With much reservation, I have to admit the conservatives seemed to have got it right as far as the issue of marriage (and separation) goes. The prospect of divorce, or the “moral justification” (for lack of a better term) of any mode of separation in general has led to the trivialization of concept of marriage.
And again, I point this out not to make a moral argument – but to point out a more existential concern. That the “meaning of life” (or something that approximates it) really lies in the responsibilities we take. And how things like this put that in jeopardy.
A clinical psychologist I watch on YouTube makes a good argument about responsibility: That humans are essentially “beasts of burden”; we are designed to carry some sort of load – and successfully moving forward in life while bearing that load gives us more satisfaction compared to anything we accomplish for the sake of our IDs.
While I can certainly understand anyone being “selfish” (we’re not martyrs) to a certain degree, – this fixation on individual happiness has overtaken the need for responsibility – and we already seem to be paying for it in terms of how conflicts in political ideologies have been manifesting. But I couldn’t help but extend its effects to mental well being. Why is it that there are so many people who are depressed nowadays? It doesn’t seem to be a matter of misreported diagnoses – there’s really something in how modern society operates that has made people more susceptible to depression – and I can’t help but feel that the focus on individual happiness has something to do with it. There have been lots of sayings that describe the same situation: People who reach the top find out they feel just as empty as they were. Even worse for those who aren’t as successful, but just as lost.
Objectively, life sucks in practically every metric you can think of. Even what being successful entails: the opportunities you’ve had are ultimately at the expense of others’. If you look at things that way, of how horrible “Life” actually is, and how vulnerable we are compared to all of Life’s complexities being thrown at us – it’s a wonder why everyone’s not depressed. But as mentioned earlier, we are beasts of burden, and responsibilities make the burden of life worth carrying – make life worth living.
Responsibility – that’s what gives life meaning.
Lift a load – then you can tolerate yourself. Cuz look at you… you’re useless: easily hurt; easily killed. Why should you have any self respect?
Pick something up and carry it – make it heavy enough so you can say “Yeah, well useless as I am, at least I can move that from there to there.”
-Jordan Peterson
Focusing on one’s individual happiness doesn’t really get you anywhere. It does provide a quick fix, I suppose 2 And if you’re successful enough, maybe you can sustain the high for much longer than normal – but I don’t feel it will ever give you the purpose/meaning (and therefore fulfillment) to make you think you’re actually worth anything more than the image you’re trying to project to the world. I can imagine that feeling of purpose/meaning, on the other hand, when you have something significant to live for other than yourself; a partner, a kid, a family, etc.
Now let’s integrate what I’ve been saying in the actual context of the issue of separation:
This is why I always felt that the existence of annulment, difficult and impractical a process as it is, was already more than enough. Because it accounts for something detrimental that the couple [miraculously] only realized later on. And mind you, I’m being very, VERY generous with that statement – I honestly think that once you get married, that’s it. If you feel you’ve made a mistake, you f*cking live with it. My only exception would actually be forced marriages. Other than that, if it’s something you did voluntarily, then you should accept the consequences of your choice.
Anyway, other than those “extreme” circumstances, I’d like to believe that the vows you uttered during that ceremony you both took part in VOLUNTARILY – actually meant something. That when you say “for better or worse – till DEATH” – it’s pretty much crystal clear what this commitment entailed.
Reading about this Tatum separation is disconcerting not because of the people involved, but because we’ve clearly come to a point where you can separate… well pretty much anytime you feel like it. “Lovingly separate” what sort of bullshit excuse is that to override something like “I will love you for as long as I live and breathe.”?
What lesson will you be teaching your kids about relationships then? Because you can’t really say that separation is this extremely awful thing – because why the hell did you do it? but you also can’t make it seem like it’s something that can just happen (the same way it rains) or worse trying to frame it in a way that it was a corrective measure of some sorts – is a deceitful way of justifying your personal blunder. And it will undermine how your kid will see relationships themselves.
Do we honestly think that this “acceptance of separation” was a natural evolution and improvement of perspective? More likely we’ve chipped away at the foundations of these pillars of purpose and meaning for the sake of the practicalities of our own naked self-interests. Regardless of the reasons people have for separating (from petty to valid), for better or worse, making separation easily accessible undermines the importance of the relationship and responsibility. God only knows how far off we’ll continue to stray and how shallow human relationships will be at the end of it all.
