to a screen brightness that was just too low, and I frequently had to manually adjust it to be able to make out the display.
Moto G84 review: software
Stock Android 13 is clean
Useful Moto Actions return
Plenty of customization options
(Image credit: Future)
When you boot up the Moto G84, it’ll come running stock Android 13 – that was the current OS when the mobile launched, though Android 14 started rolling out just weeks later. The G84 is only confirmed for one software update too, so Android 14 is all you’ll definitely get, though you’ll be able to enjoy at least three years’ security updates.
Stock Android is always fairly clean, at least compared to some other Android forks, but some bloatware has snuck into the Moto. There’s TikTok, LinkedIn and three simple games – it’s nothing too offensive, and if you’ve used one of the budget phones from another brand you might have used something a lot worse, but it’s still not ideal.
Moto phones have always been great for software customization, even before Google made it an official Android feature, and there’s no difference here. You have plenty of choice in terms of font, color scheme, icon shape, animations and more – if you like diving into the settings and then tweaking the nitty-gritty of how your phone looks, you’ll love this phone.
A returning feature exclusive to Moto phones are Moto Actions, which are easy navigation tricks that I find myself using a lot. Examples include a double karate-chop motion to quickly turn on the torch and a twisting shake to open the camera app. They take a little getting used to, but once you’ve got the knack for them, they’re incredibly handy.
Moto G84: cameras
50MP main and 8MP ultra-wide cameras
Some extra features like Spot Color
16MP front-facing camera for selfies
(Image credit: Future)
The camera department is an area that Motorola phones rarely excel in, and there’s no exception here. The phone uses up its ‘color’ budget on its exterior shell and there’s none left for its photos…
The main snapper is a 50MP f/1.9 unit and it’s joined by a single 8MP f/2.2 ultra-wide companion. On the front, you’re looking at a 16MP f/2.5 selfie camera. That’s not exactly a revolutionary combo for Moto, which used the exact same line-up in the Moto G73 from earlier in the year.
Pictures taken on the main camera looked fine – that nondescript word is the best way to describe them – with fair sharpness but a lack of vibrancy or color that made me miss Samsung’s or Xiaomi’s handsets.
Flip onto the ultra-wide camera and you’re getting pretty grainy pictures – it’s an 8MP sensor, what did you expect – though not straight away. No, the secondary snapper was surprisingly slow to focus when I pressed the icon in the camera app, and I often found myself waiting a few moments for it to sharpen the image.
You can also use the ultra-wide camera for macro (close-up) shots, but this suffers from the issue that all wide-angle-macro phone photos do: it’s rounded and distorted thanks to the lens type. No thanks!
There’s no zoom lens on the Moto G84, so you have to use its 8x digital zoom to get closer to a subject. But I’d really recommend you don’t, unless you want your photo to be as grainy as spot art.
Grainy is also the word to use for pictures captured on the front camera, which is a surprising twist as some Motos redeem themselves on their selfie abilities. They’ll be fine for sending between phones, especially with bokeh working well in Portrait mode, but if you look at selfies on any bigger screen you’ll see the pixels clearly.
When capturing video, you can shoot at 1080p, with no 4K option. There’s also a slow-mo option as well as dual capture (front and back cameras at once) and Spot Color, which lets you isolate a single color in your recording. These latter two options are also available for photography.
Moto G84 camera samples
Image 1 of 7
This ‘standard’ shot of a coffee looks a little dull in the froth and colorful plates.(Image credit: Future)
This photo came out bizarrely yellow.(Image credit: Future)
Here’s a standard snap of a street, so you can contrast to the next pic…(Image credit: Future)
…here’s that same street in ultra-wide.(Image credit: Future)
This festive outlook also looks a little duller than what another phone would capture.(Image credit: Future)
If you were to zoom in close to the face, you’d see it’s quite grainy (but please don’t!).(Image credit: Future)
I captured the G84’s contemporary, the Edge 40 Neo, so you can see how it picks up color.(Image credit: Future)
Moto G84: performance and audio
Snapdragon 695 chip exceeds expectations
12GB RAM and 256GB storage
3.5mm headphone jack and Bluetooth 5.1
The Moto G84 packs the Snapdragon 695, and anyone who’s used a phone using this chipset knows what to expect: fine everyday performance, but a lackluster showing when used for gaming or intensive processes. That’s how this exact same chip worked in the recent OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite, and gaming was a slog.
In a pleasantly surprising plot twist, the G84 bucks expectations: it runs a lot faster than you’d think. In fact, through our rigorous gaming tests, it proved itself as one of the most reliable low-budget phones for gaming.
When playing titles like Call of Duty: Mobile and PUBG Mobile, the phone could be relied on to get through a match without lags, stutters or freezes – in fact, the G84 beat many gaming phones in that it didn’t even overheat!
This may be thanks to the 12GB RAM you’re getting, a surprising amount for a phone at this price. The 256GB storage is also laudable – this is a phone that’ll last you a long time, and even if you do manage to fill the device’s onboard storage, the microSD card slot will keep you going for even longer.
If you’re into your facts and figures, a benchmark test through Geekbench 6 returned a multi-core average score of 2,037. That middling score shows that this phone is no supercomputer that’ll land a spaceship on the sun or predict the future, but for the price, I was very surprised.
Onto audio – this is par for the course for a Moto phone. There’s a 3.5mm headphone jack for wired music and Bluetooth 5.1 for wireless. The onboard stereo speaker is nothing to write home about, but it’s not so tinny that voice calls or memos are affected.
Moto G84 review: battery life
Large 5,000mAh battery
Over a day’s use from a single charge
30W charging isn’t particularly fast
(Image credit: Future)
If there’s one thing a Motorola phone can be relied on to have, even more than a confusing name, great customization or that distinctive sound when you first boot it up, it’s a long-lasting battery life.
No surprise, then, that the Moto G84’s 5,000mAh battery lasts a long time. You can use it to get through a day of use with no issue, and in our tests it lasted well into a second day before the charging cable needed to come out.
That charging cable gets you powering at 30W, so it’s not particularly fast, not when rival budget mobiles hit 50W, 67W or higher. You’re looking at charging times just shy of an hour, or more if you’re using the thing as you power it.
There’s no wireless charging here, but at that price, no-one should be surprised.
Should you buy the Moto G84?
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Moto G84 score card
Attributes
Notes
Rating
Value
Moto offers a lot for its price, and undercuts some big-name rivals too
4 / 5
Design
A bright color and light frame distract from this otherwise standard-looking Android.
3.5 / 5
Display
Mostly unimpressive for the price, but DCI-P3 makes a difference.
3.5 / 5
Software
Moto expands upon stock Android 13 with useful features
4 / 5
Camera
There’s nothing impressive in the Moto G84’s three camera selection.
2.5 / 5
Performance
The Moto G84 redefines budget gaming power, plus has loads of storage
4 / 5
Battery
The phone has a long battery life though unimpressive charging speeds.
3.5 / 5
Buy it if…
Don’t buy it if…
Moto G84 review: Also consider
If you’re looking for Android phones at the Moto G84’s price, you’ve got loads of rivals to consider. Here are a few:
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Moto G84
Moto G73
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro
Price (at launch):
£249 (around $315, AU$475)
£269 (around $330, AU$500)
£299 (around $350 / AU$520)
£299 (around $350 / AU$520)
Dimensions:
160 x 74.4 x 7.6mm
161.4 x 73.8 x 8.3mm
165.5 x 76 x 8.3mm
163 x 76 x 8mm
Weight:
166.8g
181g
195g
187g
OS (at launch):
Android 13
Android 13
Android 13
Android 12
Screen Size:
6.5-inch
6.5-inch
6.72-inch
6.67-inch
Resolution:
1080×2400
1080×2400
1080×2400
1080×2400
CPU:
Snapdragon 695
Dimensity 930
Snapdragon 695
Dimensity 1080
RAM:
12GB
8GB
8GB
6GB / 8GB / 12GB
Storage (from):
256GB
128GB / 256GB
128GB / 256GB
128GB / 256GB
Battery:
5,000mAh
5,000mAh
5,000mAh
5,000mAh
Rear Cameras:
50MP main, 8MP ultra-wide
50MP main, 8MP ultra-wide
108MP main, 2MP depth sensor, 2MP macro
50MP main, 8MP ultra-wide. 2MP macro
Front camera:
16MP
16MP
16MP
16MP
How I tested the Moto G84
Review test period = 2 week
Testing included = Everyday usage, including web browsing, social media, photography, video calling, gaming, streaming video, music playback
As you can tell from my review and the images, I tested the Moto G84 in its Pantone-endorsed Viva Magenta colorway. It felt fitting to test this festive-looking mobile during winter, hence the Christmas baking images!
