Razer ManO'War Wireless Gaming Headset Review

Razer’s marketing department could have come up with a more search engine-friendly spelling for its latest headset. But that’s neither here nor there: the ManO’War has something to prove, since the company’s Kraken wasn’t exactly a stellar piece of hardware.

This time around, Razer goes all out. You may have guessed as much by the $170 list price. Fortunately, street pricing isn’t as jarring. Look hard enough and you’ll find the ManO’War selling for around $110.

The ManO’War is a wireless headset, though the term wireless only applies until the batteries need to be recharged. That’s when you hook up the charger cable with its mini-USB connector. Also included in the bundle is a USB docking station (or extender) that either improves range by getting the wireless dongle out from behind your case or facilitates charging through its USB port.

Apart from the headset, cable, and extender, you also receive a quick-start guide and manual. A small carrying bag, which we’d expect with a $170 headset, is not included.

Specifications

If there’s a silver lining on our review, it’s that street pricing is down to $110, so long as you don’t buy the ManO’War on Razer’s own site.

Look & Feel

Although the headset is mostly plastic, Razer still makes it look nice. A predominantly matte black surface structure resists fingerprints well. It’s broken up by a few piano lacquer highlights and isolated metal components (also matte black). The rest, unfortunately, is cheap polyurethane.

The ManO’War’s look and feel are reasonably acceptable, even though competing products in this price range employ way better materials. Incidentally, most of them don’t claim to be gaming-oriented. The durability of Razer’s plastic pieces may be a matter of speculation, and a one-year warranty isn’t particularly confidence-inspiring. We already found at least four potential weak spots where the ear pads are fixed to the rest of the frame.

Comfort

Regardless of your head circumference, the ManO’War always fits comfortably. The downside of a perfect seal created by the soft over-ear pads, however, is a subtropical climate inside that’ll leave your auricles sweating. Fortunately, the pads are only held by three pins, and are thus easy to remove and wash.

The faux leather ear pads are extremely soft, and the foam used inside adapts to your anatomy well. It’s only a shame that we cannot estimate how long the polyurethane will hold its shape or resist cracking.

The headset’s mechanics take some getting used to, as somewhat shaky joints develop a mind of their own when you hold them from one side only. This two-axis solution’s advantage becomes apparent as soon as you adjust the fit to your head, though: as mentioned previously, it’s pretty much perfect.

A weight of 374 grams is quite hefty for a wireless headset, and that becomes noticeable after longer stretches of continuous use. If you know you’re sensitive to a bit of weight on your head, there’s a good chance you won’t enjoy the ManO’War for extended gaming sessions, even though Razer boasts of its battery life.

Connectivity

Unfortunately, the headset’s radio operates in the overloaded 2.4 GHz frequency band. Modern media extenders, on the other hand, use the 5 GHz band. One reason could be that Razer seems to be using modified Bluetooth technology, which makes the ManO’War cheaper and easier to make, but not necessarily more reliable.

In rooms with mobile phones, several Wi-Fi signals, and other radio sources, this headset’s practical range is considerably lower than what Razer advertises. At six to seven meters away, we were already noticing drop-outs and breakdowns, with or without the bundled extender.

We have an issue with the way Razer documents the dongle stored inside one of its ear pieces. While that may seem like a good place to keep the transmitter when it’s not being used, the quick-start guide does a horrible job of explaining this. As a result, Razer’s online FAQs spell it out more clearly for customers wondering why they’re missing the dongle.

The right ear piece also hosts a a continuously adjustable volume control. Its tactile feedback unfortunately does not correspond to anything really, so you’re left to rely on Windows’ software slider for a better idea of range. However, the idea to integrate a mute button for turning sound off altogether is a good one.

Similar controls for the microphone are built into the left ear piece. Although they’re well-intentioned, this implementation isn’t optimal in our opinion. In addition to those controls, the left side also hosts the mini-USB socket and an on/off button with a status LED. Right next to it is the pull-out microphone.

Microphone

A simple omnidirectional electret microphone has no pop protection and is placed at the end of a short gooseneck with limited flexibility. Nevertheless, the microphone adjusts to your anatomy quickly and easily, even if a greater distance from your mouth allows the surrounding environment to be heard more than we’d like.

A low cut at ~100 Hz works well. Thus, the typical rumble of wind and blow-out noises shouldn’t be a problem. Active noise canceling is unfortunately not part of what you get for $170, and that’s incomprehensible to us given what Razer charges for its ManO’War.

Drivers

We’ve previously discussed the fact that Razer requires online access and compulsory registration for its Synapse configuration software. We’re not particularly happy about this forced marriage, and that should come as no surprise by now, even if we did praise Synapse for the cloud-based convenience it enables.