]]>First is that the goal of “equity” – that is equality of outcome (not to be confused with equality of opportunity) seems to not only be a futile endeavor, but could be dangerous one too. We want to strive for the latter, not the former.
The short of the principle is that 80% of something will be distributed to 20% of the population that’s vying for it. And this phenomenon manifests itself so reliably – that it can practically be considered as a natural/physical law.
So how does this play out in the real world? All the world’s money will go to 20% of the population. And only 20% of that subset will get 80% of the wealth – and so on… until you get the statistic similar to “1% of the world’s richest have half of the world’s money.”
The sad part is that this seems to apply to practically any endeavor. So 20% of aspiring musicians get to be musicians, and 20% of those will be successful. etc. Basically 80% of the attempts at anything will fail and end up with next to nothing – and 20% will get most.
What’s sadder still, is that this happens regardless of [having malevolent] intent – its simply the product of a competence hierarchy. So while you can certainly exacerbate it by having power and abusing it, but like in the case of a free market’s preference in musical icons, it also just happens simply because people will support those who they feel are best at what they do – which is not an unreasonable preference to have.
Even if we all started truly equal, if you let this play out, the same thing will likely happen: those who are more clever get most – in fact it’s highly likely that ALL resources will ultimately consolidate to one entity if we naturally let it run its course uninterrupted. 1 The game of Monopoly was given as an example I mean it’s already kinda true with that whole 1%… just means that it’ll further likely continue to consolidate unless those people literally just give money away – and I don’t mean even on the philantrophic level. The amount of money people like Bill Gates donate is staggering, but it doesn’t seem nearly enough to “redistribute” the consolidated wealth to make it overtake the rate at which this principle tends to unravel.
What’s happening as far as poverty goes doesn’t seem to be a “shortcoming” of capitalism but a feature. An undesirable one (and certainly exacerbated by corruption) but a feature nonetheless. And it’s a feature that’s not exclusive to capitalism (as the free market example of musical success goes)
Unless the world can move away from the concept of “competition” – from competing for finite “resources” or the simple fact of having preference based on expertise, I don’t see how we’re getting out of this inevitability.
Why is it “dangerous” to base actions/policies on the concept of “equity”? Well, because to do that you’d also have to accept that possibility that there are a number of people better than you who simply never had the opportunity… and like I said, if absolutely everyone in the world started equal – given the inevitability of this principle – the outcome of poor/rich will likely still be the same – but this time it it might be you that’s in the 80%. Do you really want to take that risk?
Also, it undermines the whole value of a competence system (or meritocracy if you’d like) which may have negative effects on a society. For one, you literally de-incentivize your best performers.
I forget the exact details, but the lecture went on describe a point in history the where the best farmers produced most of the food (as expected from the principle) – and had naturally benefitted from their industriousness. Because of resentment generated by the inequity with regards of the “fruits of labor” (again, as expected from the principle) they were killed by fellow farmers… resulting in everyone starving.
So when someone says “instead of complaining, just be grateful” – consider that they might not be entirely devoid of compassion. It’s a pragmatically reasonable stance to take.
Giving people the false hope of “equity” frankly, might just exacerbate the resentment already present from the inevitable inequality. Because now, it’s not just about someone being fortunate enough to have more than you; now, you’ll be thinking they are undeserving of it – and take that far enough and you’ll think they stole if from you. That is a really destructive mindset to have. If you’re aware of the book of Genesis – this is a mindset similar to Cain in the story of Cain and Abel – it doesn’t end well.
Another option of “realizing equity” is to [tyrannically] compel people… like communism – and we all know how that turned out.
You get the idea. Inequality is caused by a myriad of things, but its basically inevitable given how a society functions. The only times inequality was reliably “flattened” was in the aftermath of great death. (calamity, famine, plague, war, etc.)
We want equality of opportunity (despite the risk of it flipping the tables on us) – not “equity.” We certainly are fortunate – but most of us would like to sleep at night knowing we actually deserve to be where we are. So striving for equality of opportunity is certainly a worthwhile goal if only to keep our sanity
So context of capitalism – unless we’re ready to just give up everything we have to people who we can’t really determine are deserving, the best we can do is do what we can to help those people have the same chance as we did to prove their worth. Level the playing field – but don’t rig the prizes.