Before true testing commenced I set up the phone to let the battery use settle, then used it as a standard mobile for two weeks. This included all the tasks you’d use your mobile for: social media, photography and streaming.
I also used it for gaming a lot. In fact, it was so snappy and fast for this task, alongside its lovely display, that I was loathe to move onto the next handset I’m testing for TechRadar!
My tech review history spans five years for TechRadar, and more for other brands. I used to work as an editor and writer for the site, covering phones, tablets and wearables (as well as a wide range of other gadgets), and continue to write freelance reviews across many types of gadget.
The frame was also thick enough that I knocked my knees on it while pedaling. There’s a reason why a motorcycle has a thick frame and a bike has a slim one—with a motorcycle, you don’t need to pedal. This would seem to indicate that the pedals on the Tyson are mostly just for show. However, when you exclusively use the throttle, I get barely 15 miles out of the battery (it’s worth noting here that at 115 pounds, I myself am not that big of a person). The range increased dramatically whenever I pedaled, but was still a far cry from the Tyson’s advertised 55-mile range.
I also noticed a bit of delay when the bike offered assistance. With more expensive Bosch, Specialized, and Shimano drive systems, the assist feels pretty seamless. With the Tyson, it was more herky-jerky, which can be disconcerting if you don’t really want to go from zero to 60 on your way home from returning library books.
Still, before I cracked the screen, I found the Tyson had many more features than you might expect from a bike at this price point. Hydraulic front and back suspension, combined with the cushy seat and huge, plushy tires, made for a comfortable ride. The small diameter of the wheels made it maneuverable for crowded sidewalks full of obnoxious preschoolers.
Photograph: Will Matsuda
Photograph: Will Matsuda
The 1200W motor carried me up the steepest hills with ease. I also really liked that the throttle revs you up to only your selected assist level. For example, if you’re on the first assist level, it speeds you up to only 6 miles per hour; the second, 10, and so forth. That reduces the herky-jerkiness a little. The bike also had a number of thoughtful little touches, like auto-on lights—you’d be surprised how often you need these in a rainy place like Oregon. A convenient triangle in the middle of the frame made it easy to lock up (you’d also be surprised by how hard it is to lock up a big ebike).
All in all, I think the Tyson is an affordable way to dip your toes into ebike waters. Making the switch from a car to a bike is a big transition, and biking requires a lot of accessories to make it actually fit into your lifestyle. The Tyson is a good way to see if you like or need things like lights, blinkers, or a rack before you make the switch. After all, a really nice bike doesn’t help you if you never get around to riding it because you never bought lights or a rack. Just be careful and don’t drop it! I’m still waiting for that replacement display to get to me.
With celebrity endorsements from Elon Musk and Danny Green generating plenty of biohacking buzz, you may have heard of Eight Sleep’s Pod 3 Cover. It’s a mattress cover that can heat or cool your bed to help you sleep better. You can tweak the temperature in the Eight Sleep app or have the autopilot mode adjust it automatically, and the Pod 3 can provide in-depth, accurate sleep tracking.
To unlock the smarts of this system, including autopilot and sleep tracking, you need an expensive subscription (from $15 per month), and that’s on top of the astronomical asking price (from $2,045). The UK Super King cover I tested costs £2,495 (around $3,175), which is far more than I could ever justify spending on a gadget like this. (The US equivalent is a Queen, roughly $2,145.)
High prices and billionaire endorsements are a turn-off for me, so I approached the Eight Sleep Pod 3 with a healthy dose of skepticism. Turns out rich people have nice things. Closing in on a month with the Pod 3, I’m a grudging convert. It is far too expensive, and I don’t need another subscription in my life; not to mention there are some quirks I’m not keen on. But my wife and I have both been sleeping better, and that kind of trumps everything else.
Make Your Bed
The Eight Sleep Pod 3 is a thick mattress cover with a network of rubber tubing inside and a soft, plush black material on top. It is elasticized for a snug fit on your mattress, but I’d advise enlisting some help to fit it. There’s a sticker to ensure you put it on the right way around with the connectors at the top. The brushed fleece top is soft, and I found the cover very comfortable. It doesn’t feel as though it’s filled with tubes with sensors.
Photograph: Simon Hill
A device that resembles a desktop PC with a big 8 on the front connects to the cover via a double tube. I slipped mine next to my bedside cabinet. This unit is the brains of the operation, with a quad-core CPU inside, and it pumps chilled or heated water through the mattress cover.
Hooking up the app and Wi-Fi was a five-minute job; the app walks you through every step. The first time you set it up, you need to fill the Pod 3 with water. A cylinder slides out of the top with a clear fill line. You have to do this a couple of times, and it takes around 90 minutes after each fill to pump the water into the system and calibrate, so don’t start the installation right before bedtime.
The cover has two distinct sides, so your partner can configure different settings, which is ideal if one of you runs cold and the other warm. It was easy to invite my wife from the app, so we could both control the Pod 3 from our phones. It took maybe four hours to prime the system, but most of that was waiting.
Logging Some Z’s
On my first night with the Pod 3 Cover, I slept like a log. My sleep score was 100. Like, actually 100. I fell asleep in less than five minutes and got seven hours and 55 minutes of blissful slumber. I woke refreshed and bounded out of bed, ready to tackle the day. This is rare for me. I usually take up to an hour to drop off and frequently wake through the night. But this auspicious start was not to last.
The Reference Series Hemp headphones started out as a limited edition – but thanks to popular opinion, Grado has decided to make them a permanent part of its catalog. How likely are the Grado Hemp to feature in our best wired headphones buying guide? Very, with just a few caveats.
In many ways – certainly aesthetic – it’s Grado business as usual. Which isn’t all good news, exactly, because it means these headphones are nothing special where perceived value is concerned, are far from luxurious as objects, and become less than comfortable more quickly than, say, the Sennheiser HD 660S2 they’re likely to face off against on most people’s shortlists.
Happily, it’s also business as usual where sound quality is concerned. The combination of the open-backed configuration, along with the acoustic talents of the maple-and-hemp construction of the driver housing, means these headphones sound spacious, detailed and thoroughly engaging. So much so, in fact, that you’ll almost certainly find they’re becoming just slightly uncomfortable before you’re really ready to stop listening to them.
Striking wooden ear cups in an otherwise so-very-Grado build (Image credit: Future)
Grado Hemp review: Price & release date
Release date: February 1, 2024
Price: $479 / £479 / AU$799
The Grado Reference Series Hemp wired open-backed over-ear headphones are available now – originally this model saw the light of day back in 2020, but then it was a limited edition and now it isn’t. In America, the price is a pun-tastic $420, while in the UK the headphones cost £479 and in Australia they’re AU$799.
There isn’t really space here to list all the very many pairs of alternative over-ear headphones this sort of money will buy. But direct, hard-wired open-backed rivals are thin on the ground (although the FiiO FT3 is one option), and those partially constructed from a semi-illegal botanical species are thinner still…
Grado Hemp review: Specs
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Drivers
44mm Dynamic (open-back)
Active noise cancellation
No
Impedance
38 Ohms nominal
Weight
218g
Connectivity
3.5mm, 6.3mm
Frequency response
13Hz – 28kHz
Cable length
177cm
Grado has now fitted a 3.5mm termination with a 6.33mm adapter supplied – good to see (Image credit: Future)
Grado Hemp review: Features
44mm dynamic drivers
13Hz – 28kHz frequency response
Chunky 177cm cable
There’s not much you need from a pair of passive headphones when it comes to ‘features’, is there? The Grado have the essentials: properly suspended, nicely isolated 44mm dynamic drivers delivering a claimed frequency response of 13Hz – 28kHz, and that just about covers it.