Nevertheless, the software is still riddled with technical shortcomings, such as an insufficiently split equalizer. We also have little patience for a driver installation that takes three minutes on a high-end gaming PC with 200 Mb/s connectivity.

There’s good news, though: as soon as the dongle is in, you’ll hear sound even without installing Razer’s drivers. Sure, it’s just normal two-channel stereo. But in our experience, simulated 7.1-channel audio isn’t much of a loss to begin with. Perhaps the ManO’War will change our minds.

Measurements & Sound-Check

To read about our test methodology in depth, please check out How We Test Gaming Headsets, particularly page 6 where we detail the measurements we take.

A first glance at the results collected in our audio lab reveal the familiar bathtub shape. At least this time we don’t encounter an unnecessarily deep curtsy in the lower-mid range.

As a result, the headset sounds slightly more broadband. It’s more like an acoustic paddling pool than a narrow tub. The edges do exhibit an emphasis on bass and treble, which turns out a bit too heavy in the bass range. Yet, it’s still low enough at 50 to 60 Hz to prevent a cardboard-sounding upper-bass response.

It is precisely this overemphasis that converts the bass drum into a weapon while listening to music. Everything else is pushed into the background. Such a setup isn’t bad during games since the headset does offer great level stability and acceptable transient response, which complement each other well. For once, we’d go so far as to call the gaming headset label appropriate. Gaming is indeed fun with Razer’s ManO’War.

Getting back to Synapse and its integrated equalizer. On one hand, its lowest control point is way too high at 125 Hz. This doesn’t make sense, as even a simple Realtek codec is configurable down to 32 or 64 Hz. On the other hand, the curve’s maximum/minimum is, in practice, miles away from what the labels actually say.

Razer’s developers don’t have much music sense. Stored sound profiles like “Classic” or “Jazz” are testaments to that. While we were able to compensate for almost all of the nasty acoustic manipulation, despite the equalizer’s limited capabilities, there is a limit to what can be done about that bass.

Otherwise, there’s little for us to complain about. In addition to amazing sound neutrality above 250 Hz, the ManO’War scores points for detailed reproduction of voices and instruments.

The overemphasis of high frequencies between 6 and 8 kHz is a matter of taste. Sibilants are already well-pronounced without sounding metallic. This does, however, expose the lack of quality when you’re listening to poor MP3 recordings. Even neophytes will notice the limitations of lower bit rates (even if that’s more of an argument for, rather than against this headset).

Acoustic positioning and resolution are above average for a gaming headset. Latency is also acceptable. That’s not always a given for wireless headsets, so we appreciate it.

All in all, the ManO’War’s acoustic qualities are quite acceptable, so long as you’re willing to accept the flaws in musical reproduction alongside the solid gaming performance. Our only real criticism is the audible residual noise, which can still be heard with the volume turned all the way down. That just isn’t appropriate for a modern headset selling for $170.

Conclusion

Even though we’ve poked at a number of issues, the ManO’War is a functional gaming headset that’s good enough for music, so long as you enjoy heavy bass.

Wireless functionality provides a small taste of freedom, even if the range isn’t enough to walk to another room. If you need to grab a snack in the kitchen, take the headset off first.

Our final verdict is mostly positive, even if that’s not enough for an enthusiastic purchase recommendation. We’re forced to weigh pros and cons. There’s the software and its compulsory online registration, which fail to deliver on what you’d expect after spending $170 on a headset. Consider also the inappropriate choice of materials for this price point. Who’s to say how long that faux leather and plastic will last? Razer only guarantees it for one year.

The ManO’War is not a bad product per se. Quite the opposite, really. But for its price, we can’t help suggesting higher-end stereo headphones that you can use (and repair) for years to come.


MORE: Best Deals

MORE: Best PC Builds

Go to Source

Romoss RT Pro 10,000mAh Power Bank Review

Romoss RT Pro 10,000mAh Power Bank Review

Romoss’ RT Pro is a Quick Charge 3.0 power bank that offers fast charging of up to two connected devices. It’s available from Amazon UK right now for £20.99, while in the US it will set you back just $27.99. (Read our best power banks 2018 chart.)

Power banks fulfil a pretty basic need: topping up your USB devices while you’re away from mains power. For most customers choosing a power bank will come down rather simply to budget, capacity and design.

There are other features to look for in power banks, such as the ability to passthrough charge (charge their own batteries and those of connected devices at once), LCD screens, LED flashlights, USB-C and Lightning support, and so on. But at the top of our list is most definitely speed.