That said, what worries me is that assuming equality of opportunity has actually been realized – I can’t help but feel the inevitability of the Pareto principle still dooms us to some form a dog eat dog sort of scenario down the road. Again, like in Monopoly, everyone starts equal, but one person ultimately takes everything.
As mentioned earlier – death seemed to be the common denominator in the events that have brought a considerable amount of “equalization” – and it’s depressing to think of the implications of that fact/truth.
Like imagine if there were no wars etc. But we eventually ran out of natural resources. Will our human nature just let ourselves just “starve and die” because taking more than what could be ‘rationed’, would mean someone else would starve/die?
We probably could sacrifice ourselves, but can we do the same with our kids? Just watch them die if they happened to be “weaker” than the rest? Probably not an easy decision to make when the cards are down
It seems these “events of great death” kept most of us from crossing such moral dilemmas (because we could still blame something other than ourselves) I guess criminals have crossed this sort of dilemma one way or another out of desperation – but still, we try to dissociate our morality from theirs simply because we were fortunate enough to have a choice.
But there MIGHT come a time we’ll have to face the issue collectively as a society – a time where there will be no escape from the choice of choosing yourself (and what’s yours) over someone else(‘s)
Overpopulation seems to be an issue only because the people aren’t distributed properly to utilize the “places” that can still be cultivated and where [new] societies can flourish. It’s an issue of congestion among other things. But if we assume that we don’t find a way to balance our consumption and cultivation of (and production from) natural resources 2 Assuming we’ve stopped DESTROYNG nature as well – then overpopulation will be the immediate threat – then what are we gonna do? If we don’t find a way to restore the resources, or find another planet to colonize, the only solution will literally be culling of the population. When that day comes unlike with wars, we’ll all be complicit in the decision – and we won’t get to take any moral high ground unless we just voluntarily keel over.
I really don’t know what to conclude – this post was more of a reflection really.
I don’t think capitalism is at fault, but I do hope we find some way past “currency” or “competence” or “competition” – but I honestly can’t think of anything that might work.
Inequality exists and is a problem we really have to solve, but if we’re approaching it from the angle of gunning for equity – then it seems like we might just dig a deeper hole for ourselves.
]]>In watch collecting circles the term ‘grail watch’ is thrown about to describe a particular rare and high value vintage piece that is hugely coveted by collectors. … If they got their hands on such a watch, they would never sell it.
There are also different but just as compelling definitions
While I do appreciate watches, I wouldn’t consider myself as a collector – so to me a “grail”, instead of something that I wished I had (but cannot) – is a watch that I consider a must have – so in that sense I guess I would agree with the last part of the google search definition – it’s a watch I would want to own/use and with no intention to sell. For the unattainable/impractical “grail” – I’d use the word “dream” instead.
Whatever the case may be, whether I’m using the term right or not, I’ve always had my eyes on a Grand Seiko – and not just any Grand Seiko, but one that had a spring drive movement. As Serendipity would have it – they had a model that was also in a titanium case – and just happened to be the most iconic model of the bunch: the SBGA211 – otherwise known as the Snowflake
Now why a Grand Seiko in particular? One major reason is I find it to be a good litmus test that differentiates the two different watch people you usually come across.
There are “watch people” that only determine a watch’s worth based on its brand/price. I wouldn’t necessarily say these are pretentious people – because this is the closest thing men have that’s comparable to women’s jewelry, and whether we like it or not, the feeling of status/prestige that accompanies ownership of a luxury item is, for better or worse, something that coaxes positive emotions from the human psyche. And that’s fair enough – but there’s no getting around the fact that these people appreciate luxury more than they do horology. “Watch snobs” would probably be a fair term to describe such a group
But there are also “watch people” who actually appreciate watches for the amazing things they are, and who’s respect for a brand or model is not necessarily tied to its “status.” Their appreciation for the expensive brands is not because they’re expensive, but for the engineering/craftsmanship involved (which incidentally made them expensive) – it’s this same nuanced appreciation is what allows them to appreciate even those that aren’t necessarily expensive or prestigious.
This is the “secret handshake” among gentlemen which I prefer to experience instead of wearing a more “famous” brand. Because any sort of pretense is absent from the conversation – you know you’re talking to someone who genuinely appreciates watches without any caveats period.