Each earcup is wired using the familiar eight-conductor cable Grado has favored for a while now – and here, just as in every other application, it’s almost wilfully eager to twist in on itself and heroically resistant to straightening. At least Grado has seen sense and fitted a 3.5mm termination with a 6.33mm adapter supplied – back in the day, the company would terminate with a 6.3mm jack and then provide a huge, unwieldy 6.3mm/3.5mm adapter. So progress has definitely been made where that particular feature is concerned…
Grado is sticking with its ‘friction pole’ design principle, but it means you may experience wearer fatigue after a while (Image credit: Future)
Grado Hemp review: Sound quality
Open, organised and expansive presentation
Nicely balanced and detailed sound
Straightforwardly enjoyable to listen to
Buying open-backed, hard-wired headphones strongly suggests you take your listening pretty seriously – after all, you haven’t hit on a pair of Grado Reference Series Hemp headphones for their convenience. So it seems reasonable to assume you’ll plug them into a worthwhile source of music, rather than straight into the headphone socket of a laptop or smartphone.
And sure enough, attach the Hemp to a half-decent headphone amplifier, feed in some digital audio content of reasonable resolution (a 24bit/96kHz FLAC file of Nick Drake’s Which Will, for instance, a 16bit/44.1kHz FLAC copy of Petra Haden’s version of I Can See For Miles or a 24bit/192kHz FLAC file of Astrud Gilberto’s Chup Chup I Got Away) and the fact they neither look nor feel like $480-worth of headphones becomes a moot point. Because they sound like it, and then some.
The soundstage they’re capable of creating, for example, is spacious, well-organised and, most of all, big. So big, in fact, that even if you choose to listen to a full symphony orchestra gearing up for a full assault, there’s more than enough room available for each individual instrument to enjoy a little space in which to do its thing without fear of being trampled over by any other. The layout is explicit, and the distance in the front/back and left/right planes is significant. Switch to a small-scale, guitar-and-voice recording, though, and the Hemp makes it sound unified, intimate and direct. As far as creating a big picture goes, these Grado are vivid and confident.
The cable is chunky and 1.7mm long, but it’s prone to tangles… (Image credit: Future)
Detail levels are high, across the board – the bottom of the frequency range is just as information-rich, varied and articulate as the midrange and the top end. At every stage, the Grado are able to identify and contextualise even the most minor events in a recording, as well as keeping a close eye on the bigger picture. It’s able to amalgamate every strand into a singular event with a strong sense of ‘performance’, and the integration of the entire frequency range is smooth (although just fractionally midrange-forward in the established Grado manner). This might seem to be a given, on the basis that the Hemp are producing the whole frequency from a single driver per earcup, but I’ve heard enough similarly specified headphones that simply can’t manage it to know it’s not good to make assumptions.
Control of the bottom end is good, which means rhythms are handled with assurance – the Grado’s overall sonic signature is one of momentum and engagement, rather than dry analysis. Oh, they can peer deep into a recording and bring back all the minutiae – but that’s not where they’re at their most effective. It’s their sense of energy and drive, well-supervised attack and simple musicality – that’s where their fundamental talents lie.
Big dynamic shafts are handled without alarms, and with just as much positivity as the low-level dynamic variations that are apparent in a solo instrument or unaccompanied voice(s) as in the Petra Haden recording. There’s plenty of punch and attack when it’s called for, but the Hemp are just as capable of soothing as they are invigorating.
These drivers are incredibly talented, but the open-air (read: open-back) design means sound leakage… (Image credit: Future)
Grado Hemp review: Design
Hemp/maple driver housing
Leather headband
Foam ear pads
Despite the fact that every pair of on-ear headphones is fundamentally the same when it comes to ‘design’, the Reference Series Hemp could only be a Grado product. The established design cues are all here.
Thin metal headband, modestly padded and covered with stretched leather? Check. Prosaic ‘friction pole’ headband adjustment mechanism? Check. Metal mesh covering the rear of the driver enclosure, ordinary-feeling foam forming the ear pads, a rudimentary yoke allowing just a degree of ear cup movement? Check, check and check again. Grado hit upon these design features a while back, and quite obviously sees no reason to mess with them.
No pair of headphones stays comfortable indefinitely. At some point during a listening session you’ll become aware of heat, or fatigue, or both, somewhere or other – but the design and execution of the Reference Series Hemp means that time will come a little sooner than with some alternative designs.
Grado’s rudimentary yoke doesn’t allow for much cup adjustment (Image credit: Future)
Grado Hemp review: Value
Unremarkable in look and feel
Perceived value is not all that high
Excellent sound quality at the money
You can look at this one of two ways. The first way says that the Reference Series Hemp are fundamentally unglamorous, and in no way look or feel like they cost as much money as they cost. The second way says that a combination of sonic talents such as those exhibited by these headphones justifies the asking price all day long. You will very much make your own mind up…
Should I buy the Grado Hemp?
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Section
Notes
Score
Features
The category of open-backed headphones isn’t particularly feature-rich, but there’s everything you need
5/5
Sound quality
Spacious, well-organised and most of all big sound – and it is beautiful
5/5
Design
Typically Grado, which means great sound, but you’ll notice a bit of discomfort over time
4/5
Value
Unglamorous, yes, but in the sound-per-pound stakes they’re worth every penny
4/5
Buy them if…
Don’t buy them if…
Striking, but the metal mesh won’t keep your tunes private (Image credit: Future)
Grado Hemp review: Also consider
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell – Column 0
Grado Hemp
Sennheiser HD-660S2
FiiO FT3
Price
$479 / £479 / AU$799
$599 / £499 / AU$949
$299 / £289 / AU$449
Drivers
44mm Dynamic (open-back)
38mm
60mm dynamic (open-back)
Weight
218g
260g
391g (without cable)
Connectivity.
3.5mm; 6.3mm
6.3mm, 4.4mm, 3.5mm
3.5mm, 4.4mm, 6.3mm, XLR-4
Frequency response
13Hz – 28kHz
8Hz – 41.5kHz
7Hz – 40kHz
Cable length
1.77m
1.8m
3m
How I tested the Grado Hemp
Used with various sources
Tested for over a week
Many different types of music played
Headphone amps of various types, music from vinyl records and hi-res digital audio files (and plenty of them) plus a long, hard listen is basically how I tested the Grado Reference Series Hemp.
This is how I was able to establish they like good sources of music better than average ones (no surprise there), they couldn’t care less about the sort of music you like to listen to (which is good news), and they get a little uncomfortable once you’re hours deep into a listening session (which is slightly less good news).
It also didn’t take me long to establish that the noise they leak is an irritation to anyone who might be in the vicinity…
Brane Audio’s Brane X has managed to achieve the unthinkable in the mostly mundane realm of the best wireless speakers, which – to be clear – is full of models that don’t leave much of an impression. Some are good, some are okay, and many are bad. But the Brane X makes an impression.
The main way the Brane X impresses is by delivering bass output extending into the sub-bass range. That’s unheard of for a portable speaker. Still, the Brane X isn’t an ordinary portable speaker, but one with proprietary Repel-Attract-Driver (R.A.D.) technology that uses a magnet array to cancel out air pressure within the speaker’s enclosure. This allows big bass to be generated from a small woofer in a highly compact box, and it needs to be heard to be believed.
Aside from its sub-bass output capability, the Brane X comes off as a normal-looking portable wireless speaker. It has a lunchbox-like form, complete with a carrying handle, and an unassuming design. Its built-in battery carries a charge for up to 12 hours of playback time and requires three hours to fully recharge. The IP57-rated speaker is dust and waterproof, making it ideal for both indoor and outdoor use.
Wireless streaming support includes Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Spotify Connect, and Bluetooth 5.1. An app lets you configure bass and custom EQ settings, and it can also be used to group multiple Brane X speakers for multi-room playback. Controls to adjust volume and bass level are located on the speaker’s top surface, and there are built-in mics for Alexa voice control.
Sound quality is where the Brane X makes its mark by delivering a notably dynamic and detailed sound for a portable speaker. Hip-hop, techno, rock, and even classical music are equally well served, with the speaker’s deep bass providing a strong foundation for other layers in music mixes. Voices, in particular, sound natural – something that benefits both music and podcasts – and the Brane X also manages to convey a sense of stereo separation and depth.
