Pocket camcorders (aka mini cams or budget cams, or sometimes Flip cams after the pioneer of the category) are simple gadgets. They’ve got one job to do: Shoot watchable video, often for uploading to streaming video sites. They’re also very close to the end of their lifespan, with perhaps only a year or so left before smartphones make them obsolete, but right now they’re the easiest and cheapest way to take quick and dirty videos. I tested seven of these diminutive camcorders, or more accurately six camcorders and one capable PMP, in five categories: Outdoor, indoor, low light, macro and sound.

The criteria for judging fell mostly to smoothness of video during motion, image sharpness, noise and colour reproduction. Specs like storage capacity, screen size and battery life are mostly the same across the board, although overall, compared to last year, this crop of mini cams are faster and stronger with beefed up memory and HD sensors. All save the iPod Nano take 720p video (or better) and add HDMI ports and more memory to accommodate the higher-quality footage. Yet I wasn’t really all that thrilled with any of the camcorders — the bar for these cams is so low you could trip over it, and several of them actually did. Battery life was disappointing across the board, as none could break two hours of filming. Anyway, on to the results!

Results

Choosing between the Kodak Zi8, Flip Mino HD and Flip Ultra HD is tricky. The Zi8 is unreliable, but when it’s good it’s unbelievably good; the Mino HD is diminutive, solid and stylish, but overpriced and with lousy touch controls; and the Ultra HD is a reliably good shooter with a low price and the best controls of all, but physically unappealing (read: fat as hell). In my opinion, you should never judge a book by its obese cover, so the champion is… the Flip Ultra HD!

Flip Ultra HD: First Place

Flip’s Ultra HD is the best overall choice. It’s one of the cheapest cams around (at $US150, it’s $US70 less than it’s younger brother, the Mino HD), but it tied for the highest score in our lineup, and it features nice tactile controls that I much prefer to the sleeker Mino HD’s touch-sensitive exercise in frustration. Unfortunately, the Dom DeLuise HD is upsettingly fat — about twice as thick as the Mino HD, but even that doesn’t really get across how truly large it feels in the hand. It’s not particularly heavy, but it is by a long shot the thickest pocket cam here. On the plus side, that girth hides a useful battery — Flip includes a rechargeable pack, but the John Candy HD can also use two AA batteries, which is great since pocket cams have generally abysmal battery life (usually about an hour, though of course they’re often rated for double or triple that). Replaceable, cheap batteries are really nice, but some will have to decide whether the William Howard Taft HD’s girth is worth that feature. Given its price, I think it is.

Video quality is just fine, above average if not particularly impressive on every test, and it, like the Mino HD, is extremely user-friendly. Although that simplicity yields less flexibility and a barebones feature set compared to the Kodak Zi8, it’s a good distillation of the aims of pocket camcorders, and its 100 per cent tactile controls are a welcome change from the Mino HD. If you’re not superficial, it’s a very smart buy.

Flip Mino HD: Second Place

Flip’s Mino HD is the best-looking and best-feeling camcorder I tried. Its aluminium body feels solid and expensive, which might be because it is — at $US230, it’s the priciest camcorder I tested. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it sells the best, even though it’s not the greatest deal, because it looks (and is) simple, cute and functional. I won’t rehash my review, except to say that I hate those goddamn touch buttons more and more every time I use the Mino HD. They’re incredibly sensitive and I guarantee that you will accidentally trigger the playback function more times than you can count.

Besides that, it’s totally serviceable: It did well on all of my tests, it’s thoughtfully designed and stupid-easy to use. But it’s definitely overpriced, and I have a hard time recommending it over its physically awkward yet substantially cheaper older brother, the Ultra HD, just for its looks.

Kodak Zi8: Third Place

Wider and taller than the Flip Ultra HD, though not nearly as fat, the Zi8 packs a 1080p sensor and the largest and best screen of the bunch. The controls are easy and tactile and aside from flimsy-feeling plastic covers over the ports (one of mine already fell off), the hardware is high-quality. The Zi8 snagged the bronze medal, because while its highs were higher than either of the Flips, its lows were lower — and given how focused and simple this type of gadget is, reliability is worth more than flashing moments of greatness.

The Zi8 absolutely rocked in two of my tests, outdoor and macro, with perfect colour reproduction and excellent clarity, and it even takes pretty decent still photos (think point-and-shoot circa 2006 quality). But the conditions need to be just right to get the most out of this guy — I first tried it in 1080p mode (neither of the Flips can break 720p) and while picture quality was amazing, scenes with lots of motion were pretty jerky to the point of being distracting. But even in 720p, it was still head-and-shoulders above the competition — but only in outdoor and macro testing. In the indoor test it proved to have difficulty focusing on objects closer than 3m but farther than 0.5m away, and low light shooting was distinctly tinted red and a bit dark. It wasn’t unusable in any test (unlike the similarly uneven Creative Vado HD) and at $US180 it’s fairly priced, so I’d still recommend it — but you and I are likely to be more forgiving of the Zi8’s flaws than, say, your mum, who just wants a camera that works pretty well all the time. For her, go for a Flip.

