Xiaomi Sound Play review

It turns out that major mobile manufacturer Xiaomi also makes Bluetooth speakers, and its latest model, the Xiaomi Sound Play, is aiming to deliver “immersive, powerful sound” as well as a “stylish and versatile” design.

But that’s not all. The tech giant is doing all of this while keeping its speaker nice and cheap. It comes in at just £49.90 (about $67 / AU$95) — which is refreshingly affordable for an 18W model with features such as smart lighting, Auracast, and IP68 waterproofing.

So can the Xiaomi Sound Play compete with some of the very best Bluetooth speakers around? The answer is a little more complicated than a simple yes or no.

Let’s start by looking at the areas in which the Sound Play excels, and there are a fair few of these. I alluded to some a moment ago — its waterproofing and LED lights, for example. That IP68 rating means that the speaker is fully dustproof, but can also survive a dunking under a meter and a half of water for as long as 30 minutes, so you really can take it anywhere without fear of damage.

The lighting — a key selling point of this speaker — is pretty neat too. Lights sit on the base of the speaker and beneath a panel on the top side, which resembles an infinity mirror. And the rings of lighting really help to make your listening sessions more immersive, especially in lower-lit conditions. You can customize the color and pattern of the lights too, and one setting also syncs up to bass output. That level of customizability is spectacular to see on a speaker in this price category.

More generally, I’m quite a big fan of how the Sound Play looks. It comes in four very stylish colors — the Purple variant I tried is quite the looker, as is the Green version. It is reminiscent of the JBL Flip 7 in terms of look and feel, with a neat fabric exterior and psuedo-cylindrical build. The inclusion of the infinity mirror light and handy rubber strap also make it a real stand-out, looks wise.

Another welcome inclusion is a built-in mic, for speakerphone duties. This is something you don't often see these days and it does add value, on paper. However, I made a phone call and although my voice sounded clear on the other end, I noticed a high-pitched chime whenever the other person wasn’t speaking. It wasn’t a dealbreaker (my discussion was still easy to navigate), but it's my job to notice these things.

Other highlights include a JBL Grip-rivalling 14-hour battery life — which is excellent for a speaker of this size — as well as Bluetooth 6.0 connectivity, and true wireless stereo playback for anyone with multiple Sound Play models at their disposal.

Something that the Sound Play omits, however, is companion app support. For me, this is a bigger miss — an app could’ve opened up EQ adjustment, remote light alteration, and precise battery life tracking. The speaker’s nominal price doesn’t quite excuse this either. There are a number of budget-friendly rivals from the likes of Earfun, Edifier, and Tribit that do come with app support.

By now you must be wondering how Xiaomi’s speaker sounds. In honesty, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. It’s a steady performer in some areas, but in need of improvement in others.

In general, the Sound Play delivers fairly clear audio. In Yes I Know My Way by Pino Daniele, vocals had good presence in the mix, and even had a decent sense of separation from other instruments in the mid-range. OK, higher-pitched drums weren’t the most expressive or articulate, but they didn’t sound tinny at mid-volume, and bass was weighted relatively well too.

With more energetic tracks, such as Trip by Ruze, the cracks started to show. There was a slightly compressed quality to the track, and the pumping bass just didn’t come through with the command or depth of similarly sized rivals, including the JBL Grip, which I directly tested against the Sound Play.

During this comparison, the Grip just delivered a more fun performance, with enhanced directionality and low-end punch. But that’s not to say Xiaomi’s speaker was blown out of the water — it still held its own with commendable clarity in the mid-range and fairly agile bass.

In House tracks, bass drops didn’t always have the impact or dynamism I was listening out for, and vibrant drums could occasionally sound on the blunt side. But then again, the Xiaomi didn’t succumb to a boomy, super-muddy sound that a lot of its budget rivals do — it puts up a fairly controlled performance overall.

As a smaller speaker, the Sound Play can’t get super loud, and bass will thin out substantially at top volume levels. It also won’t deliver the most detailed or open sound ever — again, I found a few tracks sounded a little compressed and narrow, which isn’t helped by the lack of higher-res codecs like LDAC or aptX.

All in all, I think the Sound Play sounds good enough for the price you pay. Sure, it’s not the most dynamic or revealing-sounding model on the market, but you get typically clear, decently balanced sound without having to shell out all too much cash.

So, looking at the Xiaomi Sound Play as a whole, would I consider it worth buying? Well that depends. If you’re on a tight budget, and you want a speaker for less than £50, then I think the Sound Play is an option worth considering. It doesn’t sound amazing, but it gets the job done, and I’m a big fan of its durable yet eye-catching design.

However, if you’ve got a little more money to play with, then I’d suggest picking up the JBL Flip 7. That model can produce truly seismic bass, incredibly clean audio, and has a top-class companion app to boot. The JBL Grip is another neat alternative, especially if you can grab it on sale.

Xiaomi Sound Play review: price & release date

• Priced at £49.90 (about $67 / AU$95)
• Launched in May 2026
• Scheduled to release in Australia in August 2026

The Xiaomi Sound Play was launched in May 2026, at the same time as its recently released 17T series. The speaker is available for £49.90 (about $67 / AU$95) in the UK, although Xiaomi told me that there are no plans for a US release, and the speaker won’t be available in Australia until August 2026. It can be purchased in one of four colors — Black, Green, Purple, or White — via Xiaomi’s digital store.

Xiaomi Sound Play review: specs

Should I buy the Xiaomi Sound Play?

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Xiaomi Sound Play review: also consider

How I tested the Xiaomi Sound Play

• I spent multiple days testing
• Mainly streamed tunes via Tidal
• Reviewed by someone who’s tested more than 50 Bluetooth speakers

I spent multiple days testing out the Xiaomi Sound Play, during which time I listened to countless tunes, exhausted its various features, and compared it against various rivals.

When listening to music I mainly streamed tracks over Tidal, but I dipped into Spotify from time to time as well. As always, I started out by sifting through the TechRadar reference playlist, which features songs from a wide variety of genres. I also listened to a ton of tunes from my personal library as well, though.

More generally, I’ve spent years reviewing audio gear here at TechRadar, and have tested a whole lot of Bluetooth speakers — more than 50 in fact. I’ve tried out everything from pocket-sized audio companions like the Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2 through to luxurious large-sized alternatives like the Marshall Bromley 750, as well as Xiaomi Sound Play rivals like the JBL Grip, so I know exactly what it takes for a speaker to stand out in this highly competitive market.

• Read TechRadar’s reviews guarantee
• First reviewed: August 2026

Think our tech is getting a little too smart for its own good? You're not alone.

In the past few weeks, TechRadar brought you three key updates on the invasion of your privacy without consent, owing to the AI learning models nestled in our gadgets and appliances.

In case you missed the latest missives, new LG TVs can record you in the background and will ask you to notify anyone who comes into your home, to comply with "wiretapping" laws. Next up, Nothing's new earbuds offer a 'squeeze the stems to record calls' feature being called Audio Snapshot, which is tantamount to phone-hacking in cute packaging. And finally, there's the continued backlash over Meta's AI glasses. Despite the social media giant implementing a feature that stops recordings if a wearer tampers with the front-firing light, hatred of these and other smart shades (oft-renamed 'pervert glasses' by the general public) has led to people calling for camera-less glasses.

So, in a world where our glasses can watch, our earbuds can hear, our speakers can speak and our TVs are a little too closely invested in our lives for comfort, how much more will we allow our tech to intrude before enough is enough — and what can we do to regain some privacy?

Your tech will see you now

Lauren Hendry Parsons is a seasoned advocate for digital rights and a gifted speaker in making these complex issues accessible. She is a director within the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, helping to make the organization's push for a "technology future that serves and is shaped by the people who use it" a message that resonates on a global scale.