The Romoss delivers on this front, with one of its two USB outputs offering Quick Charge 3.0 compatibility (up to 18W). This allows it to charge a phone or tablet that also supports Quick Charge at super-speed. It’s four times faster than a typical charger, claims the company.

The second output is another fast port, pumping out power at a rate of 12W (2.4A). This is ideal for quickly recharging phones and tablets that don’t support Quick Charge but can accept fast charging. It will more than certainly charge your device faster than the charger that it was sold with.

Charging your devices is only one half of the story, though, because when the bank runs out of juice you also need to charge its internal battery. It’s great to see Romoss adding support for Quick Charge 3.0 to the Micro-USB input, and it seems to support passthrough charging on our Galaxy S8. If we were to grumble we’d point out the lack of future-facing USB-C.

Note that you’ll need to use this with a compatible wall adapter to get the fastest charging speeds, but you could see its internal battery refuelled in just 3.5 hours. That’s pretty impressive given that there’s 10,000mAh on offer here.

No power bank delivers exactly what is said on the tin, so you won’t get four full charges for a phone with a 2,500mAh battery from this device. Efficiency is around 70 percent, which is about average, so you might see around 7000mAh of power available to your devices. As a guide, that would charge the Galaxy S8 just over two times.

It’s a great performer, but in terms of design the Romoss does not particularly stand out within its price group. It has a black aluminium outer shell, which is nice to see in place of cheap plastic (though plastic is still found at either end). All the ports are found at one end, next to which you’ll find four LEDs to give you a clue as to how much battery power remains. That’s pretty standard; it’s rare to see LCDs in power banks at this price point.

Although it is advertised as slim, it is possible to buy more compact power banks at this capacity. The Romoss is roughly the same height as our Galaxy S8, but both wider and thicker – and a lot heavier at 270g. This is the type of power bank you’ll probably want to carry in a bag rather than a pocket.

No carry case is provided with the Romoss power bank, though it feels sufficiently durable that you won’t need one.

Romoss RT Pro 10,000mAh Power Bank: Specs

  • 10,000mAh power bank
  • QC 3.0 (18W) Micro-USB input
  • 1x USB QC 3.0 (18W) output
  • 1x 12W (2.4A) USB output
  • recharges in 3.5 hours
  • passthrough charging
  • four-LED status lights
  • 146×71.5×15.5mm
  • 270g

SHOULD I BUY ROMOSS RT PRO 10,000MAH POWER BANK?

The Romoss RT Pro power bank excels on price and performance, though in design it struggles to stand out. A great choice if you have a Quick Charge 3.0-compatible phone.

Go to Source

Tesla and GM self-drive cars involved in road collisions

Two vehicles reportedly engaged in self-drive modes – a Tesla Model S and a General Motors Chevy Bolt – have been involved in separate road accidents in California.

Culver City’s fire service said the Tesla had “ploughed into the rear” of one of its fire engines parked at the scene of an accident on Monday.

The car’s owner subsequently claimed it had been in Autopilot mode at the time.

The GM incident resulted in a collision with a motorbike in San Francisco.

The rider says the car – which was using GM’s Cruise Automation technology – caused him serious injury and is now suing GM, according to local newspaper The Mercury News.

GM has alleged the motorcyclist was at fault. The event dates back to December, but has come to light only now.

Car-makers suggest self-drive technologies should make the roads safer, but at present California requires a driver to remain behind the wheel so they can retake control at short notice.

However, the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles is currently considering new regulations that would allow tests on public roads without a human sitting in the driver’s seat.

The US National Transportation Board (NTSB) has said it will investigate the Tesla crash.

According to a tweet by the Culver City Firefighters, the Model S was travelling at 65mph (105km/h) when the impact occurred.

“Amazingly, there were no injuries,” an official said.

Tesla has the ability to analyse data gathered by its vehicles’ on-board computers to determine the cause of crashes, and has shared information with the press about previous high-profile accidents.

However, for now the car company has limited itself to saying that Autopilot is “intended for use only with a fully attentive driver” and that it has instructed drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel while employing it.

The NTSB previously investigated Tesla after a Model S crash in 2016 in which the driver died.

It held the company partly accountable saying the Autopilot system had given the victim “leeway… to divert his attention to something other than driving”.

Since the accident, Tesla has introduced an update that brings its cars to a halt if they detect a driver’s hands are not on the wheel.

‘Wobbled and fell’

The Chevy Bolt accident was on 7 December during the morning commute.

The injured motorcyclist, Oscar Nilsson, is a commercial photographer who had previously worked with GM and other car brands on commercial projects.