The catch with the Brane X, and you probably saw this coming, is that its performance comes at a price. At $599 (around £475 / AU$915), it’s more expensive than other premium portable speakers such as the Sonos Move 2 ($449 / £449 / AU$799). That factor makes the Brane X a tough sell if you simply want a portable speaker for casual outdoor and indoor listening, but if you’re looking for one with best-in-class sound quality, the Brane X is it.
Brane X review: Price and release date
The Brane X has a lunchbox-like design with a carrying strap for toting it around (Image credit: Future)
Released December 2023
Currently available only in US
Priced at $599 (around £475 / AU$915)
The Brane X is currently sold exclusively through Brane Audio and is only available for shipment in the US. International shipments will start in late 2024 according to the company’s website.
At $599 (around £475 / AU$915) the Brane X is very much on the pricey side for a portable wireless speaker, though it has sonic tricks up its sleeve that the competition lacks. To put it in context, you can buy a Sonos Move 2 for $449 / £449 / AU$799, which gets you a portable wireless speaker with a similar feature set plus twice the battery life. You can also spend quite a bit more on the Bang & Olufsen Beosound A5 ($1,099 / £899 / AU$1,950), a portable wireless speaker that generally looks similar to the Brane X, but has a more attractive design that’s typical for that brand.
Brane X review: Specs
Capacitive touch controls are located on the speaker’s top surface (Image credit: Future)
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Row 0 – Cell 0
Row 0 – Cell 1
Weight
7.7 lb. (3.5 kg)
Dimensions
6.1 x 9.3 x 7 inches (155 x 237 x 177 mm)
Battery life (quoted)
12 hours
Connectivity
Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 5.1
Speaker drivers
2 x 0.75-inch tweeters, 2 x 2-inch midrange drivers, 6.5 x 9-inch woofer
Streaming support
AirPlay 2, Spotify Connect
Aux-in
Yes, 3.5mm
Charger port
Power in
Microphone
Yes
Waterproof rating
IP67
Brane X review: Features
The Sonos Move 2 (at left) was used for a comparison in our Brane X (at right) listening tests (Image credit: Future)
Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Spotify Connect, and Bluetooth support
Voice control using Amazon Alexa
Built-in battery provides 12 hours playback time
Brane Audio’s Brane X streams music wirelessly via Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Spotify Connect, and also supports Bluetooth 5.1. A Brane app is available and can be used to select low, medium, and high Bass presets for best sound (most likely dependent on where the speaker is located), create a custom 5-band EQ setting, and store speaker groups for multi-room playback on multiple Brane X speakers. There are four built-in microphones for voice control, which is carried out using the Alexa voice assistant.
The driver array of the Brane X consists of two 0.75-inch tweeters, two 2-inch mid-range drivers, and a 6.5 by 9-inch (165 x 229mm) woofer. Four class-D amplifiers are packed into the compact speaker, for a total of 200 watts of power. A built-in battery allows 12 hours of playback at a reasonable volume level, and it can be fully recharged in 3 hours.
I would be amiss to describe the bass driver in the Brane X simply as a “woofer,” since the company applies unique technology to it to achieve extended bass. Woofers in conventional speakers generate bass by moving forward and back in an enclosure. That movement is driven by the passage of magnets on the woofer’s voice coil through a magnetic field, and it affects the air pressure within the speaker.
Brane Audio’s Repel-Attract-Driver operates similarly to a regular woofer, but in this instance, additional magnets are used to cancel out air pressure within the speaker. The cancellation effect allows for the use of a smaller woofer, along with a smaller enclosure, enabling Brane Audio to generate powerful sub-bass from a lunchbox-size speaker.
Brane X review: Sound quality
The speaker’s rear panel features a power on/off button and 3.5mm audio input (Image credit: Future)
Excellent bass extension and substantial output
Well-balanced sound with natural voice reproduction
Can play cleanly at party-like volume levels
The Brane X may be compact, but there’s nothing small about its sound. After reading about this portable speaker that’s capable of not just substantial bass extension, but also substantial sub-bass output, I was ready for something different and upon first listen I got that.
Getting straight down to business, I streamed Boom by Tiësto, Sevenn, and Gucci Mane to the speaker from Tidal HiFi via AirPlay. This is a track with bass to spare, and if the Brane X could handle that, it would pass the test. I’m not exaggerating when I say that my mouth flapped open when I heard the deep, pounding bass put out by the Brane X, which wasn’t far off from what I expect to hear from a hi-fi system with a capable subwoofer. The speaker’s extended dynamic range also allowed other elements in the mix to come through clearly, especially vocals, which had a natural, unstrained quality. Pushing up the volume to, naturally, satisfy my curiosity about how loud the Brane X could play, it went up to party-like levels without distorting or sounding congested.
Radiohead’s Desert Island Disks features a spare acoustic guitar that’s played over a low, pulsing beat. On my regular portable speaker, the Sonos Move 2, that beat comes across as more of a tap. When I played the song on the Brane X, however, it had a surprising low and full quality that dynamically anchored the sound and allowed for details in vocals along with the song’s more subtle ambient elements to come across clearly.
Even classical symphonic music fared well on the Brane X. When I streamed Mussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition – The Great Gate of Kiev, as played by the Cleveland Orchestra, on Tidal HiFi, the tympani rolls were conveyed in an appropriately thunderous manner and the volume sweeps of strings sounded smooth and convincing. Comparing the Brane X’s performance here again to my reference Sonos speaker, the Sonos came across as comparatively flat-sounding, with no sense of low-end muscle in the percussion and double basses.
Given the Brane X’s hi-fi prowess, it seemed almost weird to set it up in my kitchen in the spot normally occupied by my Sonos Move, where it is used mainly for listening to news and podcasts. When I did, I found I needed to dial down the bass in the app for best sound in the new spot. That done, the Brane X made voices sound completely natural, with none of the strained quality that can typically be heard when listening with low-cost Bluetooth speakers. Brane Audio’s portable may have been overkill in this setting, but I certainly wasn’t eager to swap it out.
The only sonic quirk I encountered when using the Brane X was a faint level of noise when the speaker was turned on but not being used for playback. This didn’t exactly bother me, and in most cases when I had the speaker turned on it was streaming audio, which fully masked the noise, but it was there nonetheless.
Brane X review: Design
The Brane X’s bottom-mounted woofer (Image credit: Future)
Basic, unassuming design
Carrying strap for portable use
1P57-rated dust and waterproof
There’s nothing particularly fancy about the Brane X’s design. As noted in the Features section of this review, it’s about the size and shape of a lunchbox. A rubber carrying strap is attached for toting the speaker around, and the black plastic top surface contains capacitive touch controls to adjust volume and bass level, as well as toggle the microphones on and off and set up Bluetooth and Wi-Fi pairing mode. A black mesh grille covers the speaker’s full front surface and sturdy rubber feet are provided to secure the speaker and allow clearance for the bottom-mounted Repel-Attract-Driver.
The Brane X’s back panel features a power on/off button and a 3.5mm aux input for connecting sources like a disc player or turntable. You’ll also find an input here for the speaker’s large, bulky external power supply and a QR code to access the Brane Audio website. With an IP57 rating, the Brane X is both dust and waterproof, making it a solid option for a workshop and a pool party.
Brane X review: Value
(Image credit: Future)
Expensive compared to the competition
Unique among portable wireless speakers
Has sound quality to back up the high price
With a $599 (around £475 / AU$915) price tag, the Brane X is undoubtedly expensive, making other premium portable wireless speakers such as the Sonos Move 2 look like a bargain in comparison. But the Brane X sounds better and certainly delivers better bass than the Sonos Move 2, which is its top competition. There is nothing quite like it on the market, a factor that enhances its value.
Suppose you’re looking for a compact portable wireless speaker that doesn’t sound like a compact portable wireless speaker, but a regular stereo system with a subwoofer instead. In that case, the Brane X is your only option. Yes, it’s expensive, but it has the sound quality to back up the high price.
Should you buy the Brane X?