Luckily, she has agreed to talk to me on the growing concern over surveillance tech's prevalence in our lives.

Parsons states that in order to zoom in on these issues, we need first to zoom out. "I see this as part of a bigger pattern," she begins, "that is a push by technology and other forces to normalize consumer surveillance — surveillance of people by other people — and that's something that we're seeing cropping up a lot."

So what's changed — after all, recording devices have existed for some time? The answer is the growing number of places where such surveillance is becoming normal.

"It's something that started in the Internet of Things home devices," she says. "You might talk to a smart speaker, or talk actively to another product that is doing your bidding — but it was usually tied to a place.

"Now, we're seeing the normalization of surveillance-chic behaviors, where fashion influencers are sharing their own Ring doorbells to show off their outfit of the day.

"That moves surveillance from something fixed inside a home, where people can at least see the object and talk about it, to something that's constantly moving through every space and every conversation."

And it's being packaged in pink earbuds, chic sunglasses or fun doorbells? Parsons agrees: "The chicification of surveillance to me is deeply concerning."

Who counts as the user — and should they really have control?

I want to talk about Meta's AI glasses and the involvement of Kylie Jenner in the ad campaign, especially when women's safety (regarding non-consensual surveillance and distribution of such footage) has been listed as a key concern.

I mention the fact that when speaking to several male colleagues about the benefits of such glasses (rather than the concerns), not one of them mentioned what I suspect all women thought: that wearing such glasses might mean filming your potential attacker, and that would be a very good thing.

"There are absolutely situations where people might want the convenience these products provide," Parsons agree. "Being able to translate something on the go or take a quick snapshot without getting your phone out. For people with disabilities or limited capacity, these tools could be genuinely useful.

"But I don't see the trade-offs being clearly explained. I don't see meaningful ways to opt out. Even if these companies have perfect data handling processes and perfect privacy records, the risk is being transferred to the consumer instead of being held by the tech company."

Parsons mentions one of the core issues at Mozilla Foundation: privacy by design. "Privacy by design, which is what we recommend as best practice, means products should be private by default," she says. "And that has to include bystanders.

"Technology companies talk about giving the user control, but who's counting as the user?

"With smart glasses, televisions, and recording earbuds, the purchaser isn't the only person affected. Just as children are affected by smart speakers or passengers by dashcams in cars, the person across the table or on the other end of the call is also a data subject, even though they have no access to the controls and no real way to opt out.

"True privacy by design must protect both the person operating the device and the people involuntarily brought into its data collection environment.

"When something (with surveillance tech built in) is fixed in your home or office, you can at least choose not to go there. You can suggest meeting somewhere else. That's difficult and has social consequences, but it's possible.

"If it's something someone is unobtrusively wearing in their ear or on their glasses, or something you don't even know they have, opting out becomes almost impossible."

I ask how we might regain some agency here, or at least get a handle on our privacy regarding AI glasses, call-recording earbuds and all-seeing TVs. Parsons points to the work she does.

"Mozilla's privacy principles are useful here," she says. "They're about no surprises, genuine user control, limited data collection, sensible settings, and multiple layers of protection. These examples show what happens when products fall short of those principles."

Another thing Parsons is keen to impress upon TechRadar is central to her work: understanding the trade-offs. "I don't see how everyone on the phone can understand those trade-offs and give informed consent," she says.

"The only way that could happen is if this (the recording of everything we do) became such a standard operating procedure that everyone expects it, because everyone has it. At that point, we would have completely accepted constant surveillance as the norm.

"I don't think the answer is necessarily to prohibit recording technology. It's to stop presenting recording as an ordinary, consequence-free convenience."

She mentions translation in AI glasses as an example: "Companies could show translations without collecting or storing the underlying data, but we know that's not what's happening."

Another watch-word in Parsons' work is 'friction', and how disproportionately easy it has become to monitor, film and record secretly and without consent.

"Features with serious privacy implications should involve equal and proportionate friction," she says. "The more sensitive the activity, the stronger the consent mechanism should be."

I mention that when testing a set of earbuds recently, a simple beep to signify that recording has begun is the only notification the caller on the other end of the line receives. Parsons believes concern there is valid.

"Notification is not consent," she says. "We've become used to surveillance in places like train stations and public spaces because it's framed as being for safety. But I'd hate to see that extended to person-to-person interactions."

I ask if perhaps people should simply get OK with omnipresent filming or data collection by individuals and wider companies, since it seems so hard to avoid? Parsons' answer is emphatic: "That's deeply problematic."

"We're seeing the expectation that people should be comfortable being filmed all the time. Even terms and conditions often state that by attending, you agree to being photographed or filmed for marketing purposes. The default is that your data is collected unless you make the effort to opt out or avoid the event entirely. Again, that's deeply problematic.

"The diminishment of privacy is cumulative. It's one thing to have a fixed camera in a train station. It's another to be filmed by multiple people in different places without your consent, or to have your audio collected."

'The burden of this issue is not distributed equally'

Parsons reads me a quote from one of her own features, and it cuts to the core of the agency, consent and privacy debate better than anything I could ever try to surmise.

"The burden of this issue is not distributed equally, and the risk of ambient recording will fall disproportionately on people who already have less control in a situation," she says. "That includes workers, children, parents, patients, tenants, domestic abuse survivors, and protesters. This makes vulnerable populations more vulnerable."

Turning the cameras around

Parsons mentions a novel but initially counter-intuitive solution suggested by some prominent female content creators. Instead of shunning Meta's glasses (or playing Disney songs if you realize you're being filmed, because Disney's music is better protected than women's lives), the idea is that women do wear them, specifically to film men when they start to behave in an inappropriate or predatory manner, then upload the footage everywhere. The thinking is that these products might then get regulated very quickly.

"If women collectively used them in that way — in a kind of, let's call it a neo-Me Too movement — I'd put money on consent issues being addressed much more quickly," Parsons says.

"The issue isn't simply that these products can record. It's that the examples you gave (the earbuds, the glasses, the TV that records in the background) all prioritize effortless capture over meaningful consent, when there are other ways to do it.

"The person operating the product gets all the convenience and control, while everyone else gets a light, a beep, or a legal disclaimer. That's an unacceptable imbalance.

"Recording has many legitimate and valuable purposes, but companies should be asking how to build consent into the infrastructure, minimize what's captured, and protect bystanders as rigorously as they protect the user.

"The false dilemma is, 'Do you just not want this technology?' But we shouldn't have to choose between useful technology and privacy.

"Preserving both means companies need to treat consent as a product requirement, not something buried in their terms and conditions."

Facial recognition (and how to make it disappear)

I ask Parsons about Mozilla Foundation's stance on digital facial recognition, a highly controversial feature that our phones and smart glasses are technically capable of. Although the big brands have so far disabled or restricted the software on glasses, there are strong suggestions that hackers have managed to scoot around it.

She mentions the rise of anti-surveillance fashion; garments that make their wearer invisible to the algorithm and thus can thwart the surveillance tech stuffed into our handsets and wearables.

"Looking ahead, we have two things happening simultaneously," Parsons says. "We have vastly increased computing power and data analytics capabilities that allow us to store and analyze more information than ever before, and we have recording devices embedded everywhere in increasingly unobtrusive ways. That combination is worrying.

"One of the brands we spoke to, Capable Design, explained it well: 'The problem with surveillance technology is citizens don't have a possibility in the physical world to opt out. In the digital space, we can say yes or no to cookies. In the physical world, we don't have this option. We wanted to create physical protection that would allow citizens to give their consent or not.'