The Rest

The Creative Vado HD scored pretty high, only a point lower than the bronze medallist Kodak Zi8, but while its design is fairly middle-of-the-road (albeit nice and teeny), its abilities were all over the place. It was one of the worst in standard daytime shooting (it has a hard time with sunlight, a serious problem for a pocket cam) and macro, but was the best at indoor, and while its low light video was a little dark, it was the clearest and smoothest of the lot. It also, likely due to Creative’s background in stellar-sounding PMPs and sound cards, boasts excellent sound quality. At $US150, it’s very fairly priced, but I can’t recommend a camcorder that mangles sunlight the way the Vado does.

Apple’s iPod Nano is the only “camcorder” in this roundup to peak at VGA resolution, and aside from a surprisingly strong macro performance, it shows. It turned vibrant colours dull and lifeless, washed out detail and made everything seem darker than it was. It can’t compete with the Zi8s and Flips of the world, but it’s still usable and incredibly priced at $US150/$180 for 8GB/16GB — if you’ve got a Nano already, you probably won’t need a dedicated cam. Convergence killed the video star, I guess.

The JVC Picsio GC-FM1 sucked. It’s spectacularly ugly (think Ed Hardy-inspired) and feels cheap with a confusing button layout (unforgivable in a pocket cam) and a high price ($US200, or $US178 at Amazon). Besides all that, it scored poorly in every one of our tests. Avoid.

And finally, the worst — Aiptek’s PenCam HD. I wanted to like it, I really did &mdash ;it’s got a tongue-depressor-like design and came with a sweet tripod that attaches to a bicycle’s handlebars — but it bombed in almost every one of my tests. The 1.1-inch screen is nearly unusable and battery life barely topped 40 minutes, so it’s definitely the loser here.

Don Nguyen assisted with this Battlemodo.

The goal here is simple: Play all the videos that I have ripped from DVD, downloaded from the web, shot with my own cameras or obtained in some other manner, no matter what the format. It sounds simple but Apple TV can’t do it. Video codecs and containers are a nightmare to keep track of, and even more of a nightmare to convert.

This isn’t about photos and music. Apple TV is better at both of those than any of this stuff. It’s also not about renting movies or buying movies, or even streaming movies. Roku has a nice cheap box for that, and Apple TV is suitable if you just want to live inside Steve Jobs’ media store. This is about playing non-DRM movies, pure and simple.

The names might be familiar to you: The Popcorn Hour C-200 by Syabas is quickly gaining cult status (and has its own hacker wiki), while the other four smaller boxes come from brands you probably have experience with, including WD, Seagate, Netgear and Patriot.

My two main tests were simple — I loaded PC and Mac formatted external hard drives with a variety of files ranging from H.264 MP4s to WMVs of several vintages, from raw AVCHD files in MTS wrappers to the hot new DivX 7 MKV. Then I browsed through my local network to a NAS that had a cache of similar files. Could I see them? Could I play them? These shouldn’t be issues, but they’re big issues.

Here’s a rundown of each machine and how they fared in testing:

As you can see, there were clear leaders given my criteria above, but what struck me was how each one differed. Truth is, depending on who you are, any one of these might be the best fit. Here’s what really separates them:

WD TV Live

I would have given this thing the solo spot at the top if it weren’t for a few dings that might very well be fixed in a firmware update: It won’t show you DVD menus on ripped DVD images, and when you play files with the suffix .m4v it won’t fast forward or rewind. Weird bug that can be fixed if you just change .m4v to .mp4, but since that’s the default file naming for Handbrake’s “Apple TV” profile it could be a problem for people, like me, who spent months ripping their entire DVD collection that way.

WD’s strengths include a friendly user-interface with handy video previews, some promising early online services (including Pandora), and the most reasonable photo and music handling I’ve seen in this cluster of gadgets.

Seagate FreeAgent Theater+

I loved this when I tested it a few weeks ago, despite its fugly interface, and it holds up under testing. It does better with ripped .ISO files than WD, doing both DVD menus and chapters (and it doesn’t have that weird .m4v bug either). Video was better, especially when running 1080p content.

The tradeoff is that the interface is bad, and there’s almost nothing in the way of online services. It gets points for making an attempt at sorting music and displaying photos, but if that’s a priority, WD is the better call.