According to an accident report filed by GM, its vehicle had been changing lanes when the gap ahead closed.

While the Chevy Bolt had been re-centring itself in the original lane, GM said, a Honda motorcycle travelling at a faster speed had moved into the car’s way, glanced off its side, wobbled and fallen over.

“Safety is our primary focus when it comes to developing and testing our self-driving technology,” a GM spokesman told the BBC.

“In this matter, the SFPD [San Francisco Police Department] collision report stated that the motorcyclist merged into our lane before it was safe to do so.”

However, Mr Nilsson disputes this account and alleges the car “suddenly veered” into his lane.

His lawyer has further alleged the Chevy’s back-up driver had tried to grab the wheel to prevent the accident but was too late to do so.

“Why don’t these folks take some responsibility?” the lawyer told the Mercury News.

Mr Nilsson claims he has suffered neck and shoulder injuries, adding he has had to take sick leave, and is claiming damages.

Details of the legal dispute have emerged a week after GM published its annual self-driving safety report.

It also announced that it hoped to deploy test vehicles with no steering wheel or pedals as soon as next year.

Go to Source

Two More (Unannounced) Low-Profile Kailh Switches

LAS VEGAS, NV — When we last looked at the low-profile mechanical switches from Kaihua, we noted that although most of the new models held a lot of promise for laptops and slim desktop keyboards, the scissor-switch design it had in development had some issues. It would seem that Kaihua isn’t satisfied yet either, because we spotted some artwork in the company’s CES booth that indicates another scissor design is in the works, as well as a new and unique laptop switch.

There’s nothing official, and there were no prototype switches in the booth, but this follows what Kaihua did at Computex: It had some of its switch prototypes on display and some renders on the wall. Those renders eventually turned into prototype switches that we got our hands on, so it follows that the images we spotted at CES will become Real Things, too.

Another Scissor Design: PG1421

Kaihua now has at least three mechanical scissor-switch designs for laptops, in various stages of completion–the PG1425 and PG1442, and now the PG1421. The PG1425 has a unique horizontal spring, although we still aren’t certain if that spring impacts the stem, the scissor arms, or both. The PG1442 has a centered light pipe design, which is ideal for backlighting, and it has a vertical spring (just like most switches) that makes the whole package taller than the PG1425.

The new PG1421 appears to have borrowed from both of the aforementioned designs. We’re speculating here, and it’s difficult to draw firm conclusions from a single render, but it appears that the PG1421 uses both a horizontal spring and clear middle housing that may offer some of the same benefits as the PG1442’s light pipe.

The horizontal spring should enable a switch package that’s as thin as the PG1425. The middle part of the switch looks to be clear–like RGB switches–but the surrounding pieces are opaque. That means an LED could be more or less centered under the switch yet shine only through the middle of the housing.

Even More Laptop-y: PG1325

The PG1325 switch render looks nearly identical to the PG1425 switches at first glance, but upon closer inspection, there’s a crucial difference: no switch stem. Among all the many mechanical switch variations and designs from Kaihua and its chief rivals, they’ve all had a stem; as far as we’re aware, then, this is a first.

It appears that there are no scissor arms, either. Instead, there’s just a flat piece of metal attached to a spring. We presume that this piece of metal is what the keycap pushes on when you press down. Kaihua should easily be able to make that action linear or clicky or tactile depending on what it adds to (or subtracts from) the chassis the metal touches.

Such a design could eliminate any issues with weak scissor arms, and it could further reduce the height of the switch package. The total package height of the low-profile PG1350 (Chocolate) switch is only 8mm (sans keycap), and the PG1425 is about half that. If Kaihua indeed ditched the switch stem and scissor arms from the PG1425, that’s about another 1-1.5mm, making the total switch package of the PG1325 an astounding 2.5-3mm.  

Again, we’re only able to speculate about the PG1325; we’re basing all of our observations about it on a single image, so take all of the above with a grain of salt. But if our observations and assumptions are correct, the PG1325 should fit onto any slim Ultrabook-type laptop.

A Linear PG1442

A final surprise at Kaihua’s CES booth was a linear variant of the PG1442. Previously, we knew only that there would be a clicky version (the one we recently tore down), but now we know there will at least be a linear version. It exists, and we were able to type on a PCB sample. More than the clicky PG1442s, the linear version feels most similar to a laptop typing experience, but obviously with the advantage of a mechanical switch over the rubber dome/scissor switches found in most laptops.