"It feels as though we're being forced to pick sides: either you're comfortable with surveillance or you're actively trying to avoid it. Again, it comes back to the false choice between privacy and convenience because technology developers aren't prepared to give us both.

"I think these efforts are people trying to take back some agency. There's a feeling that all of this is inevitable.

"Particularly in the UK, where social norms and politeness are strong (this interview is taking place in the UK), I worry we're going to politely accept our way into a surveillance state because people feel uncomfortable challenging others or assume this is an inevitable progression."

Our time together is nearly up, but Parsons wants to talk just a little more about the future. "I want to say this loudly because it's a core Mozilla Foundation belief: the future of technology is not inevitable," she says.

"These are choices being made by people within companies. They could choose a different path.

"That's why Mozilla Foundation funds projects and people who challenge the status quo. We're investing in positive alternatives because opting out as a consumer can feel almost impossible.

"We need companies making better choices, regulators setting stronger requirements, and a greater appreciation that friction isn't always a bad thing. A little friction can protect people, encourage creativity, and ensure meaningful consent.

"That's what I hope for the future: that we don't accept inevitability, that we invest in better technology choices, and that responsibility isn't pushed entirely onto the individual consumer at the point of use."

AI another way

So, are there people within companies — even AI companies focused on "autonomous agents, edge intelligence, computer vision, and robotics" — looking to make different choices? Actually, yes.

Div Garg — CEO and Co-Founder of AGI (an AI on-device 'personal assistant' company) — is perhaps most famous for turning down a big gig at OpenAI in order to work on a "Siri that actually works" within his own startup. Fortunately, he's prepared to talk to me about the concerns surrounding the scraping (and in-cloud storage) of our personal data for AI learning.

"The debate around whether AI wearables that record our everyday lives are an invasion of privacy overlooks the fact that this technology doesn’t need the cloud whatsoever," he had said, prior to our meeting today. "It’s cheaper and easier for manufacturers, but it isn’t a necessity. Put the model on the device, and no data ever has to go beyond it."

Now, I ask him to expand. "My company hasn't cared about audience growth," he says. "We believe all AI agents and assistants should be running on-device, so the user should own the model and the data.

"What's happening now is people are typing their data into services, and companies use that data to show you ads. I think all of this can be misused to sell you more things, and we don't want that.

"AI is great, but it's only great if it's neutral and genuinely beneficial. It shouldn't become a source of revenue for corporations through people's data. That's what we're trying to change. We believe this kind of edge AI is the future, and we want to build something that's fully privacy-safe and that people can truly trust.

"We don't want people giving away their data without knowing more about it. We need the opposite approach, and I don't think enough people are thinking about this."

Garg pauses. "Maybe Apple should have been the company doing this," he adds, "but they've been lagging behind when it comes to AI".

I agree, and ask him why that might be? "No one has really taken the initiative to solve these privacy concerns. We've been holding a lot of events recently; for example, the founder of Edward AI, who built Edward before it was acquired by Google, joined us as an advisor. He believes in building the next personal operating system."

Trust issues

Can AGI build something that's truly personal, where people trust it, and where everything lives on-device? Garg believes so but, interestingly, he doesn't see trust as the deal-breaker.

"A big thing we're proposing is almost a zero-trust approach," he says. "You don't actually have to trust the provider. If the AI model itself is guaranteed to be running on the device, then no data leaves the device. You don't have to trust that a company is telling the truth — you know because of the way it's built. That's where I think the world should be moving."

The idea that brands are prioritizing AI in a product, because they know it's a buzzword, but with a more watchful eye on profit margins rather than the privacy of a user's data (and consent to capture that data) doesn't sit well — with either of us.

So why might companies try to not keep AI on-device, aside from cost issues? Does it drain your battery? Does it make a device heat up? Does it use a lot of RAM?

"I'd say you have to think outside the box," Garg says. "It requires a lot of innovation. You have to figure out how to make these models small enough to run locally.

"Modern phones (because this is where Garg sees AI, as the chief controller of your other devices) now have GPUs and processors called NPUs that can run AI models. I think the world is moving towards deploying more of these models on phones, but it's still very new.

"For example, we have a collaboration with Qualcomm. We're talking with their R&D and machine-learning teams about how our models can be highly optimized for phones. We want to make sure they don't drain your battery, cause overheating, or create other issues.

"This is a new frontier in technology, and you have to be innovative to make it work."

I ask Garg what he would say to anyone wary of adding a personalized AI model to their lives? "It depends a lot on who's making the decisions," he says.

"We want consent. We want to make sure people aren't being recorded without permission — I'm pretty sure there will be lawsuits around some of these issues in the future.

"My belief is that AI should be consensual. Even if you download a new AI app, it should ask, 'Are you OK with us collecting your data?' If someone gives consent, that's OK. But if someone says no, they shouldn't be forced into it."

On-device only

Garg is obviously only interested in an on-device AI future, but I worry that affordable convenience often wins out and that people may not understand the true benefits of such precautions.

I mention a set of headphones I tried, that offer real-time cognitive strain detection. My issue was that these cans (which were $200 cheaper than the inaugural 12-channel EEG sensor over-ears) use cloud processing in combination with on-device processing for some of the new metrics. The company didn’t reveal exactly what data was being sent to the cloud, but it had the potential to change my mind pretty drastically about using the product. What if the publishing house I work for was able to access and monitor how hard I'd been focusing throughout the work day?

Garg laughs, but only for a second.

"I think it's definitely possible, but it comes down to the developer," he concedes. "If a developer is doing something with your data or trying to collect it, that's hard to detect unless you're the operating system itself or the phone manufacturer.

"The phone company can probably detect it and tell you, but a lot of this comes down to how much you trust the people building the software. That's one reason we're so focused on the operating system.

"Right now, if you use something like Claude, you have one place where you do everything, and it connects to different services. We believe in a world where you have a single personal AI assistant connected to different devices, like the neuro-headphones you mentioned. Then you can see for yourself where the data is going because everything is connected through your own personal assistant rather than being scattered across different services."

Are we ready for unique personal AI assistants?

I mention Pete Steinberger's OpenClaw and the early adopters who tried to create their own personal AI assistant over a weekend. Does Garg think people are ready for that?

"We definitely want to make it easier," he says. "Even if you're using something like OpenClaw, you need to buy hardware, set up API keys, and do a lot of technical work. Most people don't have the patience for that, especially if they're not developers.

"We want this to work out of the box. You download an app, and it starts learning your routines. It can make proactive suggestions like, 'Would you like me to order your favorite coffee?' It's learning your habits.

"If it's all happening on-device, that solves the privacy problem because you can have personalization and all these useful features without your data leaving the device.

"Over time, your phone becomes more intelligent. It gets to know you better and becomes better at helping with the things you like to do.

"We also think this works well with smart glasses and other wearables. Your phone becomes the control center, just like an Apple Watch connects to an iPhone. The other devices become satellites connected to your phone, and the AI model lives on the phone itself."

Despite my continued reservations, it's a compelling argument. I can absolutely see a world in which a personal, on-device AI might be helpful in simplifying our lives.

I have one more question, since Garg is the visionary developer here. Is AI still essentially a loop (meaning something that is not intelligent in itself or autonomous — just very persistent at completing tasks) and does he ultimately see it moving beyond that? Or will humans always have the agency and autonomy, with AI just working in the background?

"A combination of both," he responds in an instant. "You want it to feel like collaborating with a co-worker. Depending on how much you trust it, it could manage your calendar or your emails automatically.

"It could say: 'I know you have a meeting tonight. Would you like me to help you find a restaurant? Would you like me to call a cab?' You want a system that's learning about you, but you also need trust. You need to know you're not being exploited by giving it access to your data, and that it's genuinely beneficial.