Popcorn Hour C-200

Hardcore AV nerds love this thing, and I understand why. There are more ways to get at video content than in any other set-top box I’ve ever seen, and if you really know how to hack, there’s really not much it can’t do.

It’s a big ole thing — they call it a “network tank” and — despite reminding me of the far cooler ones in Tron — I get it. It has an internal BitTorrent client and you can plug in a Blu-ray drive, for god’s sake. I found very few video formats that it wouldn’t support (FLV was one) but I had to take major points off because for being so big, it has a lame interface, and it comes with an RF remote that only worked when I stood within 1m of it. They even mention that there might be problems with interference, and if people experience that they can buy the IR remote. Great, thanks.

My only question — and it’s not rhetorical — is why spend $US300/$AU599 on this (plus extra for the optional internal HDD and the IR remote) when you can just buy a home-theatre PC?

Patriot Box Office

This was the dark horse of the group, being a late entry by a company known only for computer memory. I was surprised at how well it held up. It actually could decode more tested formats than any other device in this lineup — it did Flash video (FLV), which the three above can’t render. Only the WD and the Patriot show you video previews, too. As small as it is, there’s space for a 2.5-inch SATA drive in there and even a BitTorrent client. You can copy files to and from different drives and the network, and it’s the cheapest of the lot at $US130.

So why did it come in a distant third? Unlike the three above, it can’t read Mac-formatted hard drives, and its video quality was noticeably the worst of the batch. That said, if you are a hacker sort and want something to play with that doesn’t cost as much as Popcorn, set your sights on this.

Netgear Digital Entertainer Live

As you can probably tell by now, Netgear had the most disappointing box of the lineup, despite its Apple TV ripoff look and feel. Lack of Mac media support and the inability to read key file formats — like DivX 7 and AVCHD — meant it couldn’t pass muster with real video fanatics. Its biggest point of woe was the fact that it didn’t support any file over 720p in resolution — whether that’s a software thing or a hardware thing, it’s sure not future-proof and probably best to stay away.

I also didn’t like the fact that its interface is laid out entirely for retail, like an Apple TV without the panache, or a Roku box that costs more and doesn’t do Netflix. Local files were not a priority, and despite the friendly interface, it doesn’t even make an attempt to differentiate photos and music. I did give it a gold star for online services, but only because it had the most in this group — if online services are what you love, buy a Roku, or a TiVo, or an Xbox, or a friggin’ Apple TV.

Still not sure what you’re looking for, check the spec comparisons here:

I have to admit, I didn’t have high hopes for these two machines. The first “budget” products in any category always seem to fall short, but in this case I was pleasantly surprised. Both the Vivitek H1080FD and the Optoma HD20, which use DLP technology, offered exceptional performance for the price, but one definitely stood out.

The Results…

The Vivitek takes gold in almost every category.

Stack those results up by weighting each gold medal with three points and each silver with two, and you can see how it all adds up.

Winner: Vivitek H1080FD

While the Optoma HD20 and the Vivitek H1080FD are alike in many respects, the bottom line is that Vivitek pushed the envelope a bit more with picture quality, and provided more of those features that you might find in a pricier projector.

It’s a shade bigger than the Optoma, and a little heavier at 3.5kg, but it is still an extremely portable device (they even go so far as to throw in a carrying case). Both the Vivitek and the Optoma lack lens shift capability, so I had to set them up on this ghetto cardboard box on top of a card table configuration in order to deliver a straight, unobstructed picture to the wall. However, once things were set up and calibrated properly, the Vivitek offered up slightly richer colours and better overall contrast (5000:1) than the Optoma — although black levels and overall quality of the 1080p picture appear similar between the two devices. I also give the Vivitek an edge in the brightness department — especially when comparing the brightest modes. Still, after running through several 1080p video clips on both machines, I was really wowed by the overall image quality on these entry-level projectors.

As I mentioned earlier, the Vivitek brought a few features to the table that you usually find in pricier models. For one thing, it’s extremely quiet — especially when compared to the Optoma. It also features more inputs/outputs than the Optoma, including S-Video, RS-232c connector and audio jacks (although it would be a crime to use S-Video). It even features a small 5W onboard speaker which aids in portability and ease of use for those who are looking for a simple, all-in-one solution. The speaker is basic, but I found it helpful in my temporary setup when I just wanted to plug and play.

There isn’t much to complain about with regard to the Vivitek H1080FD, but I did notice that menus in the UI don’t collapse, so you have to exit in order to get a full picture of your changes. However, the most troubling negative has to do with the $US400 cost of a replacement lamp. The overall lamp life of the Vivitek and the Optoma are the same, but there is a $US150 difference in the price of the replacement. Given the fact that there isn’t a vast difference in performance between the two models, this expense could be a real dealbreaker for people who are looking to use their projector on a more regular basis.

