News

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.

Become a TechRadar Insider by simply clicking 'Join Now' at the top of this page. Have a question? Please email membership@techradar.com

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.

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.

Josh

Caspar

Ashley

Erin

JBL Go 5

4

5

4

2

IKEA Kallsup

5

4

5

5

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

1

1

1

1

Edifier ES20

2

3

3

4

UE Miniroll

3

2

2

3

Speaker

Rank

JBL Go 5

4th (15pts)

IKEA Kallsup

5th (19pts)

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

1st (4pts)

Edifier ES20

3rd (12pts)

UE Miniroll

2nd (10pts)

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.

Josh

Caspar

Ashley

Erin

JBL Go 5

3

5

5

4

IKEA Kallsup

5

4

4

5

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

2

1

2

1

Edifier ES20

1

2

3

3

UE Miniroll

4

3

1

2

Speaker

Rank

JBL Go 5

4th (17pts)

IKEA Kallsup

5th (18pts)

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

1st (6pts)

Edifier ES20

2nd (9pts)

UE Miniroll

3rd (10pts)

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.

Josh

Caspar

Ashley

Erin

JBL Go 5

2

4

4

1

IKEA Kallsup

5

5

5

5

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

4

1

3

4

Edifier ES20

1

2

2

2

UE Miniroll

3

3

1

3

Speaker

Rank

JBL Go 5

3rd (11pts)

IKEA Kallsup

5th (20pts)

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

4th (12pts)

Edifier ES20

1st (7pts)

UE Miniroll

2nd (10pts)

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.

Josh

Caspar

Ashley

Erin

JBL Go 5

5

4

4

4

IKEA Kallsup

4

5

5

5

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

3

1

2

1

Edifier ES20

1

2

3

2

UE Miniroll

2

3

1

3

Speaker

Rank

JBL Go 5

4th (17pts)

IKEA Kallsup

5th (19pts)

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

1st (7pts)

Edifier ES20

2nd (8pts)

UE Miniroll

3rd (9pts)

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.

Josh

Caspar

Ashley

Erin

JBL Go 5

4

5

4

4

IKEA Kallsup

5

4

5

5

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

2

1

3

1

Edifier ES20

1

2

2

3

UE Miniroll

3

3

1

2

Speaker

Rank

JBL Go 5

4th (17pts)

IKEA Kallsup

5th (19pts)

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

1st (7pts)

Edifier ES20

2nd (8pts)

UE Miniroll

3rd (9pts)

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!

Speaker

Overall rank

List price

JBL Go 5

4th (77pts)

$54.95 / £39.99

IKEA Kallsup

5th (95pts)

$9.99 / £5

Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2

1st (36pts)

$129 / £119.95

Edifier ES20

2nd (42pts)

$89.99 / £49.99

UE Miniroll

3rd (48pts)

$79 / £69

Anyone with a keen interest in the European car market will know that Cupra parted ways with its sister company Seat way back in 2018 to become the high-performance, funky standalone brand to attract the attention of a more youthful buyer.

The gamble paid off, as Cupra now outsells Seat in most regions, thanks to its heady line-up of handsomely styled SUVs and sporty hatchbacks, all with a fine selection of electrified powertrains.

This latest edition to the family, the relatively diminutive Raval, is the first of its kind to sit on parent company VW’s MEB+ platform, which will also underpin the upcoming and equally spicy ID Polo (including the GTI), the ID Cross and Skoda’s more crossover focused Epiq.

But Cupra being Cupra has seen fit to endow the Raval with almost comically sporty proportions, a fabulously appointed interior and the sort of electric powertrain that is designed to have true driving fans won over.

Having driven the top spec VZ models out on the beautifully flowing roads of northeastern Spain, it’s clear that there is still room for the compact, agile hot hatch in the often soulless world of modern EVs.

You only have to take a look at one of the many recent Cupra events to realize that the company approaches new product launches a little differently.

These shindigs are typically held in warehouses and other industrial settings, often involve world-class DJs and incorporate faces from fashion, sports and culture.

The overemphasized creases on the bonnet, super aggressive front lamps and chunky rear diffuser on this VZ model signal its racy intentions.

The Raval is all of this stuff distilled into a diminutive hatchback, with copper accents and contrast flourishes on the outside, myriad on-trend materials throughout the cockpit and the latest technology taking care of infotainment duties.

On the outside, the Raval rides low to the ground (well, as low as any modern EV can) and wears its squat proportions with pride.

The over-emphasized creases on the bonnet, super aggressive front lamps and chunky rear diffuser on this VZ model signal its racy intentions.