"That's the missing piece. If you use ChatGPT or Claude today, they're serving the same thing to billions of users. Everyone has the same assistant.

"In the future, people will want their own completely personal assistant. Maybe you'll even give it a name! It'll be unique to you. You can give access to your own data because it's running on-device. You trust it, and no one else has the same AI."

Of course, myriad users already trust AI chatbots with their innermost thoughts, and even as romantic partners, so perhaps by continuing to give the tech a wide berth I'm in the minority.

Then again, it's actually not the technology I fear. It's the technology in the hands of people who seek to misuse it.

Thoughts? There's a comment section below, dearest gentle reader — and my human eyes are ready to read your human thoughts.

Spotify wants to introduce new ways for listeners to engage with the artists they love the most, all while expressing their own creativity.

The streamer’s audio mixing feature for playlists has sky-rocketed in popularity, introducing a new way for listeners to modify their playlists. Now Spotify is working on a new AI-powered fan-made covers and remix tool — and it’s seeking the help of Merlin.

Spotify’s upcoming remix tool will come as a subscription add-on, though we don’t know when it’s due to drop or how much it will be on top of the current $12.99/ £12.99/ AU$15.99 monthly Spotify Premium plan.

Despite knowing very little about it, we do know that the remix feature will garner significant attention across the board of users, artists, organizations, and analysts alike. So what’s the end-goal for Spotify, and what are people saying about its potential knock-on effects for musicians and listeners?

What is the agreement?

On August 4, Spotify and digital licensing partner Merlin announced a new agreement that would give artists on labels under the Merlin name the option to lend their music to Spotify’s remix feature. Merlin is the second organization to sign on to the deal, following Universal Music Group in May.

For Spotify, the goal is simple: to ‘give listeners a new way to engage with the music they love from participating artists and songwriters,’ as stated in the announcement. Spotify also says the tool ‘will create an additional revenue stream for participating artists’.

However, despite knowing the tool will be AI-powered, Spotify hasn’t gone into detail as to exactly how it will allow listeners to create their own remixes of their favorite songs. The discourse around AI-generated slop is still a hot topic, and Spotify is still bearing the brunt of harsh criticism, so its venture into launching AI-powered music add-ons has left everyone scratching their heads.

What are Spotify’s competitors saying?

As far as rival music streamers go, it’s safe to say the top dogs aren’t too interested in integrating AI throughout their respective UXs. While the likes of Apple Music and Tidal use algorithmic recommendations to fuel discovery, the number of generative AI tools is nowhere near as saturated as Spotify.

Listening to an artist’s music in the way it was released is the only concern for most companies, particularly for Dan Mackta, Managing Director at Qobuz, who gave us the following statement: “Qobuz isn’t looking at anything like this. The finished music that great artists release is good enough for us and our community”.

The desire to keep the traditional listening experience in place is quite prevalent on the one hand. Some users just want to kick back with an album or playlist, hit the play button, and let the music do its thing. But as music analyst and founder of MIDiA Research Mark Mulligan points out, the yearning for active participation is growing.

Mulligan detailed this in a comment shared with us: “A growing share of consumers want to do more than just listen. Audio modification is an opportunity both to tap into consumer creativity and fandom. Playing around with your favourite artist’s song is an ultimate expression of fandom”.

Additionally, he backed this up with his own findings from the recent MIDiA Q1 2026 consumer survey: “The potential of audio modification is significant. Consumer demand is clear, with 54% of consumers interested in some form of audio modification, from changing speed to swapping vocals, rising to 80% for 16–19-year-olds”.

Participatory music is a rising phenomenon, and software labels like A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya want to create experiences that go beyond just listening to a song. However, AI is out of the question, and the creativity is placed in the hands of the user, not generated by a machine.

What are artists/ organizations saying?

In light of Spotify’s announcement, it’s not just competitors that are having their say on the AI-powered remix tool. Additionally, artists and music organizations are questioning the long-term financial effects the feature could have.

Musician’s Union is a UK-based organization that represents artists in all areas of the music industry, and its General Secretary Naomi Pohl views Spotify’s partnership with two minds.

“The Merlin and Spotify announcement sounds positive as it suggests artists will have the choice to participate in licensing deals or not and, crucially, that they will share in any revenue generated by the use of their works. This is better than the blanket approach taken by some major labels,” she tells us, but she also raises concerns about how artists will be paid, adding the following:

“However, as with music streaming royalties, there is a question over how artists signed to independent labels will be paid by their label. Artists should in theory get 50% of any revenue their label receives, but in practice this may not happen in all cases as it will depend on the label’s interpretation of the artist’s contract. Many artists signed before AI deals were even conceived of. And, as with music streaming, session or backing musicians on tracks currently stand to receive no share of revenue”.

When it comes to royalties, Spotify has faced severe criticism due to its payment model. Because Spotify pools money generated from subscriptions, it means the most streamed artists over the year will receive a higher percentage of the profits made. So, even if you spend an entire year supporting and streaming an up-and-coming indie band, your subscription money is still going to artists like Taylor Swift.

Royalties aside, the other concern lies within the protection of music in its original form. PRS for Music, who handle the rights and royalties behind music, feel this strongly. “More generally, streaming services are embracing new technologies, including AI, to give fans new ways to engage with the music they love,” a PRS spokesperson told us.

But despite these emerging consumer tools, what could easily get lost is the care for the music itself. PRS fears this will become less of a priority, adding “Creators, and their work, must be central to the development of these new tools. They must be designed specifically to protect the integrity of the work above all else, and to ensure creators are fairly paid for the value they bring to each and every platform”.

At the end of the day, these platforms are there not only for fans to listen and engage with music, but they're there for artists to allow fans to hear music the way they intended. Though Spotify's AI-powered remix tool would be a creative addition to the service, how long will it be before everyone reverts to streaming AI-generated mashups instead of the real thing?

Bose just announced its second-generation version of the iconic QuietComfort Headphones, and as if to celebrate, it's just discounted the majority of its existing headphones and earbuds. Are these deals any good, or should you just go with the new model? Let's dig in and find out.

• Browse all Bose deals at Amazon

The closest point of comparison we have to the new model is the previous version, and you can now pick up the original Bose QuietComfort Headphones at Amazon for $229 (was $359). This is the standard sale price outside of a major event, and is a considerable $50 more than the previous record-low price that I spotted during Prime Day in June.

However, this is considerably cheaper than the Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), which have a launch price of $359. A good but not great saving, then, and definitely one that's going to be bested during Black Friday in November, if you're willing to wait that long.

Elsewhere, the five-star-rated Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds are down to $249 (was $299). That's a return to the lowest price this year, so a good chance to pick them up for less if you've missed previous offers. Again, these have been $50 cheaper during last year's Black Friday, so I'd expect a similar offer to return in a few months, but such a big discount like that is rare for these buds.

So, it's a mixed bag of offers. I'm not surprised that many of the record-low prices aren't making an appearance in this current Bose sale, but there are still some strong savings on several of the manufacturer's top headphones and earbuds that I'd snap up if you don't have the patience to wait until November.

Today's 5 best Bose deals at Amazon

The current state of music streaming is interesting, yet unpredictable. The shift from the CD era into the streaming era has made access to music more ubiquitous, but it’s also thrown up problems: some users aren’t interacting with music like they did before, and the explosive spread of AI is threatening the entire streaming model. Enter Mauhan M. Zonoozy, former Head of Innovation at Spotify, who has plans to tackle both these problems.

Zonoozy left Spotify in 2023, and since then has set up his own music software label, A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya, a record label-meets-production studio that releases playful music apps the way labels drop records, including jetset.fm and Stacks. Essentially, it’s creating digital music playgrounds.