Runner-Up: Optoma HD20

Sure, the runner-up in a contest of two is the “loser”, but there’s a lot to like about the Optoma. Right off the bat, you have to marvel at how small this thing is. At 12.76 x 3.82 x 9.21 inches and 2.9kg, users don’t need to use the HD20 in a permanent setup. It can be easily stored and transported — but again, the lack of lens shift means you might struggle to get an optimum viewing angle.

Granted, the HD20 isn’t going to blow away enthusiasts who will settle for nothing less than the blackest blacks and whitest whites, but most of us will be more than satisfied with the clarity, colour and contrast (4000:1). Overall lumen output wasn’t quite up to snuff when compared to the Vivitek, but it was still considerably better than you would expect in a budget model in both bright and theatre modes — easily allowing for a screen just under 100 inches in my living room to be comfortably viewable with ambient light.

Of course, the HD20 is not without it’s flaws. First of all, excessive fan noise makes it sound more like what you might expect from buying a cheaply priced DLP. It’s noticeable in Standard mode, but I was definitely distracted by it in Bright (users might also find the light emanating from the front vent to be distracting). I also found the UI to be well organised but fairly annoying to navigate, mostly because the remote isn’t very responsive. I felt like I had to mash the button down to get a response.

Feature Comparison/h3>

But What If You Spend More?

OK, so what if you’re willing to spend a bit more than $US1000?

Epson’s HC 8100 represents a price point in the entry-level market for consumers willing to pay extra for better 1080p performance. At $US1600, the LCD-based 8100 is a big step up from the Vivitek and the Optoma. In my opinion, it is worth the added expense.

Simply put, it easily outstrips both of its cheaper competitors in just about every performance category. It also has some advantages that the others lack, many of which derive from the advantages 3LCD has over DLP. Brightness and colour accuracy are better, no colour wheel means no rainbow effect and it has a high degree of vertical and horizontal lens shift, meaning you can put this thing just about anywhere and throw a clean image. However, it is literally twice as big and heavy as the Vivitek, which could make it unsuitable for some setups.

If you are concerned with the long term cost of ownership, the Epson is competitive in that area with a $US300 lamp replacement cost (4000 hour lamp life in Normal and Eco modes) and a two year limited warranty. So, in that sense, it could be cheaper to own in the long term than both the Vivitek and the Optoma depending on your usage.

Verdict

If you have your heart set on 1080p, the good news is that you will probably be satisfied no matter which one of these projectors you choose — definitely an encouraging sign at these price points. That having been said, I think it is worth spending an an extra $US600 for the improved performance of the Epson HC 8100.

However, if the HC 8100 isn’t in your budget, there is no shame in going with the Vivitek — it will deliver a lot of bang for your buck. On the other hand, if you plan on using your projector frequently and the long term cost of ownership is a concern, the Optoma HD20 will be less expensive in the long run — and the choice might be further justified since there isn’t a vast difference in performance. [Epson and Vivitek and Optoma]

Why Not a Netbook?

In this battle, we’re talking about a whole new class of notebooks that fall somewhere between Atom netbooks and full-blown Core 2 Duo machines.

There is no doubt that if you spend $US400 more than the average netbook on one of these 13-inch travel friendly notebooks—the Acer Aspire Timeline AS3810T-8737, ASUS UL30A-A1, HP Pavilion dm3, and Toshiba Satellite T135—you’ll be purchasing the comfort of a real notebook, the endurance of a netbook and a bit of the thin-n-light enticement of premium devices like the MacBook Air.

And instead of Intel’s underpowered Atom processors, each is equipped with 1.3GHz Intel ultra low voltage (ULV) processor and Windows 7 Home Premium. Handling your everyday computing tasks (running a browser, productivity suite, iTunes, TweetDeck, etc.) and 1080p high definition video (each of them have HDMI out) isn’t a problem for the CPU.

Meanwhile, your average Atom netbook can’t play a 1080p clip without stuttering, not can it multitask as smoothly. However, no UL system can reach the performance of a Core 2 Duo with discrete graphics. By way of comparison a 15.4-inch Acer Aspire with a 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and discrete ATI graphics has about double the performance in Geekbench, but it pays in battery life.

The assumption with all of these thin and lights is that we all live so far up in the Cloud that we can see that there really is no boy in the balloon.

The Results

Even if most of the 13-inch thin and light notebooks out there have identical specs with ULV processors, hard drives and memory, they aren’t created equal.

Design, ergonomics and battery life matter most, which is why ASUS takes the crown.