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Features
Wi-Fi, Airplay 2, and Bluetooth streaming plus built-in battery and Alexa voice control
4.5/5
Sound quality
Exceptional sound quality and strikingly deep bass for a portable speaker
5/5
Design
Basic, unassuming design, but with carrying strap for portablility
4/5
Value
Pricey for a portable speaker, but it’s no ordinary portable
3.5/5
Buy it if…
Don’t buy it if…
Brane X review: Also consider
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Brane X smart speaker competitors
Brane X
Sonos Move 2
Sonos Roam
Bang & Olufsen Beosound A5
Price
$599 (around £475 / AU$915)
$449 / £449 / AU$799
$179 / £179 / AU$299
$1,099 / £899 / AU$1,950
Weight
7.7lbs. / 3.5kg
6.6 lbs / 3kg
0.95lbs / 0.43kg
8.4lbs / 3.8kg
Dimensions
6.1 x 9.3 x 7 inches (155 x 237 x
160 x 241 x 127mm / 6.3 x 9.5 x 5 inches
2.5 x 6.5 x 2.5 inches
187 x 285 x 130 mm (h,w,d)
Battery life (quoted):
12 hours
24 hours
10 hours
12 hours
Connectivity
Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Bluetooth 5.1, Spotify Connect
Bluetooth 5.0, Wi-Fi, USB-C
Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Bluetooth
Bluetooth 5.3, Apple AirPlay 2, Spotify Connect, Chromecast
Speaker drivers
2 x 0.75-inch tweeters, 2 x 2-inch midrange drivers, 6.5 x 9-inch woofer
2x angled tweeters, 1x midwoofer
N/A
1 x woofer; 2 x midrange ; 1 x tweeter
Aux-in
Yes, 3.5mm line-in
Yes (via USB-C adapter)
No
No
Charger port
Power in
Sonos charging base or USB-C
USB-C or optional Sonos Charger
USB-C, Qi wireless
Microphone
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Waterproof rating
IP57
IP56
IP67
IP65
Brane X smart speaker review: How I tested
(Image credit: Future)
Tested with music streamed from Tidal HiFi and Apple Music via AirPlay
Used Sonos Move 2 for comparison during listening tests
Tested over several weeks of both casual and critical listening
I tested the Brane X using a range of different music genres from hip-hop to classical and also used it for everyday listening to news internet radio stations and podcasts. During my testing, which lasted for several weeks, I moved it around to different rooms in my home and also gave it a listen outdoors.
I used a Bluetooth wireless connection from my iPhone for casual listening but switched to AirPlay 2 for critical listening during my review. Most music tracks played during my test were sourced from Tidal HiFi, with some played from Apple Music. For a direct comparison with a competitive speaker, I used a Sonos Move 2, switching between both speakers using the same music tracks to make a subjective listening comparison.
My audio reviewing experience extends back over two decades, and during that time I have tested everything from full surround sound speaker systems to subwoofers and soundbars.
The Zoma Hybrid mattress is a 12-inch (30cm) tall hybrid mattress with memory foam and pocket springs, and is available in both the US and the UK. The brand is geared specifically towards using sleep for recovery, and promises ‘cutting-edge sleep technology’. For this review, I slept on a UK king-size for four weeks, alongside my husband. I also ran several objective tests for performance aspects like pressure relief and edge support. The aim was to cut through the tech-talk and see how this model really matches up against the rest of today’s best mattresses.
The overall feel is firmly springy. There is memory foam here, but it’s paired with a bouncier foam layer and the overall feel is responsive, with minimal contouring. There’s no indication of firmness on the Zoma website but I’d say it’s around an 8.5 out of 10 (with 10 being the firmest). Myself and my husband (5ft 8 and 6ft 4 respectively, with a combined weight of 190kg) both found it far too firm for side sleeping, and it caused pressure to build up uncomfortably in our shoulders. It’s far more comfortable for back sleeping, where the foams and coils help distribute weight evenly and keep the spine aligned.
(Image credit: Zoma)
Elsewhere, the mattress performed well. The edges are nice and sturdy, so if you, like me, end up pushed to the side of the bed by a toddler in the middle of the night, you shouldn’t have to worry about rolling off. I was also impressed by the temperature regulation; I had no issues with overheating during my review period.
In terms of price, this mattress is almost always discounted (in the UK and the US) and generally sits in the mid-range price bracket. That’s a good price for a hybrid model, but if it’s a competitive bracket and there are cheaper models in our best hybrid mattressguide that offer similar quality.
At time of writing, Zoma isn’t a particularly well-known brand in the UK, but it has a following in the States with some high praises from athletes. I was impressed by some of the brand’s sustainability practices in the UK – it offers free old mattress recycling and it has a ‘zero waste to landfill’ policy in its factories. For more details on these points, read on for my full Zoma Hybrid mattress review.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Section
Notes
Score
Comfort
Bouncy, responsive foam and a firm feel that’s best for back sleeping. Too solid for side sleepers.
N/A
Value
Mid range and fairly priced for a hybrid, but there are good-quality, cheaper options.
3.5/5
Design
12in/30cm tall hybrid with memory foam, other foam and coils. No handles, cover not removable.
4/5
Temperature
No issues with overheating; slept comfortably cool.
4.5/5
Motion isolation
Some slight motion transfer, but fine for most people.
3/5
Edge support
Great. Comfortable to sit or lie near the edge of the bed.
4.5/5
Customer service
Free two-person delivery to door, but no option to include setup. Standard 100-day trial, 10-year warranty.
4/5
Zoma Hybrid mattress review: price & value for money
Never sold at full price; consistent discounts in both US and UK
Sits in the mid range, and well priced for a hybrid
… although there is strong competition in this bracket
At ticket price, the Zoma Hybrid is getting into the premium mattress space. It is, however, very rarely sold at full price. In the US, expect $150 off all sizes, and in the UK there’s usually £250 off. Based on the typical prices you’ll actually pay, it sits in the mid-range price bracket in both the US and the UK.
Here’s the pricing for the Zoma, alongside the discounted price you can expect to actually pay.
In the US:
Twin: MSRP $749 (usually sold at $599)
Full: MSRP $949 (usually sold at $799)
Queen: MSRP $1,149 (usually sold at $999)
King: MSRP $1,349 (usually sold at $1,199)
California King: MSRP $1,349 (usually sold at $1,199)
In the UK:
Single: £749 (usually sold at £499)
Double: £849 (usually sold at £599)
King: £949 (usually sold at £699)
Super king: £1,149 (usually sold at £899)
Overall, the mattress feels well made, and that’s a decent price for a hybrid (most of today’s best cheap mattresses tend to be all-foam models.). I have tested mattresses that suit my sleep style better and that I think are better value for money (read more in the alternatives section) but it’s competitively priced in the wider market.
Hybrid mattress with several types of foam and pocket coils
Breathable mesh fabric cover, not removable and no handles
12″ (30cm) tall, on all sizes, although review model was a bit shorter
The Zoma Hybrid is a hybrid of different foams and pocketed springs, and it’s made in the US or UK (depending where you reside). The top layer is a memory foam that has been designed to provide targeted support and relieve pressure on joints. It’s infused with gel to promote cooling. A layer down is something Zoma calls ‘Reactiv’. It’s designed to be responsive and bounce back quickly.
(Image credit: Zoma)
Underneath these two types of foam is where you’ll find the hundreds (no specifics given) of 19cm pocketed coils. These are there to add stability and support, and will also allow air to move through the mattress, aiding with breathability. It looks like there may be a layer of base foam beneath the coils (there’s reference to a ‘high-density base layer’ but again, no specifics are given). If you’re not bothered by having coils, there’s an all-foam version of this mattress available too.
There’s a zip, but Zoma says the cover shouldn’t be removed (Image credit: Future)
The Zoma Hybrid is wrapped in a soft, breathable cover that it calls ‘AirCloth’. This knitted material is designed to wick away heat and moisture. It’s not removable or washable – there is a zip, but that’s for manufacturing purposes only – and there’s no non-slip gripping anywhere that I can see to help keep the mattress firmly on the bed base. It also doesn’t have handles, which could be a problem if you need to move it at any time because it’s pretty heavy.
(Image credit: Future)
Officially it’s 12 inches (30cm) tall, but I measured by review model in a few spots and it was only 11.2 inches (28.5cm). Regardless, it’s still on the thicker side, so you’ll probably need some deep-fitted sheets.