Let The Competition Roll

There’s now bona fide competition in the low-profile switch market. Cherry announced its first post-Cherry ML low-profile switch, alongside several prototype keyboards from various partners, and of course TTC is still making a play, mostly via Tesoro’s keyboards (which we also got a sneak peek of at CES). Kaihua, for its part, has only so many designs with its low-profile switches in the wild–we know of one or two community projects, plus a few shipping keyboards that we’ve covered–but it’s certainly leading the pack when it comes to rapidly developing and prototyping new designs.

Below is a table with our most up-to-date information on Kaihua’s low-profile switches. We still do not have full specifications on some of them, and as stated above, a couple are only theoretical because we’ve seen only images and no prototypes.

Kaihua Low-Profile Switches PG1350 (Choc) PG1232 (Mini Choc) PG1442 PG1425 PG1421 PG1325
Type Linear, tactile, clicky Clicky Linear, clicky Clicky, tactile
Actuation Point 1.5mm (+/-0.5mm) 1.2mm (+/-0.5mm) 1.4mm (+/-0.3mm)
Actuation Force 50gf 50gf 50gf (+/-10gf)
Pressure Point Force 60gf 60gf 55gf
Action Standard Standard Scissor (vertical slider) Scissor (horizontal slider) Scissor (horizontal slider) Metal plate with spring
LED Location Top of switch housing Top of switch housing Center Top of switch housing Center (?) Top of switch housing
Total Travel 3mm (+/-0.5mm) 2.4mm (+/-0.5mm) 2.7(+/-0.2mm)

Go to Source

Here's how much the Meltdown and Spectre patches drag down older hardware

We have a pretty good idea that fixes for the Meltdown and Spectre CPU exploits plain hurt on newer hardware, but Microsoft and Intel said it would be even worse on older hardware. No one has said just how bad yet, though, so we decided to find out. Spoiler alert: The results are ugly.

Most motherboard vendors aren’t supporting anything older than 6th-generation (Skylake), so we turned to the oldest hardware for which we could get a microcode and software update: a 5th-gen Broadwell laptop.

How we tested

If you don’t remember the Dell XPS 13 9343, this is the laptop that put the XPS 13 in the lead with its “InfinityEdge” bezel.

Inside it has a 5th-gen Intel Core i5-5200U, 4GB of LPDDR3, and a 128GB SATA Samsung PM851 SSD. We updated it to the Windows 10 Home Fall Creators Update and then installed the latest BIOS and drivers for the laptop.

Although Intel has asked vendors to halt patches for Broadwell and Haswell due to spontaneous reboots, our XPS 13 didn’t exhibit any instability or crashes over several days of testing. Performance changes, however, are another thing.

intel broadwell package diagonal sep 2014 100412312 orig Intel

The oldest thing we cold get our hands on that also received the patches was a Broadwell laptop. 

For our first Meltdown/Spectre exploration with the Surface Book, we simply tested the storage subsystem before and after Microsoft pushed out the firmware, a strategy that gave us little control. For our Broadwell test, we relied on Steve Gibson’s InSpectre utility, which confirms whether you’re completely patched against the exploits and also lets you disable the protection.

Just to make sure InSpectre was working, I also ran Alex Ionescu’s SpecuCheck, which reports more detail on the patch status but doesn’t let you manually switch it off.

Of course, the ultimate verification was seeing the results in the benchmarks. Flipping the protection off or on immediately flipped the results.

Speed up Windows 10 for free: Tips for a faster PC

It’s a common complaint: My Windows PC is running slow. Annoyingly slow. You can add RAM, or buy a faster SSD, but that costs money. No, your first order of business should be an attempt to wring free performance from Windows. In the following nine steps we show you how to speed up your Windows 10 PC without spending a dime.

Be warned: There could be trade-offs. More speed could mean less battery life in the case of a laptop, or you may have to give up a beloved program that’s bogging things down. You’ll have to decide what sacrifices you’re willing to make in order to make your Windows PC faster.

1. Give it the reboot

If your PC is behaving horribly slow, try rebooting. Yes, it’s an obvious solution, but people tend to forget the obvious.

The sleep or hibernate setting will save power, but only a full reboot clears out the cobwebs in Windows’ brain and gives it a fresh start. Do it every day if the PC is really slow.

2. Turn on High Performance

Windows assumes that you want an energy-efficient computer. But you can trade electricity for speed. Use this tip only if you’re willing to increase your electric bill and decrease your battery performance.

Right-click the Start button and in the resulting menu, select Power Options.

In the resulting Control Panel window, pull down the Show additional plans option. Select High performance.

power settings Lincoln Spector

You can speed up Windows with a simple selection in Control Panel.

Some low-end PCs, including my Lenovo Miix 310, don’t have those options.