While Shibuya’s products don’t have extensive libraries of music like typical streaming platforms, they offer users different ways to create new sounds, even if you only use them for a couple of minutes. But despite the label still being in its infancy, Zonoozy knows exactly where he wants to take it.

I chatted with Zonoozy about where his post-Spotify career is heading, and his ambitious plans to insert his music services into a streaming world in which AI is becoming a growing presence.

Music is participatory

In a short period of time, Mauhan and his “small team of creative technologists” have released a slew of casual, interactive music platforms across web and mobile — but this is only the beginning.

“I spent years at Spotify and I loved it,” Mauhan tells me. “Incredible company, incredible team. But I think I spent most of my time effectively thinking about what comes next. I started A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya around a simple belief that music is a verb, that the next major music platform should give people something to do with the music. It should be more participatory, more engaging”.

Streaming has certainly made music a lot more accessible, but there was always one thing missing for Mauhan: interaction. “With streaming, you can hear almost anything, anywhere instantly, but the dominant interaction is still effectively sorting through folders and pressing play,” he continues. “There's an entire generation that was growing up playing with music through different mediums and different devices. I think their relationship with everything felt a lot more interactive.”

This sparked a lightbulb moment for Mauhan, and his mission statement is simple: “to empower more people to express themselves with music, or feel self-expressive with music”. This is where his latest project, Bop, comes into play.

Bop is a pocket DJ app, currently in beta, that lets you mix, mash, and mess with music. Its interface is like an MPC workstation, allowing you to create remixes of popular songs by dragging and dropping effects and sounds onto its grid. “We're not all about replacing the creative process,” Mauhan adds. “We're more about building instruments and new ways to express yourself.”

When it comes to the best music streaming services, tools like this aren’t a new concept — Spotify has its own DJ-style mixing feature — but Mauhan believes there’s still more room for music services whose focus is user expression.

“I think there's a yearning for creative expression (in music platforms),” he says. “I think listening to music the way artists created and intended is absolutely a big part of it, but I also think having Legos that you play and interact with, engage with is also very important.

“The next step in our journey is packaging that up into something that is platform scale, and we can actually deploy it and build a larger community of users and fans around it.”

Next stop: a larger music platform

It’s clear that Zonoozy has had a blast developing Shibuya’s array of sonic playground tools, but what I want to know is if there’s a larger music platform on the horizon — and turns out, there is.

“I think there's a bigger platform at the end of the tunnel for sure,” he tells me. “A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya is working actively on building it. I don't think it's gonna look or feel like any streaming platform you've seen before.” Now I’m intrigued — how will this platform compete with the likes of the music streaming big dogs? Turns out Zonoozy has thought about that too.

“We believe it's going to be more participatory,” he shares. “We're not building something that puts the music in the background, we want to put it in the foreground”. And it's as simple as that. “The hints are in the products, and we want things that feel more playful and approachable. I don't think anyone's going to accuse us of building a DSP,” he adds.

Despite it still being in early stages of development, Zonoozy has a lot of faith in Shibuya’s bigger project; but music streaming tools are evolving rapidly as is tech in general, so he’s had to do a lot of thinking ahead.

“My personal belief was that a lot of the cues around where media is going were in the gaming space,” he continues. “And I think interactive media was always a little bit ahead of the rest of the world in terms of film and music. I think because it was closer to technology, it was exploring the more creative technological boundaries of what you could do with media.

“I think now with what's going on and how powerful these computers in our pockets are becoming, there's so much new, cool stuff you can do. It's a responsibility for all of us working in music and tech to figure out ways to do it that supports the industry, the community, and more than anything, the art form.” It occurs to me that Zonoozy is as interested in conserving as he is in innovating.

Will music streaming survive without AI?

It wouldn’t be a discussion about where the music-streaming industry is going without me bringing up AI, and Zonoozy sounds dismissive about AI at first, telling me: “You know what I like about AI? It's easy to spell”.

AI is having a big influence on music platforms in many ways, with algorithmic recommendations and tools such as AI playlist generators now pretty much part of the package. Because these features are right at users’ fingertips, I ask, will there come a time where listeners won’t be able to use services without the help of AI?

Zonoozy has hope, saying, “It's hard for me to imagine a world where people are building things completely void of touching some semblance of AI, but I do believe that there will be products that are not purely driven by generative media.” While he doesn’t necessarily favor the reliance on AI tools to enhance the UX, Zonoozy isn’t against AI altogether. If anything, he acknowledges its benefits, and how it’s helped provide the foundations to his services.

“It's enabling technology for us, it's just not the consumer proposition,” he adds. “Shibuya doesn't build LLMs or ask anyone to prompt music and wait for a finished song, but we do use it as a co-pilot for coding and development. I'd be naïve to say that there's no AI somewhere in the stack there. But on the music side, all the stems are all hand produced”.

He continues, “I'm not anti-AI. I think AI is an incredible, powerful future-facing infrastructure. I think it can build so many cool things and empower so many cool things. I’m a traditionally strong techno optimist in that sense, I think it will lead to incredible discoveries and advancements — it makes coding infinitely easier. But AI is not our product thesis on our side.”

When it comes to streaming services, there’s a huge focus on churning out tools designed to make the listening experience more personalized, more convenient, and more interactive. Given the pace of this evolution, I find it difficult to envisage where streaming culture is headed — Zonoozy shared my uncertainty.

“In terms of streaming specifically, I don't know what's going to happen,” he admits. “The extreme levels of personalization to custom content made for you — I don't know where that line ends. Is it being personalised, or is it being generated for you?”

Torn ear tips. Snapped charging case. Dented drivers. Like every other kind of gadget imaginable, the best headphones aren't built to last, and I'd wager that everyone reading this article has some skeletons (of old, ailing gadgets) in their (metaphorical) closet.

In fact, according to a European Union report, in 2024, 51% people kept their old smartphones even though they were no longer using them, and 34% were still holding onto their outdated laptops and tablets. We just don't know what to do with our old kit.

So, do you throw away your broken over-ear headphones and buy a new pair? Do you hunt down your nearest electronics recycling bank, or donate them to an organization which could use the parts? In recent years, the second-hand tech industry has boomed, with refurbishing and reselling sites such as Back Market and Refurbed ensuring that used gadgets get a second lease of life.

But too often, that first lease of life is all-too-easily abandoned. The tech you might be recycling — or consigning straight to landfill — might actually be easily repairable.

Per the BBC, a survey suggested that 7,000,000 wireless headphones (yes, seven-million) were thrown away in 2022, in the UK alone. And as we'll explore later, the majority of those may not have needed throwing away.

There's a simple truth. Gadget sellers are often loathe to admit it, worrying that repairing your own gadgets may affect their bottom line. And as we'll also soon learn, many companies seem to make repairs really quite difficult.

The thing is, your faulty gadget may be only a quick fix from working like new. From complicated pieces of kit such as AV machines and computers, to white-label toasters and kettles, electronics can often be repaired at home, for a fraction of the cost of buying new... within reason.

The long road to repairable tech

Tech repairability isn't a new concept, but it's a rather new debate. Or, at least, it's one that's only recently been at the forefront of the news cycle, under the somewhat beige name 'right to repair'.

For two years now, repairability has been of growing importance to politicians as well as makers. In July 2024, the EU entered into force its 'Directive on repair of goods', and since Europe is a major market for tech companies, changes made for the region have been reflected in tech sold globally.

Designed to go hand-in-hand with several other EU policies on eco-friendly design, the repair directive is designed to make your gadgets easier to fix.

For example, electronics makers are now obliged to repair faulty kit, or make spare parts accessible for a reasonable price, so that third parties can do the repairs for you.