Zoma Hybrid mattress review: comfort & support
No firmness indicated on Zoma website, but I rate it 8.5 out of 10 (firm)
Most comfortable in a back sleeper position
Springy, responsive feel, with minimal contouring
I’d describe the Zoma Hybrid as having a ‘firm bounce’. There is memory foam here, but it’s paired with a bouncier foam layer and the overall feel is responsive. The foams contour slightly around the sleeper, but don’t expect a body-hugging feel. The upper foam layers are thick, so you can’t feel the coils through them. When the pressure is removed from the surface of the mattress, it returns to shape almost immediately.
To test the firmness I placed my 10kg weight in the middle of the mattress; it sunk by 1.5 inches. Unusually, there’s no indication on the Zoma website of how firm this mattress is. I emailed a rep and the rating they gave me was in our ‘soft’ bracket, but I’d completely disagree with that. Although it did soften up a bit over the course of our testing period, it’s definitely a firm mattress – I’d rate it around an 8.5 out of 10 on firmness (with 10 being rock-hard). It’s a contender for TechRadar’s best firm mattressguide.
(Image credit: Future)
Throughout the testing I found that I was most comfortable laying on my back, even though I am naturally a side sleeper and it took me a while to adapt to this new position. This was the same for my husband. When laying on my back it felt like my weight was more evenly distributed, and helped to realign my spine after hunching over a computer all day.
However, laying on my side quickly became uncomfortable – I woke a couple of times in the night during testing with pins-and-needles on the side I was lying on. My husband experienced a similar thing. For reference, we have a combined weight of 198kg, and are taller than average; I’m 5ft 8 and my husband is 6ft 4.
That’s not really a surprise – the best mattresses for side sleeperstend to be a bit softer (between 5 and 7.5 out of 10 on firmness), to allow the shoulder to sink in a bit, and prevent pressure from building up in this area. Even though we typically like quite a solid mattress, my husband and I found it was far too firm for us.
Zoma says there’s no real weight limit on the mattress, but the general industry recommendation is 115kg per sleeper. However, I found myself rolling inwards towards my partner, who’s the heavier of the two of us, in the night.
Zoma Hybrid mattress review: performance
Great temperature regulation – no issues with overheating
Some motion transfer but only an issue for light sleepers
Excellent edge support
As well as taking into account the comfort and pressure relief of the Zoma Hybrid, for this review I have also focused on: temperature regulation (how hot or cool one feels on the mattress), motion isolation (how well it absorbs movements on the surface) and edge support (how sturdy the edge of the mattress is). Read on for my findings…
Temperature regulation
Memory foam can have a habit of clinging on to body heat, and many brands use fancy terminology to make it sound like you’re getting a cooler option. The only way you’ll know if it actually works or not is to either try it out, or read a review.
The memory foam in the Zoma Hybrid mattress is infused with gel, with the aim of aiding temperature regulation. Whether it’s down to the gel or not, I found the Zoma did a great job of keeping me at a comfortable temperature.
(Image credit: Future)
I was in the middle of a new home renovation during my testing period, so I slept on the Zoma in cold UK winter temperatures either with no heating or with raging heating while waiting for a thermostat. I didn’t wake once feeling hot during the night, which is a sign that this aspect of the mattress spec was performing as it should.
Temperature regulation score: 4.5 out of 5
Motion isolation
This is about how movement transfers across the mattress. If a mattress has poor motion isolation, you’ll feel it when your bed-sharer turns over or gets into or out of bed. If you’re a restless sleeper and/or share a bed, it’s worth paying attention to this aspect of performance.
To try out the Zoma Hybrid for motion isolation I bravely put my 10kg weight next to a pint-sized glass with some water in it. The glass (almost) fell over at 3.5-inches, wobbled at 8-inches but was safe at 12-inches away from the weight.
(Image credit: Future)
I also tested out the motion isolation in the real world, by moving around in bed, and asking my husband to move around too. The bouncy feel means there is a bit of motion transfer. I could feel my partner changing position and getting in and out of bed, and vice versa, although there wasn’t enough movement for it to bother either of us. If you’re a particularly light sleeper, you might want to look for something with more complete motion isolation, however. It’s also worth noting that the mattress tended to cause me to roll inwards towards my partner (who is heavier than I am).
Motion isolation score: 3 out of 5
Edge support
Edge support is an important factor to look out for because a sturdy edge means that you’ll be able to comfortably sit on / push up off a mattress when getting up, as well as being able to sleep right up to the edge. To test the Zoma Hybrid for edge support I placed my 10kg as close to the edge as possible – it sank 2 inches, which is slightly less than the centre. That’s a good result.
(Image credit: Future)
I also tested out the edge support in a real-world scenario. I felt well supported when sitting on the edge of the bed, and also when lying right near the edge of the mattress when our toddler decided to squeeze into bed with us. Overall, I was impressed with the edge support here.
Edge support score: 4.5 out of 5
Zoma Hybrid mattress review: customer experience
Mattress delivered vacuum-packed and boxed; free delivery to door
Standard 10 year warranty and 100 night trial
Free old mattress removal in the UK
As a bed in a box mattress, the Zoma Hybrid is delivered vacuum-packed and rolled (if you’re new to this kind of bed, read about the difference in our mattress in a box vs traditional mattress explainer). Zoma offers free delivery, but only to your front door. I can only speak for the UK delivery setup, but I was impressed with the company’s communication – I received text messages a week prior to delivery (confirming delivery date) and then the day before delivery (with a more specific time slot).
Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Future)
(Image credit: Future)
(Image credit: Future)
It’s a shame there’s no option to upgrade to a delivery that includes setup – some bed brands offer this as a paid-for extra, and a handful even include it for free. Although the box was much more compact than a non-vacuum-packed mattress would be, it was still mega heavy and definitely needed two people to lift it.
There were no instructions or little pamphlets or even a little cutting tool to break the mattress free from the plastic wrapping. I found some scissors, and scored down the side of the plastic. The pressure of the vacuum-sealed mattress helped to force it out. Within a few minutes, the Zoma Hybrid was unwrapped and on the Livingstone Bed Base (also on review). It was pretty much ready to use straight out of the box, although the official advice from Zoma is to wait 4-6 hours before sleeping on it. There was no off-gassing.
If you’re not entirely satisfied with your new Zoma Hybrid then you can return it, for free, after a 30-day period until the 100-night sleep trial ends. This 30-night mark stands because Zoma wants you to try it out for a minimum of a month to allow your body enough time to get used to it. Should you wish to return it within a month, you’ll be charged $99/£79 shipping fee.
(Image credit: Future)
The 100-night trial is about the minimum offered by any of the big bed brands, although still long enough to try your mattress out thoroughly. Trials of 200 nights are fairly common now, and a few brands like Nectar give you a full year.
All Zoma mattresses also carry a 10-year warranty, which again is acceptable but not especially generous. During this time you’re covered for a full repair or replacement, but the warranty only covers workmanship and structural defects – so no accidents.
An unusual perk is that Zoma offers free old mattress recycling. Old mattress removal is generally a paid-for extra, if it’s offered at all, so this is good to see. In the UK, it’s part of Zoma’s commitment to sustainability – there, it repurposes all excess foam so there’s zero waste to landfill. Any returned mattresses are recycled or refurbished. (This does not appear to be the case in the US.)
Customer experience score: 4 out of 5
Zoma Hybrid mattress specs
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Materials
Memory foam, other foam, pocket coils
Cover
97% polyester, 3% spandex. Technically removable but not encouraged.
Handles
No
Firmness (1-10)
8.5 (my rating)
Height
12 inches / 30cm (NB: I measured under this)
Trial period
100 nights
Warranty
10 years
Price bracket
Mid range
Price (US)
US queen: MSRP $1,349 (usually sold at $1,199)
Price (UK)
UK double: RRP £949 (usually sold at £649)
Sizes (US)
Twin, twin XL, full, queen, king, Cal king, split king
Sizes (UK)
Single, double, king, super king
Delivery
Free to porch or hallway, no option to upgrade. Free old mattress recycling if required.
Returns
Free
Zoma Hybrid mattress review: other reviews
4.8* average over 1,217 reviews (Mar 2024), US / UK reviews combined
High praise for comfort, breathability and motion isolation
Some complaints of it being too firm
At the time of writing, Zoma mattresses hadn’t been available to UK customers for very long, so all the reviews that we’re available to sift through are from the US. As of March 2024 there were a total of just over 1,200 reviews, the majority of which were 5 stars, and all sang the same tune about comfort and coolness. It’s ordered highest scores to lowest, so you’ll need to head to the latter pages for any complaints.