The Winner: ASUS UL30A-A1

Price: $US800
The ASUS UL30A-A1 isn’t an Eee PC, but its design reminds me of the company’s chic netbook line. The metal lid looks slightly Macbook-like and it is the thinnest-feeling system of them all at less than an inch thick all around.

ASUS fares quite well on ergonomics. The keyboard is island-style (meaning that the keys are isolated from one another, like on the MacBook) and quite comfortable. However, there is a bit of flex to the overall panel. As for the touchpad, it happens to be the best of the entire group. While all the rest are technically capable of multitouch gestures, the UL30-AL’s actually works (especially two-finger scrolling which I cannot live without)!

But ASUS really rises to the top in battery life. The UL30A-A1 is the only one of the bunch to come with an eight cell battery. On our battery test (with Wi-Fi on and screen brightness set at 65 per cent) a movie played back non-stop for six hours and 25 minutes, the longest of any of the systems in this Battlemodo. That’s even longer than the HP Mini 5101 (with a 6-cell battery) netbook’s 5:45. In real-world circumstances, that battery life can only get better since our testing is processor-intensive. For $US800 flat it packs the best all around performance, endurance and ergonomics.

The Runners-Up

Acer Aspire Timeline AS3810T-8737
Price: $US800

Acer kicked off the thin and light trend last spring with the Timeline series. And while ASUS has caught up, Acer still pulls the silver medal. The AS3810T is noticeably lighter than the rest. The design is more corporate looking than the HP or the ASUS, but if you are the buttoned up type that won’t be a bother.

The island-style keyboard is just a pleasure, though the keys themselves are a bit slippery at first. The touchpad is kinda small and the single button a bit stiff, but navigating the desktop is still a decent experience. Acer’s 6-cell battery doesn’t last as long as HP’s, but still makes out with more than five hours of runtime. If you can score a great deal on this system, it shouldn’t be beyond consideration.

HP Pavilion dm3
Price: $US740 (as configured)

The HP Pavilion dm3’s aluminium lid looks great and feels really solid, but it isn’t the trimmest of systems measuring 1.23 inches at its thickest point (or almost a quarter thicker than our winner).

Under the lid, the island keyboard (you seeing the trend?!) is by far my favourite of all. The keys are firm and the manufacturing quality is superb. If only I could give the same props to the touchpad. The mirrored pad, besides being custom-tailored for narcissists, is rough making it hard to push the cursor along. And if you have sweaty fingers forget about it! The Pavilion’s battery life was second to ASUS’, and really we can’t say 5.5 hours is all that shabby!

Toshiba Satellite T135
Price: $US710 (as configured)

Toshiba killed it with its NB205 netbook, but the T135 can’t destroy the competition in the ULV space. Though the notebook is pretty thin (.87 inches at its thinnest point) it just doesn’t look or feel as slender as some of the others. And the same goes for the Satellite’s design and coated lid (available in black, white and red); it just isn’t as attractive as the rest.

It doesn’t have an island-style keyboard, but I actually typed pretty darn fast on the smooth black keys. But damn you mouse button! I wish you were chopped in half to make two buttons so I knew which one I was clicking on. The T135’s battery was the weakest of the bunch, lasting just a bit more than five hours on our intensive video run down. Again, though that is pretty darn long.

Feature Comparison

Verdict

The ASUS UL30A-A1 is our number one pick for a 13-inch ULV based system. It is thin, light, and comfortable to use for its over six and a half hours of juice. The Acer keeps a close second to the ASUS with its long run time and sleek bod. The HP Pavillion dm3 and the Toshiba T135, while still affordable and adequate performers, simply aren’t the best.

The Problem

Honestly, there are plenty of reasons to be uneasy about Bluetooth headphones: They run off battery power, so you need to be mindful of keeping them charged; they’re often styled strangely to accommodate the necessary wireless hardware; they’re more expensive than equivalent wired headphones; and most of all, they sound like crap. Or, so you’ve heard. You know, from other people, not with your ears. The colloquial “heard.” Er, you know what I mean.

Perhaps even more than choosing the best Bluetooth headphones, the point of this little exercise is to figure out if A2DP, the technology, is even worth your time. After all, it isn’t really worth going to the trouble and expense of untethering your headphones if they barely qualify as headphones. So first, some background:

The Advanced Audio Distribution Profile, or A2DP, is an umbrella term for the modern Bluetooth audio profile, meaning the standards by which Bluetooth devices send a receive audio. It complements the Headset Profile (HSP), which takes care of low-quality mono transmissions, like those to single-ear Bluetooth headsets, to provide the capability to listen to music without too much distortion. And that’s the crux of the A2DP problem, both real and perceived: It’s better than mono Bluetooth, to be sure, but is it as good as a wired headset? Or more realistically, is it close enough that it doesn’t really matter?