There are several knock-on effects to this and follow-up motions, the most reported being that phone makers will have to fit readily-removable batteries, and manufacturers will have to provide tools so you can make repairs yourself. These rules are changing how companies make their products.

However, there are several exceptions: gadgets designed for wet use, including wearables and headphones won't need to change. And, more importantly, any gadget sold before the European Union's legislation went into effect will of course miss out on these repairability boons.

Some companies may look for loopholes — but not Fairphone

Before repairability was codified in legislation, it was still a focus for certain brands. One of those was Fairphone, a Dutch brand which began life as a campaign about conflict minerals in tech, and now makes phones and headphones. Miquel Ballester, its Head of Product, explained to us why it made the jump into physical devices:

"You can put the most ethically sourced materials in the world into a device, but if it dies in a year and a half because a battery's glued in, you've undone most of the good you just did".

He continued: "In the case of smartphones, earbuds, and headphones, repairability was what made the rest of the mission focus on bringing action into the industry. We've been fighting this fight for over a decade, long before 'right to repair' was something people brought up at dinner."

Fairphone devices are modular, meaning you can easily remove and replace the screen, camera, batteries, or other parts, all without having to extricate them from a tightly-packed device. The brand sells replacement parts online, so you can repair faulty components at home.

According to Ballester, Fairphone found that making its phones repairable didn't mean it had to change the performance and style of its products, but there was an impact on the price: "Designing for modularity means you're working with connectors, seams, and screws instead of glue and epoxy, and that adds a bit of cost compared to a phone that's built to be sealed shut forever".

Don't chase a high IP-rating (when you probably don't need it)

I also asked Ballester if any components or specs struggle in repairable gadgets. "Waterproofing is the one I'd point to first," he explained, railing against the trend of tech companies chasing an IP68 rating.

"Realistically, unless you're taking your phone free diving, IP55 gets you everything you actually need. It holds up against rain, spilled coffee, sweat at the gym, all the situations people actually put their phones through."

So, not IP68, which guarantees you protection for 30 minutes in a meter of water? "Chasing that rating basically forces you into permanent seals and factory-glued seams, because that's still the easiest way to guarantee a device survives being submerged.

"We'd rather give you a device that can be opened and repaired for the next seven years than one that survives a swimming pool once and then can't have its battery replaced. It's a genuinely difficult engineering line to walk, and I won't pretend IP68 wouldn't look nice on a spec sheet, but chasing it would mean compromising the thing we actually care about."

As mentioned, the EU's right to repair changes mean that companies may have to sell tools to repair their gadgets. But for Fairphone, that isn't a problem; they've been designed not to require proprietary tools. A Phillips screwdriver is all you need.

But how repairable is tech really?

Just because a company doesn't make gadget repairability a selling point, doesn't mean that you can't easily fix it. To learn more about the repair process, I visited a local community repair shop called Fixing Factory, which operates several locations in London, UK.

Fixing Factory lets residents bring in broken items to get them repaired, but it also operates as a way to train volunteers in fixing household items.

When I visited the Fixing Factory's Camden location, the streets around the shop were abuzz — England was just hours away from its ultimately-unsuccessful World Cup match against Argentina. But inside the repair shop, a different kind of squad was assembled: a troop of junior repairers (volunteers learning how to repair tech) were being briefed on safety procedures.

As I waited, I got to admire the huge collection of gadgets in various stages of repair (or lack thereof, in the cases of some training toasters). Laptops, vacuum cleaners, radios, even some throwback iPod nanos. Waiting alongside me was an older lady, who'd somehow managed to transport several startlingly-sized antique lamps in a series of backpacks and strollers, all ready to be repaired by the volunteers.

Not all of the Fixing Factory attendees were in training, and I was lucky enough to speak to several of the expert volunteers. They explained to me how to tell if a gadget can be repaired, what to do if you want to fix your tech, and when you should rely on an expert to bring your tech up to spec.

Identifying gadgets as repairable

One repair volunteer, describing themselves as a 'generalist' who liked to fix everything, told me how they'd helped create the teaching material for the trainees in the next room and explained how they work out if a gadget can be fixed in the first place.

"The first thing we do is we will safety check the device. If we've got a plug, we'll make sure we do PAT testing [a standardized way of checking the safety of portable appliances], and then everything goes into an RCD [Residual Current Device, which can instantly turn off power if something goes wrong] before we plug it in, and then we'll do a functional test.

"From there, we'll then diagnose what's going wrong and sit down with a member of the public, and work with them and go: 'okay, tell me the story, what happened, what's not working.'"

From what I was told, about half of the people with broken tech know why it's broken, either because of their own research or because the fault is obvious. And the other half "just have no clue".

The volunteer told me about a recent trial the group conducted, in which they went to a local recycling facility for several months, to log the kind of items thrown away and how much was actually repairable.

"We had far in excess of 70% repairability on e-waste. And so I like to think that's probably reflective of what comes into Fixing Factory locations."

I was staggered by that number; by the sounds of it, well over half of the gadgets we throw away could actually be fixed!

Stats from a similar study carried out by The Restart Project also found that only 12.4% of electrical devices thrown away were truly at the end of their life span. A further 7.2% needed repairs that were deemed too costly to be worthwhile; 9.5% were economical to repair; 36.2% were working just fine, and for the remaining 34.7% it wasn't possible to determine what state of life they were in.

Looking back at that 7,000,000 headphone figure I mentioned before, that'd suggest about 2.5 million of them could get back to a state of working just fine. Truly, the trash is not the first destination for faulty gadgets.

Do (or don't) try this at home

Repair shops such as Fixing Factory are one option for handling your broken tech, but how easy are they to fix at home? (Unless you have a Fairphone product, of course). I spoke to another Fixing Factory volunteer to find out.

Kevin, a student at a local university, told me: "You can literally fix anything if you watch enough YouTube... but it's pretty complicated".

He was one of many volunteers who flagged YouTube and the iFixit channel (and website) specifically, as an invaluable source of information for prospective home repairers. The site publishes teardowns, repair guides, and has an active forum to help you understand just how feasible a home repair is.

Sometimes, even this isn't necessary: "A lot of things are just dirty and need to be cleaned deeply."

This is something I understand all too well; a deep-clean of my home-built PC recently made me realize that I didn't need to buy new parts. It was just dusty.

Kevin gave some sage advice: "Take good notes or good photos to make sure you put [the gadget] back together correctly".

Another volunteer pointed out, though, that online guides and a little clean both play second fiddle to another, more important type of learning: "Sitting down with someone and sharing the experience, I think is something that's very valuable."

Not all tech is worth repairing

Most of the advice so far has pertained to smaller electricals and 'safer' items, but often you want to fix something more complicated. When I asked one volunteer whether home tech repairs were feasible, I was told: "Is it feasible? Yes. Is it safe? Questionable."

There are several dangers involved with lithium-ion batteries, the kind of which you find in most portable gadgets, and their predilection for catching fire is chief amongst them. You don't even have to be repairing them for disaster to strike.

The North London Waste Authority has identified several types of lithium-ion battery-toting gadgets — including smartphones and electric toothbrushes — as major fire risks. According to the organization, which handles waste disposal for seven London boroughs, "electrical items can easily catch fire if they are thrown into general waste and become damaged in waste vehicles".

A spokesperson told me that, across 2025, they saw at least 20 fires which could be linked to battery combustion. They even shared a video of one such incident, which you can see above. Stats from the National Fire Chiefs Council point to there being over 1,200 battery fires across the UK in bin lorries and waste sites that same year.

And it's even worse if you're intentionally trying to fiddle around with them.