Here, I found a few reviews echo what I found. There are a few reviewers who found it too firm and uncomfortable for side sleeping, and found in led to aches and pains. One likened it to sleeping on a too-full air mattress.
Should you buy the Zoma Hybrid mattress?
Buy it if…
✅ You’re a back sleeper: The Zoma Hybrid relieved pressure on achy muscles and joints when laying on our backs, with no sinking.
✅ You like a super-firm mattress: This is one of the firmest mattresses I’ve tested, rating 8.5 out of 10 on firmness. If you want a super-sturdy bed, this is it.
✅ Environmental impact is important to you: All Zoma mattresses are either made in the US or UK, depending on where you reside, and (in the UK at least) the brand has some admirable sustainability practices.
Alternatives to consider
❌ You’re a side sleeper: The firm feel means most side sleepers will end up with pressure building up in their shoulder. I found it uncomfortable for side sleeping, and ended up having to shift onto my back. Other reviews reflect a similar experience.
❌ You weigh more than average: I found myself rolling towards the (heavier) weight of my husband in the night. If you share a bed and one or more of you is heavier in body weight then this isn’t a great choice – our guide to the best mattresses for bigger bodies has some great specialist models.
❌ You want a joint-hugging feel: There’s not much contouring here. If you want that body-hugging sensation, our guide to the best memory foam mattresses has plenty of recommendations.
Alternatives to consider
How I tested the Zoma Hybrid mattress
Myself and my husband slept exclusively on the UK king size Zoma Hybrid for four weeks. The review period coincided with a new house renovation, and the testing process was during February when there were some cold nights in the UK (when we had no heating) and warm nights (when the heating needed some fine-tuning). I also ran a series of tests to measure the edge-to-edge support and motion transfer.
It’s hard to expect much from Apple’s new M3-equipped MacBook Airs. The 13-inch M2 model, released in 2022, was the first major redesign for Apple’s most popular notebook in over a decade. Last year, Apple finally gave its fanatics a big-screen ultraportable notebook with the 15-inch MacBook Air. This week, we’ve got the same two computers with slightly faster chips. They didn’t even get a real launch event from Apple, just a sleepy Monday morning press release. They look the same and are a bit faster than before — what else is there to say?
Now, I’m not saying these aren’t great computers. It’s just that we’ve been a bit spoiled by Apple’s laptops over the last few years. The M3 MacBook Air marks the inevitable innovation plateau for the company, following the monumental rise of its mobile chips and a complete refresh of its laptops and desktops. It’s like hitting cruising altitude after the excitement of takeoff — things are stable and comfortable for Apple and consumers alike.
Apple
Apple’s latest MacBook Air takes everything we loved about the M2 redesign — a sleeker and lighter case — and adds more power thanks to an M3 chip.
Pros
Sturdy and sleek design
Fast performance thanks to M3 chip
Excellent 13-inch screen
Great keyboard and trackpad
Solid quad-speaker array
Cons
Charging and USB-C ports are only on one side
$1,099 at Amazon
Apple
Apple’s big-screen MacBook Air still looks and feels great, and it’s faster thanks to an M3 chip.
Pros
Sturdy and sleek design
Fast performance thanks to M3 chip
Excellent 15-inch screen
Great keyboard and trackpad
Solid six-speaker array
Cons
Charging and USB-C ports are only on one side
$1,299 at Amazon
M3 MacBook Air vs the M2 MacBook Air
Even though they look exactly the same as before, the M3 MacBook Air models have a few new features under the hood. For one, they support dual external displays, but only when their lids are closed. That was something even the M3-equipped 14-inch MacBook Pro lacked at launch, but Apple says the feature is coming to that device via a future software update. Having dual screen support is particularly useful for office workers who may need to drop their computers onto temporary desks, but it could also be helpful for creatives with multiple monitors at home. (If you absolutely need to have your laptop display on alongside two or more external monitors, you’ll have to opt for a MacBook Pro with an M3 Pro or Max chip instead.)
Both new MacBook Air models also support Wi-Fi 6E, an upgrade over the previous Wi-Fi 6 standard with faster speeds and dramatically lower latency. You’ll need a Wi-Fi 6E router to actually see those benefits, though. According to Intel, Wi-Fi 6E’s ability to tap into seven 160MHz channels helps it avoid congested Wi-Fi 6 spectrum. Basically, you may actually be able to see gigabit speeds more often. (With my AT&T gigabit fiber connection and Wi-Fi 6 gateway, I saw download speeds of around 350 Mbps and uploads ran between 220 Mbps and 320 Mbps on both systems from my basement office. Both upload and download speeds leapt to 700 Mbps when I was on the same floor as the gateway.)
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
Design and weight
Two years after the 13-inch M2 MacBook Air debuted, the M3 follow-up is just as sleek and attractive. It seems impossibly thin for a notebook, measuring 0.44 inches thick, and is fairly light at 2.7 pounds. We’ve seen ultraportables like LG’s Gram and the ZenBook S13 OLED that are both lighter and thinner than Apple’s hardware, but the MacBook Air still manages to feel like a more premium package. Its unibody aluminum case feels as smooth a river stone yet as sturdy as a boulder. It’s a computer I simply love to touch.
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
The 15-inch M3 MacBook Air is similarly thin, but clocks in half a pound heavier at 3.2 pounds. It’s still relatively light for its size, but the additional bulk makes it feel more unwieldy than the 13-inch model. I can easily slip either MacBook Air model into a tote bag when running out to grab my kids from school, but the larger model’s length makes it more annoying to carry.
For some users, though, that extra heft will be worth it. The bigger MacBook Air sports a 15.3-inch Liquid Retina screen with a sharp 2,880 by 1,864 (224 pixels per inch) resolution, making it better suited for multitasking with multiple windows or working in media editing apps. It’s also a better fit for older or visually impaired users, who may have to scale up their displays to make them more readable. (This is something I’ve noticed while shopping for computers for my parents and other older relatives. 13-inch laptops inevitably become hard to work on, unless you’re always wearing bifocals.)
While I’m impressed that Apple finally has a large, consumer-focused laptop in its lineup, I still prefer the 13-inch MacBook Air. I spend most of my day writing, Slacking with colleagues, editing photos and talking with companies over video conferencing apps, all of which are easy to do on a smaller screen. If I was directly editing more episodes of the Engadget Podcast, or chopping up video on my own, though, I’d bump up to the 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M3 Pro chip. Even then, I wouldn’t have much need for a significantly larger screen.
A lonely headphone jack that could use a USB-C companion. (Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget)
It’s understandable why Apple wouldn’t want to tweak the Air’s design too much, given that it was just redone a few years ago. Still, I’d love to see a USB-C port on the right side of the machine, just to make charging easier in every location. But I suppose I should just be happy Apple hasn’t removed the headphone jack, something that’s happening all too frequently in new 13-inch notebooks, like the XPS 13.
Hardware
For our testing, Apple sent the “midnight” 13-inch MacBook Air (which is almost jet black and features a fingerprint-resistant coating that actually works), as well as the silver 15-inch model. Both computers were powered by an M3 chip with a 10-core GPU, 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD. While these MacBooks start at $1,099 and $1,299, respectively, the configurations we tested cost $400 more. Keep that in mind if you’re paying attention to our benchmarks, as you’ll definitely see lower figures on the base models. (The cheapest 13-inch offering only has 8GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD and an 8-core GPU, while the entry-level 15-inch unit has the same RAM and storage, along with a 10-core GPU.)
Geekbench 6 CPU
Geekbench 6 GPU
Cinebench R23
3DMark Wildlife Extreme
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch (M3, 2024)
3,190/12,102
30,561
1,894/9,037
8,310
Apple MacBook Air 15-inch (M3, 2024)
3,187/12,033
30,556
1,901/9,733
8,253
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch (M2, 2022)
2,570/9,650
25,295
1,576/7,372
6,761
Apple MacBook Pro 14-inch (M3, 2023)
3,142/11,902
30,462
1,932/10,159
8,139
M3 chip performance
I didn’t expect to see a huge performance boost on either MacBook Air, but our benchmarks ended up surprising me. Both laptops scored around 300 points higher in the Cinebench R23 single-core test, compared to the M2 MacBook Air. And when it came to the more strenuous multi-core CPU test, the 13-inch M3 Air was around 1,700 points faster, while the 15-inch model was around 2,400 points faster. (Since both machines are fan-less, there’s a good chance the larger case of the 15-inch Air allows for slightly better performance under load.)