Since A2DP audio is encoded and recompressed at the source, leading to (sometimes drastically) differing audio quality betwen devices, I paired a number of sources—an iPhone 3G, an HTC Hero, a unibody Macbook Pro—with a veritable stack of headphones to see if the end result, the sound that actually hits your ears, is worth the trouble. Here are the best five:

The Headphones

(Click the chart to enlarge)

Sony DR-BT50: The only cup-style headphones included in this roundup, the Sonys serve as a sort of reference for sound quality, features, fit and comfort. Also: impracticality. If you’re planning on using a Bluetooth headphones as they’re generally understood to be intended, you’re probably not looking for bulbous headhuggers like this.

That said! They’ve got by far the bassiest, clearest sound of the lot, and the included controls, though they can take a while for your fingers to map out, are more complete than any others. Using these headphones is a joy compared to most others, but only in a situations where they’re appropriate: Sitting on a sofa? At a PC? I don’t really know. Whatever they’re meant for, the lack of a USB charger corroborates the theory that they’re not really intended to be that portable.

Far and away the best, most balanced sound; moderate noise isolation

Wider set of controls than any other headphones, but probably more than you need, or your handset even supports

They’re too big to exercise or travel with

Motorola Motorokr s305: Something about this headset is immediately alarming. It feels cheap, it comes with very few accessories, it even looks a bit dated — it sort of feels like you’ve accidentally been handed a stray accessory, dropped out of a Motorola Rokr box, yearning to be reconnected to its parent phone. But seriously, give it a minute.

You could find plenty of things to complain about with the s305s, but hell, I just don’t want to: With these cheap, stripped-down headphones, Motorola shows that they understand the draw of A2DP better than anyone else. They sound fine—solid mids, relatively clear highs, adequate bass — without sounding overequalised; their fixed fit works well enough on most heads, without sacrificing weight or durability; they connect with ease and offer minimal, though adequate, controls; they charge quickly via USB, for a playback period that’ll outlast any workout session. And most of all, they’re very, very cheap.

Minimalist: easy to use and set up

They’re gloriously cheap

It feels light in the hand and on the head; it also feels a bit flimsy

Jabra Halo: Nobody’s going to dispute the Halo’s stylishness, especially in this company — most of these headphones looks like they were designed in the late 90s (Why? No really — this doesn’t make any sense) and many come in form-factors I haven’t seen since I carried a Discman. For what it’s worth, the Jabra’s matte black, ultra-thin headband take on Bluetoothery is eye-catching, and there’s nothing expressly wrong with it.

Nor is there anything terribly wrong with the sound: It’s abundantly clear, though not very bassy — something that could be pegged as much on the sometimes awkward fit of the Halo’s earpads as on their actual drivers. I had the most pairing issues with the Halo, but they all mysteriously resolved themselves eventually — par for the course with Bluetooth, and less of a concern than you might think, since one they’re paired to a device, they’re paired to a device. Controls, aside from volume, which relies on a jumpy touchpad on the earpiece, were simple and intuitive. The price, I guess, is the only real kick in the balls from Jabra’s headphones: The street price is a hefty $US120.

HEADPHONES FROM SPAAAAAAAAACE

They’re comfortable, and it’s easy to forget you’re wearing them

Too expensive for what you get

Logitech Freepulse: Logitech’s gone all-out with the Freepulse, and you’d be hard pressed to find a hardware feature—aside from USB charging—that these things don’t list on their spec sheet. They’ve got by far the most versatile Bluetooth transmitter, meaning that they can be paired with just about any device comfortably. Controls are subtly built into the earpieces, but once they’ve been explored, they’re easy to reach and utilise during exercise.

I found the fit to be a bit strange, since these particular headphones, despite looking like a traditional wraparound headset, actually hang on your ears by means of floppy little rubber loops. They’re secure enough, sure, but they don’t exactly cram the drivers against your ear holes; hence lack of great bass. Oh and hey, no mic! These things aren’t cheap, so, uh, what the hell?

Best Bluetooth transmitter of the bunch—fits just about any device

They fit everyone fine, but nobody particularly well

At this price, where’s the mic?

iLuv i222: In a lot of ways, the i222 is a cheaper, newer equivalent to the Freepulse: Its design looks newer, albeit a little Bluetooth-headset-y, its feature set matches the Logitech’s almost point for point, and, crucially, it has a mic, because almost every A2DP-enabled playback device is, let’s face it, a phone.

Interestingly, the iLuv’s battery life trumped even the most expensive headphones in my limited testing. My main cause for concern is a generally plasticky feeling: I can already see multiple areas of concern on the headset, and online reports go some way to confirming my worries about durability.