It also rides on 19-inch ‘Rebel’ rims and crams vegan leather bucket seats into the cockpit, as well as a 12.9-inch Android Automotive central display and a separate 10.25-inch digital cockpit that takes care of speed and whatnot.

Considering the Raval VZ starts at £34,9995 in the UK (that’s around $47,000 / AU$65,000), it feels like a generous dose of premium car for the money.

But for those happy with the smaller wheels and smaller battery pack (more on that later), the range actually starts from £23,785 (around $32,000 / AU$45,000) for the 115hp, 37kWh models.

Clearly, the VZ version driven here is a little ‘spicier’ when it comes its performance credentials, as it features the larger 52kWh battery pack and a powertrain that delivers 222bhp and 214lb ft to the front wheels in proper hot hatch fashion.

Prod the accelerator and the little Raval wants to move, whisking drivers and passengers from rest to 62mph in a respectable 6.8 seconds.

It even has a quasi launch control mode that sends little shudders and vibrations through the seat to make the process of accelerating feel more exciting.

Prod the accelerator and the little Raval wants to move, whisking drivers and passengers from rest to 62mph in a respectable 6.8 seconds.

Granted, it feels a little gimmicky but Cupra has done an excellent job of making the Raval feel as sprightly as its exterior lines would suggest.

Flick it into Cupra mode via a dedicated button on the steering wheel and, alongside a growling synthesized soundtrack, you’re treated to massive levels of grip.

This results in the ability to round corners with all the thrills of a go-kart, while the dynamic chassis control fitted to this VZ model keeps things flat and firm when the mood takes. Thankfully, it is adjustable through 15 stages, so you can easily get a set up that suits.

But when settling back down into Eco of Comfort modes, the Cupra does its best impression of a sensible, grown-up VW Group product, proving almost perfectly quiet and comfortable when cruising along the highway. The ride quality really is excellent.

Having driven almost too many EVs to remember, I have got into the habit of always checking battery efficiency after an event like this.

It’s a great indication of real-world driving, often taking in faster, flowing sections of road (where the regen will help top-up batteries), slower city driving and battery-sapping highway miles.

The Cupra Raval revealed that we averaged around 4.5 miles per kWh after a day of driving, which means we could have happily racked up over 200-miles from a single charge of the relatively small 52kWh NMC battery packs.

Cupra’s official WLTP rating has this pegged at 239-miles, which feels honest and achievable if driving sensibly… which I wasn’t during this particular test.

Raval’s recharging game is strong too, with a 10-80% session taking just 24-minutes from a 105kW DC public charger. It’s slightly longer than close rivals, such as the recent Renault 5 and Kia EV2, but neither of those cars can really be described as feisty.

But perhaps the most striking thing to note from the small, sporty hatchback is that there’s a decent amount of room inside. Two adults can very comfortably sit up front and there’s just enough room in the back for a few friends.

Admittedly, leg room in the rear isn’t exactly generous, but it’s very good in this segment, while the rear trunk is positively cavernous. Mounting the motor at the front results in an impressive amount of space to store bulkier items.

There’s even a clever folding floor that can be set at various levels, making it easier to throw in shopping when space isn’t required or free up a deeper hole for those weekend trips away.

The Cupra Raval offers a beguiling mix of sensible, grown up elements — such as the responsive Android Automotive-based infotainment system, practical interior space and premium-feeling fabrics — and laces it with a hefty dose of fun.

Granted, this isn’t the all-out hot hatch that we might be used to from the ICE era, but it gets very close.

Plus, with VW set to unleash an ID Polo GTI later this year with eerily similar performance figures, it makes you wonder if it’s worth holding out for that revered badge when the Raval VZ is this good.

Apple Watch Ultra 3 owners tend to know the headline features by now: satellite messaging, the brighter always-on display, hypertension alerts.

What most people haven't noticed is a much quieter feature that only shows up if you also own a pair of the well-received AirPods Pro 3 — the same earbuds you're probably already using on all those Zoom calls at work every day.

For anyone else trying to squeeze a workout into a packed workday (or if you're trying to travel light on a business trip), I can tell you it's become the one I actually rely on most.

AirPods Pro 3 have their own in-ear heart rate sensors, enabled by default, which is easy to miss since Apple doesn't make a big deal about it.

On their own, they're a genuinely solid heart rate source, useful for anyone who wants to track a run or a lift without a watch at all. But when you wear both an Apple Watch and AirPods Pro 3 during the same workout, the two devices don't just duplicate the same job.

They combine into multiple simultaneous streams of heart rate data, and the system automatically leans on whichever source has the highest confidence at any given moment.