"One false move and you can suddenly have a nasty fire," one volunteer told me, adding, "Equally, when you're dealing with mains voltage, you can suffer some serious burns, let alone cardiac arrest. I would encourage anybody to find a friendly electrician, or someone with some qualifications, or a place like Fixing Factory."

Unrepairable tech isn't a manufacturing accident, as the Senior Workshop Manager and Operational Specialist of the Fixing Factory location I visited, Petra Backovska, explained to me. "Sometimes, you find that tech isn't built to be repaired, or repaired easily. And if there's something that wasn't made to be repaired, they make it really hard for you to do it — you can actually break it very, very easily".

Backovska identified cheap electronics manufacturers as a prime culprit for unrepairable tech, where important considerations are forgotten in favor of low costs and mass production. But more complex electronics were just as bad: "There could be things that need to have a CE mark on every item [as opposed to one for the entire gadget]".

This is a mark affixed to most tech products sold in the European Economic Area to show that they're compliant with European health, safety and environmental standards. It'll be familiar to anyone who lives in the area; inspect any gadget within arm's reach, you'll likely find the mark hidden somewhere.

"So if the item doesn't have a CE mark, it's not safe, and we're not going to touch it anyways. So that could increase the number of things that we turn down, because we just don't know if it was manufactured safely."

I was also told that such a mark doesn't necessarily mean tech is safe: "Sometimes the mark is actually fake, and someone just slapped it on and didn't actually do all of the standardized testing in the process, which allowed them to produce something in large quantities very quickly, to sell it very cheap. But that also means that the item is not safe."

So how do you know if something should be repaired at home, or by an expert? Every volunteer advised that, if in doubt, consult an expert or take it to a repair shop: "It's that classic thing: asking is always the safest way."

There's a hard way to learn, and an easy way

Given the risks mentioned, I asked whether repairing tech from home could actually be dangerous, but was told by Backovska, "It doesn't have to be, but you need to have some training and follow the safety steps."

"If you jump into something just guessing things, then you're learning the hard way — and the hard way might be that you give yourself an electric shock. If you don't have experience with repairing, bring it to your local repair group."

I was told that Fixing Factory works with regulators, safety experts and product designers in order to create health and safety processes. These are taught to trainee volunteers, many of whom pass them onto customers whose goods are broken.

One of the volunteers I spoke to helped develop the training courses I got to witness, and told me that gadget-specific skills were often passed along, between volunteers and gadget owners.

The money and the waste

At the heart of the matter, two key reasons define why tech repairs are important. The first is economical: it will often be much cheaper to fix a device than to buy a new one. Second is the environmental impact: e-waste is a massive (and growing) problem, and keeping a hold of old gadgets (by repairing them) reduces the amount of clutter in landfill.

I love to quote a United Nations stat looking at e-waste from 2022: apparently, it'd fill roughly "enough trucks to form a bumper-to-bumper line encircling the equator". Our planet has a gastric band of junk, and hopefully, it'll push us to stop throwing away electronics. It's one of the core drives behind the aforementioned EU legislation.

The Restart Project is a UK-based charity which focuses on the right to repair electronics; it lobbies for legislation, helps organize repair groups (like the Fixing Factory I visited) and educates on the state of electronics. I spoke to Fiona Dear, co-Director at The Restart Project, to learn where repairable tech is going in the future.

"We have seen a bit of change [from companies] in recent years, and that's generally as a response to legislation. Even if the legislation isn't enacted, [manufacturers' changes are] in anticipation of legislation."

At the moment though (and in Europe, at least), this is limited: "There's only really legislation for two kinds of products. The first is white goods like dishwashers, and there's been legislation in place for a few years now. And it's just expanded to smartphones and tablets in Europe — that's why we're seeing a difference.

"Unfortunately, there's nothing much on the horizon for other product categories". That's why it's such a shame that, as mentioned earlier, wireless earbuds have seen a repairability exemption.

A problem of parts pairing

When I asked how technological changes are affecting repairability, one massive problem reared its head, which Dear called out specifically: "Parts pairing".

Parts pairing is a software limitation some brands apply to their devices. The gadgets will recognize when non-native parts are added, and throw up an error message when you try to use them.

For example, a phone might not let you use a new screen, a pair of headphones might reject their drivers, or a laptop might not play with a battery you install. In fact, software seems to be public enemy number one for tech repairability at the moment.

"A dishwasher or even a toaster, might have some kind of smart element in it," Dear explained, "which means it's dependent on software, and software isn't designed to last for as long as the mechanics of the product".

As iFixit points out in its guide to parts pairing, this is done by brands to encourage you to use its own repair services, instead of third-party ones (or repairing your own tech at home, using replacement parts). Often, the brand in question has unique access to make these error messages disappear. Dear flagged refurbished smartphones as being especially susceptible to this practice.

"Parts pairing is, in my personal opinion, one of the more cynical practices in this industry", Fairphone's Miquel Ballester explained. "Every component we ship, whether it's a battery in a Fairphone or bud and case battery in Fairbuds, is built to be freely interchangeable".

But software limitations remain an issue for tech longevity. "The repair experts who point out that software is the real bottleneck are right. It's exactly why we also treat long-term software support as inseparable from the repairability story".

The brand's latest mobile, the Fairphone 6, has a guaranteed 8 major Android updates, one of the longest life spans pledged by an Android maker. For many years, any more than two years' updates were a rarity, but nowadays companies are offering more and more updates. The Samsung Galaxy S26 and Google Pixel 10 series, for example, both have 7 years in the can.

It takes a change of attitude

When I told peers that I was working on a tech repair piece, I received some intriguing reactions. Some view it as a great way to keep your gadgets ticking along (as it should be), but stories of cowboy repairers abound.

Recently, we covered a story about a Best Buy repairer who downloaded private photos from a broken iPhone, and some people I spoke to seemed to harbor suspicion towards the rows of mobile phone repair shops which line some British high streets.

But the high proliferation of gadget repair stores is indicative of something different: a strong demand for our gadgets to keep working longer. Tech shops aren't fronts for dodgy dealings; they fix the devices we use every day, which is probably a more lucrative market than narcotics or single-use vapes.

Over the last few years, the rise of AI has driven up memory prices, causing gadgets to cost a lot more money, and new purchases to be more and more of a treat. You've surely noticed that electronics purchases nowadays cost a lot more (and bundle in some useless AI tools as a consolation prize, but that's a gripe for another day).

With no sign of that slowing down, gadget repairs are only going to be more and more important. And so a change is needed: a change in attitude to tech fixing, a change in our own skill sets so we're able to do so at home, and a change in legislation so that companies have to make it easier for us to mend our ailing electronics.

I’ve tested more than 50 Bluetooth speakers, and whenever I review a new model, there are a number of factors to consider. Do its features rival the competition? Can its design merge beauty with practicality? Is it actually worth the asking price? But one question is more important than any other: does it genuinely sound good?

This raised a deep curiosity within me. What if a Bluetooth speaker was judged on sound alone, with elements such as pricing, brand reputation, and looks holding no influence on people’s perception of quality? Well, I decided to find out for myself, and blindfolded four of my colleagues for a blind speaker test.

I played a 30-second snippet of a track, asked listeners to make notes, and when each speaker had been tested, I got my participants to rank each speaker from 1 to 5 (with 1 being the best, and 5 the worst). We repeated this process across five different tracks, each spanning a range of genres, in order to determine which sounded the best.

A few things to run through before we get into the results, though. The volume of the speakers were all equalized, but I ensured not to push them above 80% volume, in order to limit distortion and compression. Each speaker was also set to its default EQ, and tracks were streamed from a single source device over Spotify. Also, my listeners had no prior knowledge of the speakers involved in the test, so as to cancel out any prejudices or prior experiences they may potentially hold.