There was a more noticeable difference in Geekbench 6, where the M3 models were around 40 percent faster than before. Apple is touting more middling improvements over the M2 chips — 17 percent faster single-core performance, 21 percent speedier multi-core workloads and 15 percent better GPU workloads — but it’s nice to see areas where performance is even better. Really, though, these aren’t machines meant to replace M2 systems — the better comparisons are how they measure up to nearly four-year-old M1 Macs or even creakier Intel models. Apple claims the M3 chip is up to 60 percent faster than the M1, but in my testing I saw just a 35 percent speed bump in Cinebench’s R23 multi-core test.
When it comes to real-world performance, I didn’t notice a huge difference between either M3-equipped MacBook Air, compared to the M2 model I’ve been using for the past few years. Apps load just as quickly, multitasking isn’t noticeably faster (thank goodness they have 16GB of RAM), and even photo editing isn’t significantly speedier. This is a good time to point out that the M2 MacBook Air is still a fine machine, and it’s an even better deal now thanks to a lower $999 starting price. As we’ve said, the best thing about the existence of the M3 Airs is that they’ve made the M2 models cheaper. You’ll surely find some good deals from stores clearing out older stock and refurbished units, as well as existing owners selling off their M2 machines.
Gaming and productivity work
I’ll give the M3 MacBook Airs this: they’re noticeably faster for gaming. I was able to run Lies of P in 1080p+ (1,920 by 1,200) with high graphics settings and see a smooth 60fps most of the time. It occasionally dipped into the low-50fps range, but that didn’t affect the game’s playability much. The director’s cut of Death Stranding was also smooth and easy to play at that resolution, so long as I didn’t crank up the graphics settings too much. It’s nice to have the option for some serious games on Macs for once. And if you want more variety, you can also stream high-end games over Xbox’s cloud streaming or NVIDIA’s GeForce Now.
In addition to being a bit faster than before, the 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Airs are simply nice computers to use. Their 500-nit screens support HDR and are bright to use outdoors in sunlight. While they’re not as impressive as the ProMotion MiniLED displays on the MacBook Pros, they’ll get the job done for most users. Apple’s quad and six-speaker arrays are also best-in-class, and the 1080p webcams on both computers are perfect for video conferencing (especially when paired with Apple’s camera tweaks for brightness and background blurring). And I can’t say enough good things about the MacBook Air’s responsive keyboard and smooth trackpad – I wish every laptop used them.
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
Battery
Unfortunately, the short turn-around time for this review prevented me from running a complete battery test for these computers. At the moment, though, I can say that both machines only used up 40 percent of battery life while playing a 4K fullscreen video at full brightness for over 10 hours. Apple claims they’ll play an Apple TV video for up to 18 hours, as well as browse the web wirelessly for up to 15 hours. My testing shows they’ll definitely last far more than a typical workday. (I would often go three days without needing to charge the 13-inch M2 MacBook Air. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I expect similar performance from the M3 models.)
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
Wrap-up
There aren’t any major surprises with the 13-inch and 15-inch M3 MacBook Air, but after years of continual upgrades, that’s to be expected. They’re great computers with excellent performance, gorgeous screens and incredible battery life. And best of all, their introduction also pushes down the prices of the still-great M2 models, making them an even better deal.
The highlight of the 2024 MacBook Air is the Apple M3 processor, and the first round of reviews show a 25% increase over the earlier M2-based models.
Otherwise, Apple didn’t tinker with the design of previous versions of its 13- and 15-inch consumer-oriented notebook.
Design: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
Apple took the wraps off the latest iteration of its popular MacBook Air on March 4. It quickly became obvious that all the important changes are internal.
As The Verge review of the new model put it, “The chassis of the 13-inch and 15-inch Air M3s are the same as their M2 predecessors: same wedgeless design, same dimensions and weight, same colorway options — same everything.”
The new computers are very slim — just over 0.4 inches — and lightweight. But there’s still room for a 13.6-inch screen or a 15.3-inch one, depending on the model.
No matter the size, the 2024 MacBook Air last up to 18 hours on a single charge, according to Apple. And both sizes offer two USB-C ports that support Thunderbolt. Getting more ports requires a hub or upgrading to a MacBook Pro.
2024 MacBook Air is all about the M3 processor
Not surprisingly, the first round of reviews of the latest macOS notebook for consumers focus on the one really significant change: the Apple M3 processor.
Engadget answered the query still on everyone’s mind by running Geekbench 6 benchmarking tests. The 13-inch version of the 2024 MacBook Air scored an 12,102 on the multi-core test, making it 25% faster than the M2 version. And the computer came in at 23% faster on Cinebench.
Cnet did its own benchmark tests and came up with a 12063 on the Geekbench 6 multi-core score. That makes the M3 version is 38% faster than the M1 model from 2020.
That said, those already using a recent MacBook Air shouldn’t expect a noticeable increase in speed. The M2 processor was already quite capable of easily handling most of the software consumers need.
“When it comes to real-world performance, I didn’t notice a huge difference between either M3-equipped MacBook Air, compared to the M2 model I’ve been using for the past few years,” noted the Engadget reviewer.
Bonus features
2024 MacBook Air can connect to a pair of external displays. Photo: Apple
Several of the reviewers confirmed the M3-based model’s support for two external displays, noting that it requires closing the notebook’s clamshell because Apple’s chip can only handle two screens at a time.
They also noted the upgrade to Wi-Fi 6E, which can significantly increase wireless networking speeds but requires a router that supports the new standard.
Is the 2024 MacBook Air for you?
TechCrunch says of the MacBook Air models: “I don’t hesitate to call them the best consumer laptop Apple has ever made. Depending on where your operating system allegiances lie, it’s not a stretch to call them the best laptops for most people, full stop.”
Cnet said, “The M3 MacBook Air, either size, is an easy recommendation.”
Engadget says, “They’re great computers with excellent performance, gorgeous screens and incredible battery life.”
Video reviews
Cnet did a video review of the 2024 MacBook Air, and summed up the results saying, “If you’re on an older MacBook Air or even a MacBook Pro, the M3 MacBook Air continues Apple’s impressive performance streak, especially if you’re in need of a graphics boost.”
Swapping between the bar’s multiple inputs is slightly more intuitive, with a different LED color assigned to each input: HDMI ARC glows magenta, optical is yellow, the analog input is green, and the USB input is cyan. This color coding has become more common in A/V gear of late, usually seen in active/powered bookshelf speakers like the KEF LSX II, where space is at a premium. In the Q6310’s case, the bar’s center-channel speaker likely takes up the real estate a traditional digital display might inhabit.
Another likely reason TCL punts on the visual display is that, as a Roku TV Ready soundbar, the Q6310 is designed to allow you to control and adjust some settings directly from a Roku-powered smart TV. That functionality stems from a long partnership between the two brands, with Roku taking the reins as the smart interface in many TCL TVs (though TCL now seems to favor Google TV for its more premium models).
Photograph: Ryan Waniata
If you don’t have a Roku-powered TV, TCL’s app makes controlling the bar’s sound modes, volume, and other settings much easier via an iPhone or Android device. Other app settings include a Night mode to keep the dynamics in check when the family’s asleep, a Dialogue Enhance feature, and virtual surround sound control.
There’s also a calibration feature, AI Sonic, which uses your phone’s microphone to adjust the sound to your room, à la Sonos. That’s an impressive inclusion at this price, but the setup experience is quite loud, and I couldn’t hear much of a difference once it finished.
Aluminum Punch
Photograph: Ryan Waniata
My first thought when I started evaluating the Q6310 was that it doesn’t sound much better than a lot of high-end TVs I’ve auditioned this year. The sound is clear and forward, especially for dialog, but there’s a brittle, metallic quality to the midrange and treble registers that can feel as thin as the soundbar looks. To be fair, a lot of pricier TVs these days are outfitted with multiple speakers like soundbars are, so comparing the two isn’t as big of a diss as it once was.