That matters more than it sounds like. Wrist-based optical sensors, including the Ultra 3's, can struggle during movements that shift the watch on your wrist: heavy grip work, rowing, anything involving a lot of wrist flexion.

In-ear sensors don't have that problem, but they can be thrown off by their fit or by their own motion. Fusing both sources means the watch is quietly falling back on whichever sensor is actually reading you correctly, workout to workout and rep to rep, instead of you having to guess which device to trust.

Honestly, it's replaced the chest strap by now. I used to strap one on for anything where zone accuracy actually mattered, interval sessions, heavy lifting days, anything where the watch slides around enough on my wrist to throw the optical sensor off.

Is it clinically equivalent to a chest strap? Probably not. But after a few months of comparing the two side by side, it's close enough that I just don't bother anymore.

As a professional, that feels like a win to me. It's one less piece of gear I have to cart around with me on a business trip or to a conference with the rest of my work gear.

Setting it up takes no extra effort. Heart rate monitoring is enabled by default on AirPods Pro 3, so if you already own both devices, this will likely happen in the background the next time you start a workout with both in use.

You can check or turn it off entirely from the Settings app on iPhone, under your AirPods' name, if you'd rather it not run.

It's a small thing, and Apple has barely marketed it. But it's the kind of feature that only reveals itself once you own the specific pair of devices it's built for.

In my experience, it's an ideal setup for busy professionals who still want accurate health data without adding extra setups and gear.

If you've already got an Ultra 3 and a pair of AirPods Pro 3, there's nothing to set up and nothing to buy. You're most likely already using it without realizing it.

One of my favorite hobbies is Dungeons & Dragons. I love nothing more than sitting around a table with friends and playing out a fantastical adventure, in which the dice are the difference between success and failure.

It's a fun game, and all the more fun because real-life people make dumb, suboptimal decisions and the dice cause the game to change in unpredictable ways. But I really love it because the concept of people sitting around a table or hearth and telling stories is as old as the campfire, and it's a fun modern-day way to keep that experience alive.

You might think such a robust framework for an analog hobby (friends, a table, dice, pen and paper) might be tech-proof, but even in the Dungeons & Dragons world, AI is coming for my job as a Dungeon Master — the person who runs and guides the game world. Deep in the corpus of most popular generative AI models designed for general use are the rules to D&D 5e (and likely every other edition before it) and plenty of people report playing with their chatbots online.

Many of these players can't, or simply don't want to, get round a table with real people. For them, having a chatbot write them a story while the user prompts the continuation of the story with their character's actions, must seem like the perfect solution — even if it's more like a solo choose-your-own-adventure than a 'proper' group D&D game.

Gemini and ChatGPT both have a strong grasp of the rules for D&D's popular 5th Edition; they are certainly strong enough to make them an accessible choice for a player without a group. Maybe one day, the fire will die, and instead of sitting around a table with friends, we'll all be sitting at separate desks playing our own separate D&D adventures with our AI companions.

I wanted to test whether this dark future would be an adequate replacement for my usual game night, and which chatbot will be the best one to choose if so. I fired up Gemini 3.6 Flash and ChatGPT 5.5, and asked them for the same game.

I gave both chatbots the same prompt: "Can you be my D&D 5e DM?" and following up with another message:

"Let's do a classic high fantasy dungeon crawl. Please use a strict RNG for all rolls to ensure fairness - you can roll dice for me. My character is a 10th-level conjuration wizard. See all information about him below:"

I then copy-pasted a character sheet of a 10th-level wizard — a powerful spellcaster with a variety of magical abilities at his disposal. It's easy to DM a game for a level 1 thief — I wanted to see how the AIs could handle a character who could do fantastical things, such as teleport and summon creatures to fight for him.

Interestingly, both Gemini and ChatGPT created a similar adventure, at least at first: an abandoned dwarven stronghold bristling with magical traps, ready to be explored. However, that's where the similarities ended.

Gemini's adventure was what any D&D player could expect from the "classic high-fantasy dungeon crawl." I avoided a pressure-plate trap that would have shot darts at me, and in one memorable sequence, defeated a bunch of skeletons by casting a Grease spell on a stone staircase and freezing them in place with my Ray of Frost cantrip while they slipped and stumbled at the bottom of the steps.

Gemini was offering me suggested actions, and I did find myself choosing a few of those suggestions — but as time wore on, this began to feel lazy, like my brain wasn't firing in the same way it did when I played with my friends. I was skim-reading the AI's descriptions of the scene and responding with a single click. I asked it to remove suggested options and as a result, I had to think more carefully about each move, typing out requests and thinking about my actions rather than clicking on a predetermined response.