Tons of features for the price, including a Bluetooth transmitter

Build quality is a concern

Post-Game

If all these evaluations sound a little bit tentative, that’s because they are. Each headset evaluation was underscored by a fundamental discomfort with A2DP because, well, it’s not that good.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s better than I expected, and a far sight better than you might predict if you were weaned on Bluetooth earpieces. But the sound is flat, lacking in bass range and sacrificing detail on higher tones. And even if these headphones are specifically tuned for playing back Bluetooth streams, the few that include direct line-in support, like the Jabra Halo, give you a ready-made comparison between wireless and wired sound. Spoiler: It isn’t all that flattering for the ol’ toof.

This casts A2DP headphones in a different light, not as a viable, wireless, futuristic alternative to regular headphones, but as a degraded, battery-hungry, expensive compromise. You buy them because you need something wireless — that’s it. There’s no other reason.

The Winner

As such, the headset I’m most comfortable telling people to buy is also the cheapest. There will be people who’ll want something else—the Sonys are the best bet for, say, a PC gamer, and the iLuvs are an obvious choice if your music-listening devices don’t actually support Bluetooth. But more than anything, I see A2DP headsets as a way to listen to music during a run, or on cable-averse exercise machines, as a way to listen to a charging device while you wander around a room, or as a way to merge your everpresent Bluetooth headset with your earbuds.
For this, the Motorola s305s fit the bill: They’re light, functional and simple. They sound fine. They look OK. They sync with almost anything. They win because they do as much as you can ask of Bluetooth headphones, and they do it on the cheap.

First, we have to establish the definition of a task chair. They are, according to this site, meant for medium duty use; they’re the chairs you see gathered permanently around a meeting table, or in front of a desk for guests—as opposed to behind a desk, where the boss sits, in a true “desk chair”. Comfortable, but not exactly meant to be used all day, they tend to have list prices ranging from $US500 to $US700. Still they’re often used by secretaries or other type of office workers (everyone who isn’t a boss who can’t convince someone to give them a nicer chair) whose jobs require them to get up once in a while. They usually have backs that rise up not quite as high as desk chairs, like the $US1000-and-up Herman Miller Aeron and Embody, or Steelcase Leap.

Herman Miller Setu

The $US650 Setu might be about half the price of the current top seat, but it is definitely not, as we initially reported, a “poor man’s Embody”. It’s quite different.

The Setu is Lennie to the Embody’s George: simple, straightforward and lacking in sophistication. That is to say, there’s no real customisation you can do with knobs and levers, because there are none, save for the obligatory height adjustment. Its “elastomeric” fabric does contour somewhat to the curve of your back, but it’s nowhere as customisable as actually being able to change the angles of the chair’s spine.

It’s as if Herman Miller tried to build a chair with as few parts as possible, making sure each beam, back and support did the job of one-and-a-half beams, backs and supports. However, their frugality regarding use of material has one downside: the seat is too shallow. Imagine sitting with your arse all the way into the back of the seat; even then, the seat would only come forward to about three-quarters of your thigh. It’s not horrible if you’re short or if you’d rather sit on the edge of your seat, but those of you who expect support all the way up to the back of your knees will be disappointed.

Otherwise, the Setu is quite a good task chair. It provides ample back support for a full eight-hour day, and the aerated fabric breathes enough that you can even work shirtless on a hot day and things will be alright. (For you, not your co-workers.) The arms protrude enough to be usable, but not too much to be obtrusive. There’s plenty of give in the seat and the back to feel like you’re sitting with the chair, rather than fighting against it.

Conforms to your back nicely

Great look, great design

More expensive than Cobi

The seat is a bit shallow; doesn’t go all the way to the back of the knee

Steelcase Cobi

Surprisingly, the Cobi is more like the Embody in design and build than the Setu, despite it being from a competing firm. What’s cool about the Cobi is that you can actually customise parts of it yourself, picking the colour, whether you want arms and whether you want it in stool form or chair form. Each piece adds a little to its $US400 base, and our white-framed, fixed-armed, wasabi green seat totalled $US490. If you were going stool mode—high and sturdy as in bar stool, not backless and stubby as in foot stool—you’d actually end up at $US720, which is $US70 more than the Setu.

The look of the Cobi is definitely more traditional than the Setu, with its round seat, protruding arms and tongue-like lip of a back—and it sits the same way too. There are, like the Setu, no adjustments for the back or the seat or the arms, but it conforms more or less to your back as you’re sitting. The cradling is less pronounced than the Herman Miller, but enough that you’ll still be comfortable as you’re working. And the seat is perfectly fine here, not a few inches shy of optimal length like the Setu.