The Grand Seiko line has a unique characteristic in that it’s a brand that has a sort of “hipster” (for lack of a better term) appeal – because only real watch nerds would appreciate what the brand represents.
As far as innovation, quality etc. goes, nobody can deny that Seiko can deliver the goods if they wanted to (which they do in the Grand Seiko / Credor lines) – and yet the parent company is known to sell, simply put, NON-luxury watches. And it’s that fact that many from the first camp have reservations regarding anything bearing the “Seiko” name the same way they would regard other established brands.
So now we got the brand choice down, how about the movement choice – why spring drive when they’ve got the Hi-Beat? I guess it’s the same reason why I picked a Milgauss for my Rolex – an idiosyncrasy of mine is that I don’t like “common” stuff… and I certainly try to stay away from what everyone else tends to get. Maiba lang kumbaga 1 Although that said, I have to admit the Snowflake is possibly one of the most sought after Grands Seikos
That’s precisely why I like supporting crowdfunding sites: because you get to have stuff that stand out on their own merit. When a person compliments a watch I got from Kickstarter, the reason one can only deduce is because they genuinely like what they see – because it sure as hell isn’t because of its price, prestige, or provenance.
So going back to the spring drive – my proclivity for the “more than meets the eye” experience is fulfilled through it. It also goes well with the fact that I’m a tech person. While the “tech” in [traditional] mechanical watches is impressive in their own right, the engineering feat represented by the spring drive is just mind-blowing. I wouldn’t even say the watch is “in the middle” (of traditional and modern) – as it feels more like complete integration of these aspects into a unified whole.
Just like with the name of the brand, the spring drive gets a bad rap simply because people think that it having a quartz element means it’s a “quartz-watch” – which is rather unfortunate. Let me try explain just how amazing this movement is.
For all intents and purposes, it’s a mechanical watch. The only difference is that the regulation is being done electromagnetically instead of a traditional escapement.
First lets go through the way a mechanical movement works. The “power” of your watch is the stored energy from a [wound] mainspring which obviously would like to “unwind” itself. Of course, leaving it to its own devices, it’s just going to want to return to its “unwound” state as fast as it possibly could along with the various components connected to it (which are practically everything).
So you need to regulate this “unwinding” in such a way that the hands are moving in the “increments of time” they’re expected to move. That is to say the second hand makes a full revolution in 60 seconds, the minute hand in 60 minutes and the hour hand in 12 hours.
Traditionally, this is accomplished by an escapement mechanism which allows the mainspring’s “power” to be transmitted in small but continuous “steps” by alternating between “locked” and “drive” states. This is what essentially causes the ticking sound of these watches/clocks.
The more lock/drive state alternations (beats) that can be crammed into a given time interval would mean better granularity and overall accuracy generally speaking.
Instead of the alternate lock/drive nature of an escapement, the spring drive applies a continuous brake electromagnetically. As an analogy, imagine if your car was going down an incline, and you wanted to keep your speed in check, you’d apply a certain amount of brake until you’re slow enough – and modulate accordingly to keep at that speed. The spring drive does a similar thing but with electromagnetic force.
And this is is where the electrical components come into play. The spring drive converts some of the motion into current that powers circuitry that oscillates a quartz crystal, which is then used as a reference to apply the electromagnetic brake – ensuring the glide wheel rotates at a certain rate.
So that’s pretty much the role of quartz crystal. You cannot say it’s a “quartz watch” the same way you cannot say a car with an internal combustion engine is an electric car just because it has electronics in it. The spring drive is still a mechanical watch because power is still generated and transmitted by a traditional mainspring. But it’s unique in that it leverages the accuracy of a quartz watch by using its crystal to regulate the movement – and amazingly enough the entire electronic system needs no batteries to operate – as the power is generated from the mechanical energy already present.
For mechanical watches to pass COSC certification, they require deviation of (give or take) 5 seconds per day at most. Rolex is known to hold itself to stricter standards which is why their watches are accurate up to a deviation of 2-3 seconds a day. With spring drives, this deviation is down to 0.5 to 1 second per day. And this is a modest approximation as most spring drive watches gain only about 5 seconds a month.