The memorable finale occurred when I unlocked a secret passage and defeated a Naga, a giant snake monster, by teleporting away and blasting it with a powerful Cone of Cold. The snake ended up frozen solid, and I checked the monster's HP against the official book, and it was accurate. When asked to generate a picture of our adventure, Gemini came up with this moment:

I asked Gemini a few questions at the end, such as whether it nudged the dice in my favor, as all my rolls were successful. This happened in my previous experiment with ChatGPT. Gemini said it used a 'pseudorandom number generator', not a true RNG, but the model doesn't 'fudge dice, pad rolls, or tweak numbers behind the scenes to keep players happy or prolong the game'.

Gemini's language was natural and even evocative in places, although it's still not a patch on a good creative human. Overall, a decent enough effort at simulating a D&D game.

Despite the similar setting, ChatGPT's adventure with the same character was very different. There was little to no combat throughout the entirety of the game, and ChatGPT didn't tell me when it was rolling 'behind the scenes', preferring to keep me in the moment.

When I asked it about the lack of rolling, the grovelling chatbot began its apologetic essay with "That is a fair critique. The short answer is: I leaned too heavily into narrative pacing and not enough into D&D mechanics. The adventure became closer to a collaborative fantasy novel than a 5e dungeon crawl", while suggesting fixes if I wanted to continue. I hadn't even said anything negative — but it certainly picked up on my tone, and the choose-your-own adventure I got was a far cry from a classic dungeon crawl.

Instead of combat, ChatGPT came up with a rambling mystery about a dimensional prison beneath the mountain, a sphere suspended in a cavern. Its guardians spoke ominous (and to be honest, quite confusing) portents such as "The archive does not open for authority. It opens for judgement."

Mysteries work best when they're developed with skill by a writer who can work backwards to seed clues throughout the game or text. ChatGPT does not do this: instead, it's arranging tokens on the fly to generate a facsimile of a mystery, and although it got the trappings of the genre right, the execution fell very flat. I (or at least, my character) underwent trials to seek obsidian objects such as keys and seals to reveal more about the prison, themselves accompanied by more foreboding, sometimes nonsensical portents.

Very little 'action' was taken by my character in a classical sense: it was all about investigating the origins of the being contained in this prison, and by the time I had spent 40 minutes on this, I had seen enough. It didn't help that ChatGPT also spoke in the peculiar sentence structure pattern that AI users are likely very familiar with now: "This isn't just X. It's Y." Examples include:

"Unlike the rest of Khaz Varek, this room has remained untouched.

No dust. No decay."

Or the following, when I met one of the prison's guardians:

"Ser Kaelen immediately looks toward the sphere. 'You hear it too.'

Not a question. A confirmation."

Any user of ChatGPT (or those who look at AI-generated posts on LinkedIn or Reddit) will immediately recognise this sort of language, and know what I'm talking about. By the end, it was quite painful to have every other sentence be treated as a grand revelation. Not a statement. An omen.

When asked to generate a picture of our adventure, ChatGPT came up with this moment:

Out of these two? Gemini 3.6 Flash, by a mile. It was at least a mildly enjoyable experience conveyed in natural language, and something I'd consider revisiting.

ChatGPT's efforts, on the other hand, were unenjoyable, and I wouldn't return to it. In fact, it's gotten worse since the last time I tried it.

Both, however, were a far cry from an in-person session. While they have a good grasp of the rules, and you can create your perfect world and character, the chatbots are ultimately missing the 'human and hearth' element that keep me returning to the game. For people who can't get round a table with friends, I'd pick Gemini over ChatGPT.

For those who can? While AI is busy taking as many creative jobs as it can, I feel safe in the knowledge that the role of Dungeon Master is AI-proof for a long time yet.

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.

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.

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".

We've been fighting this fight for over a decade, long before 'right to repair' was something people brought up at dinner

Miquel Ballester, head of product at Fairphone

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.

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.

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".

We had far in excess of 70% repairability on e-waste

A Fixing Factory volunteer

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.

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."

You can literally fix anything if you watch enough YouTube

A Fixing Factory volunteer

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."

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.

One false move and you can suddenly have a nasty fire.

Fixing Factory volunteer

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]".

If there's something that wasn't made to be repaired, they make it really hard for you

Petra Backovska, Senior Workshop manager at Fixing Factory

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."

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.

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.

There's nothing much on the horizon for other product categories

Fiona Dear, Co-Director at The Restart Project

"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.

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 one of the more cynical practices in this industry

Miquel Ballester, head of product at Fairphone

"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.

Become a TechRadar Insider by simply clicking 'Join Now' at the top of this page. Have a question? Please email membership@techradar.com

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.