Priced lower than Setu

You can customise your own colours, frame, arms

Doesn’t conform to your back as well as the Setu

Comparison

Your decision here is one of tradeoffs. If you want to go a little cheaper, the Steelcase Cobi is great, but it won’t spoon your back quite as well as the Herman Miller Setu. If you want stylishness, Setu’s definitely going to impress, but you’re going to have to live with that shallower seat and a slightly higher price tag.

The Cobi is customisable at purchase, but when you get it, you can’t change its style, so it ends up looking more like a traditional chair. The Setu may win in the design department, but you will definitely not be upset if you pick the Cobi, especially if you want to create one in your favourite colour.

This Battlemodo shows both the benefits and limitations of the task-chair category. If you’re looking for going further in customizability and comfort, it would be worth it to go with the Embody. It’s down to $US1099 now, and cradles your arse better than either the Setu or the Cobi ever will. [Steelcase Cobi and Herman Miller Setu]

To test, I set up my system with a range of activities: Watch Foxtel, Watch DVD, Play Xbox, Play PS3, Play Wii, and Watch TV. Unfortunately both remotes were unable to actually control the PS3 and Wii, but by setting up the macro control I could switch on the rest of my system and select the necessary inputs to do those activities.

The task of selecting an activity is much quicker and easier on the 1100i, thanks to its large touchscreen input, which features six options on the front screen. The 525 isn’t any more difficult as such – it just restricts the number of functions to four dedicated buttons next to the small LCD. After a while you automatically know where each function is, but for simple ease of use, the 1100i wins hands down.

However, roles are reversed when it comes to actually controlling your devices. The 525, with its entire body filled with dedicated buttons for each task, makes it much easier to enter specific channel numbers, control playback or choose your favourites through shortcut buttons. The 1100i offers all these functions, but they are generally found one level down through the touchscreen interface. There are certain buttons on the 1100i dedicated to particular functions, like volume, mute and channel selection, but on the whole, the 525’s dedictaed array of buttons makes it easier to control your devices.

Build quality, meanwhile is definitely far superior on the 1100i. It’s solid in every way, while the 525 feels like the cheap plastic that it is. Some of the buttons on the 525 require a much harder press to actually work, including the often used volume controls. It’s not enough to recommend against buying the 525, but it is a case of you get what you pay for.

The other thing with the 525 is that it uses four AAA batteries rather than a rechargeable unit like the 1100i. That’s not a problem until you need to change them at which point the remote seems to lose all memory of its settings. It’s easily fixed with a simple sync with the Harmony software.

And yet, despite all of the advantages of the 1100i over the 525 remote, when all is said and done, I’d probably still recommend the cheaper remote. Considering you can pick one up for about $75, as opposed to the $450 online price for the 1100i, the remote works just as well, controls the same number of devices and doesn’t require you to drill down into menus to control different aspects of your devices.

It’s worth noting that there are a few models in between the two extremes here which may suit your needs much more than the entry-level or top of the line. So if you don’t like the 525’s use of AAA batteries, the Harmony One has a rechargeable built-in, for example. But the bottom line, ultimately, is that there really isn’t any reason to have a loungeroom with more than a single remote control.

The original Terminator was finally dethroned by Caprica 6 in the Round 2 Humanoid Battle. But how will she fare against Roy Batty from Blade Runner?

Both the Humanoid and Heavyweight Battles will continue tomorrow. Cast your vote and feel free to suggest a new opponent in the comments.

This tournament poll of the world’s deadliest robots was proposed to us by our friend PW Singer, author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century which we covered last March. Stay tuned for more of the tournament, more from Singer, and for more scary-arse robots wreaking havoc on fleshy humans and metallic adversaries alike.

Machines Behaving Deadly: A week exploring the sometimes difficult relationship between man and technology.

Both the Humanoid and Heavyweight Battles will continue tomorrow. Cast your vote and feel free to suggest a new opponent in the comments.

This tournament poll of the world’s deadliest robots was proposed to us by our friend PW Singer, author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century which we covered last March. Stay tuned for more of the tournament, more from Singer, and for more scary-arse robots wreaking havoc on fleshy humans and metallic adversaries alike.

Machines Behaving Deadly: A week exploring the sometimes difficult relationship between man and technology.

The Deadliest Robot Competition is in full-swing with the humanoids—but now it’s time for some heavyweight matchups. In Round 1 we are pitting Mechagodzilla vs. Megatron.

Stay tuned for Round 2 of the Humanoid Battle later today. Cast your votes and feel free to suggest a new opponent in the comments.

This tournament poll of the world’s deadliest robots was proposed to us by our friend PW Singer, author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century which we covered last March. Stay tuned for more of the tournament, more from Singer, and for more scary-arse robots wreaking havoc on fleshy humans and metallic adversaries alike.

Machines Behaving Deadly: A week exploring the sometimes difficult relationship between man and technology.