Granted, the typical mechanical watch user isn’t that anal about accuracy – otherwise they would just get a [much cheaper] quartz watch, right? Still, it’s a testament of just how well the spring drive was able to blend and minimize the shortcomings of mechanical (accuracy) and quartz (battery) watches.
One can’t help but compare the Grand Seikos to Rolexes since they’re in that same mid-tier price range. But comparing it to my Milgauss at least, I can confidently say that the Grand Seiko has far better finishing. A friend of mine even said that the brand’s level of detail/finish is right up there with the top tier brands. It’s certainly punching way above its class.
Pound for pound, compared to a Rolex it’s tricky to consider as to which has a better value because it would depend on how you would define a watch’s “value”. If it’s a matter of pure watchmaking and performance, the argument can certainly be made for the Grand Seikos.
But there’s a reason why “Rolex is King” despite it essentially being a mid-tier brand, and it’s a well earned title. They’re no slouch as far as innovation (particularly in manufacturing goes, so its not like I’m suggesting that they would be inferior to the brand I’m currently comparing it to. They’re built like tanks – their recommended service intervals are a testament of that. Most importantly, they hold value extremely well. In an emergency, you can easily liquidate a Rolex – it’s practically good as cash. You can’t even say the same for the big three cuz their prices are a bit restrictive.
Be that as it may, think of it this way: Imagine you went to a different planet where the inhabitants appreciated aesthetic and technical merits similar to us humans. Imagine that none of our watch brands existed in that planet. If you had them take a look at a Rolex and a Grand Seiko watch and asked which they thought was a better watch – it’s really not going to be a surprise if they picked the Grand Seiko as it just looks more “put together” on first inspection.
Then of course you have the titanium case which is a big plus for a titanium whore such as myself. The watch is extremely light compared to most of my watches – save for two; my late father’s [vintage] “dress” GP, and my 39mm Redux Courg from KS – which incidentally is in a titanium case as well
When you ask a normal person what the most identifiable trait of a mechanical watch is – they usually refer to how the second hand sweeps – that the smoother it goes, the better it is. Now while not necessarily true, 2 What if you have a watch with a deadbeat movement? Bulova’s got a mecha-quartz precisionist movement that moves the second hand sixteen times per second. the appeal of a sweeping second hand is certainly something watch people can appreciate.
If the byproduct of an escapement is the ticking sound and the hands moving in steps, the byproduct of the spring drive’s frictionless electromagnetic regulation is a silent and mesmerizing fluid sweep of the second hand. You can get lost just staring at it. The spring drive, to my knowledge, is the only movement where the second hand just “glides” – the nearest contender is Bulova’s precisionist movement – but even that, when slowed down in video will still reveal the steps. Plus the precisionist is an actual quartz movement – so it’s not even a mechanical watch.
That said, comparing the Grand Seiko to my Milgauss makes the latter look like the “quartzy” one in the pair
Grand Seiko recently went through a rebranding; they decided to drop the prominent “Seiko” logo that was, quite frankly, hurting the Grand Seiko line’s commercial appeal. It’s about goddamn time as well – like you never hear people say “Toyota Lexus” or “Volkswagen Porsche”, right? “Seiko Grand Seiko” was even worse because of the redundancy.
So all Grand Seiko watches moving forward now just have the Grand Seiko logo and words on the dial. Because of that, the new Snowflake is a cleaner, and much more visually balanced version of its predecessor
Lastly, a spring drive is not the type of watch you’d have to worry about being duped should you be in the market for it. I mean I have no doubt there are fakes that exist, but I’m fairly certain they’re easy to tell from the real thing. The spring drive movement is just too impractical to duplicate. And even if they manage it – you still have to contend with the level of finishing the brand is known for – so it’s nearly impossible to find a knockoff that’ll tick both of those boxes – and besides it would be more profitable to focus that level of dedication (to counterfeit) to models/brands that are more recognizable.
It’s really just nitpicking at this point. But I like the size of my Rolex (40mm) vs the 41mm of the Snowflake – although the size can only really be noticed when they’re side by side cuz the case sizes are very similar, it’s just the actual watch face on the Grand Seiko is considerably larger.
While the finishing on the Grand Seiko is better than the Rolex, the tolerances on Rolex’s bracelet still is superior. 3 Rolex, after all, has always been particularly known to have the best bracelets I would’ve hoped they had the same screw-on pin approach like Rolex – although that probably has something to do with the difficulty of manufacturing titanium screws that small. The Hi-Beat models in fact, do have screw-on pins.