I decided to use five speakers in a very similar size category: the JBL Go 5, the IKEA Kallsup, the Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2, the Edifier ES20, and the Ultimate Ears Miniroll. Some have a higher power output than others and some are considerably cheaper (or pricier) than others. And some sit in our guide to the best Bluetooth speakers, while others have fallen short. But interestingly, rankings varied quite a fair bit depending on the track and listener involved.

Curious to find out who came out on top? Here’s how our listeners ranked each speaker across each track, as well as the final scores.

Track 1: Fascinator by Max Dean

I started with a house track, Fascinator by Max Dean. I asked participants to listen to a short lead up to some sub-bass, and while I emphasized that the small models wouldn’t produce roaring power, I asked them to assess how well the speakers manage it. When the drop came in, I also asked them to judge how controlled and precise drums sounded in the treble range.

The results were pretty interesting here. Our cheapest option, the $10 / £5 IKEA Kallsup was the clear loser, with one listener, Caspar, noting ‘tinny’ highs and underwhelming bass — a sentiment generally shared across the board. It was quite close between JBL and Edifier here, with some listeners noting a slight lack in low-end impact, but improved mid-range performance and tighter treble.

However, the clear winner was Bose, which ranked 1st with all of our participants — and spoiler alert, this was the only instance of a unanimous verdict across the entire experiment. One listener, Ashley, noted how the track sounded ‘balanced with no distortion’ with others including Josh and Erin highlighting meatier bass and a pleasingly warm tone.

Track 2: Orphans by Cero

I changed up the vibe for Track 2, and played a snippet from the jazz-infused indie pop track Orphans by Japanese band Cero. Vocals are meant to be slightly forward, so I asked listeners to determine how well the speakers captured this, while also prompting them to judge how well-balanced percussion and guitars were in the mix.

The Kallsup unfortunately finished in last place once more, with Josh highlighting ‘rolled off’ vocals and unclear guitars in the mid-range. However, the JBL Go 5 wasn’t far in front, with Erin noting ‘lifeless guitars’.

The Edifier ES20 and UE Miniroll performed well, though, with participants highlighting better balance across the frequency range, warmer and more prominent vocals, and cleaner bass. The SoundLink Micro Gen 2 took the win once more, though, with an emphasis on clearer, more tonally accurate guitars, well-defined vocals, and more articulate percussion.

Track 3: The Girl From Ipanema by Stan Getz

I wanted to try out something softer next, so I went for the legendary Bossa Nova track, The Girl From Ipanema by Stan Getz. I requested my blindfolded colleagues to tune into the separation between guitars and vocals, the subtlety and texture of vocals and percussion, and control of the double bass. And this is where things got really interesting.

Surprisingly, Bose, which had been bossing it so far, finished in a lowly 4th place here, with listeners generally expressing disappointment with the speaker’s overemphasized bass and slightly unrefined treble response.

However, one thing remained the same, as the IKEA Kallsup came in 5th place. In fact, this was the only occasion in which every listener decided the Kallsup was the worst performer, with Erin writing: ‘No. What? What is this? It sounds like there’s a horde of bees trying to escape.’ Ouch.

Our champion this time out was the Edifier ES20, a speaker which I’ve often championed for its supreme mid-range clarity. Listeners appreciated this model’s beautifully balanced presentation, textured and controlled double bass, and detailed vocals. The UE Miniroll and JBL Go 5 finished 2nd and 3rd respectively, with our participants widely noting their relatively expansive interpretation of the track, and talking up their crisp, textured handling of vocals.

Track 4: Come On, Come Over by Jaco Pastorius

But how did the speaker manage a busier, more chaotic mix? I threw on Come On, Come Over by Jaco Pastorius, a funky, high-octane track that has it all. Participants were told to listen for the aggressiveness and clarity of horns, the quality of the track’s mid-bass punch, and how the speakers manage the swathe of instruments and vocals.

And it seemed that in this test, order was restored to how it had been up until Track 3. Bose came out on top, with Ashley praising the speaker’s balanced approach and Caspar highlighting the SoundLink Micro Gen 2’s impactful low end and enhanced vocal clarity. However, the Edifier ES20 and UE Miniroll did run Bose very close indeed. Participants enjoyed the tonality of the vocals, the decently open soundstage, and solid separation on offer.

IKEA’s Kallsup fell to last place, however, largely due to its unregimented bass and tinny mids. Meanwhile, listeners also felt that the JBL Go 5 struggled with the business of the tune, though some did highlight solid clarity in the treble range.

Track 5: Black Eye by Allie X

With Track 5, I wanted to assess the portable speakers’ handling of dynamics, so I went with an electronic song from TechRadar’s reference playlist, Black Eye by Allie X. Colleagues were asked to hone in on the attack of strings in the beginning of the snippet, and assess the control and dynamism of the bass and its impact, as well as the breathiness and detailing in the vocals.

And this was an incredibly close battle between Bose, Edifier, and Ultimate Ears. Bose just about managed to top the podium, with Erin delighted with the ‘dramatic strings’ and ‘expansive vocals,’ and Caspar highlighting dynamic bass and ‘nice balance between vocals and instruments’.

Josh’s favorite was the ES20, stating that vocals were ‘wonderfully conveyed’ and that bass was ‘punchy yet controlled’. Ashley, however, liked the UE Miniroll the most, arguing that it offered the cleanest low-end and most articulate vocals of the bunch.

But the poor Kallsup finished in 5th once more. Muted synths, a lack of texture and kick in the low-end, and recessed vocals left our listeners wanting more.

Final results: and the winner is…

So, the experiment drew to a close. Our listeners handed over their final scores, and I totaled them up to discover which speaker was king on sound alone. And the winner was… the Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2!

Was I surprised by the result? Well, not entirely. I personally think this is a great-sounding small speaker, and its ability to produce meatier bass than much of the competition, alongside more precision in the treble range and clearer separation was all it needed to scoop up top spot.

What’s important to recognize, though, is that Bose’s small speaker is far pricier than all of the competition. It has a list price of $129 / £119.95, and while it certainly produces the goods in terms of sound, that’s an awfully high price tag given that you can nab larger, meatier, and more feature-rich models at that cost — the JBL Flip 7 is probably the first that comes to mind.

I was surprised, however, that the Edifier ES20 did so well. Josh selected the ES20 as his overall favorite, and it continually competed closely with Bose throughout, even topping the table in Track 3. In the UK, it’s less than half the price of the Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2, but you really wouldn’t think so. Its composure and clarity in the mid-range is exceptional, and it has enough warm bass and controlled treble to keep more energetic tracks sounding as they should. If you want value for money, I think this model is absolutely worth checking out.

Another standout was the UE Miniroll, which Ashley picked out as her personal favorite. It continued to plate up clear mids and bass throughout, and I think it earns its relatively modest price.

Some may be surprised to see the JBL Go 5 a bit off the pace in 4th, but I still think it produced a solid performance across the experiment considering its limitations. It has a weaker power output than the top 3 speakers, which limits its ability to provide the drive and low-end might that others can. And although it could’ve offered slightly better separation, it's still a great small speaker given its low asking price of $54.95 / £39.99.

I felt very sorry for the IKEA Kallsup, which was regularly placed last by each of our participants. However, in the IKEA speaker's defense, not only does it have the lowest power output of the bunch (at just 3W), but it’s just $9.99 / £5. Yes, it's extremely cheap, and so the fact that it occasionally squeaked 4th place here and there is impressive in itself.

Check out the final table below, where you can see the final scores and rankings for each speaker, as well as their typical asking price. Were the results as you expected? Let me know in the comments!