It matters little either way – since I always end up swapping the bracelets for straps
I’m also not a fan of date windows – but I like power reserve indicators. Unfortunately, I don’t think they ever released a no-date spring drive model that had a power reserve indicator in the front. Can’t have it all, I guess.
Lume could also be a con – you won’t be able to read time in darkness as most Grand Seikos aren’t lumed – but that could be a plus since nothing inside the dial will “degrade” over time practically speaking.
All in all, it’s pretty obvious that I’m just really really searching for things to hit it with, none of these “cons” are really cons.
The only real concern I really had with this is that it seemed to look too dressy to be able to use as an everyday watch. So the first thing I set out to do was to find a strap that could make it lend itself well to a more casual setting.
At first I was looking at the typical leather straps at the local Hirsch stall when I noticed a “stone” strap which was totally left of field – I loved it. Conceptually, I imagined the stone finish would go well with the “snowflake” texture. But upon trying it I noticed that the strap’s desaturated tone didn’t quite match with the Snowflake’s dial for some inexplicable reason. Could it be that the dial was actually [imperceptibly] off-white?
Then I saw the other variation of the strap – this time it had a white trim but had an earthy hue as its stone texture. While the white and silver clasp obviously went well with the watch, the warm & saturated stone texture, conceptually, shouldn’t have worked – and yet for some reason it did:
I’ve been racking my brain as to why the hell this strap is working as well as it is – and my best guess is that the color of human skin is warm in general, so this earthy “hue” is still matching/blending with something. Perhaps this is why brown/tan leather straps work well on watches the way they do generally speaking. Also notice that the white trim isn’t exactly the same as the dial as well, but because it’s just a trim, the overall earthy hue was providing some sort of visual illusion that made it blend better – something which the other [totally desaturated] strap couldn’t manage.
In any case, I never new it was possible make a Grand Seiko look more casual, let alone sporty. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never underestimate the value of straps – and why you should not be afraid to experiment. Even the salesperson mentioned it was a difficult strap to match – so what happened here was the definition of a fluke. But I ran with it – I had a week to return/exchange the strap – I never did
I don’t have a good way of ending this “review” – so I’ll just do a bit of a political dig. I’m tempted to use “Ano ka, relo!?” as a boilerplate response to any social justice warrior going too goddamn far. Because the SBGA211 is the only snowflake worthy of respect
Notes
⇡1 | Although that said, I have to admit the Snowflake is possibly one of the most sought after Grands Seikos |
---|---|
⇡2 | What if you have a watch with a deadbeat movement? Bulova’s got a mecha-quartz precisionist movement that moves the second hand sixteen times per second. |
⇡3 | Rolex, after all, has always been particularly known to have the best bracelets |
Unfortunately, it was an underwhelming experience. The ES100 just set the bar too high as far as these types of devices go.
I kinda feel sorry for the Bluewave guys – particularly because they’ve been outclassed in almost all aspects by the Radsone guys. I’d like to be able to give them a fair shake but it’s just easier to frame the situation by comparing the two products – given they’re practically supposed to be doing the same thing: deliver high quality Bluetooth audio that you can use with any of your headphones.
This is probably the only portion I’ll have decent things to say about the Get:
Packaging was better the ES100 in genereal. The box had a beefier structure – which was a good thing since these things tend to be shipped via envelopes/packs instead of actual “boxes.” My ES100 box wasn’t so lucky. The padding protected the unit fine, but it would’ve been nice had it been “mint” in every way. I’m nitpicking obviously, but hey, gotta find some points for Bluewave somehow It comes the unit, charging cable and manual (under the USB cable padding)
It’s a good looking unit, I’ll give them that. Both have clips; metal for the Get, plastic for the ES100 – so point for the Get there. The ES100 does have that lanyard hole though so make of that as you will.
Size-wise they’re pretty much the same with the Get slightly bigger only because of that barrel – but said barrel is made of aluminum – which gives it a bit of a premium feel as well as a quirky aesthetic if that’s what you prefer. The ES100 on the other hand is more minimalist in its design (and I really dig its LED indicator) – so it’s hard to say which one is better. It would depend on one’s taste.
Given the size of these devices, the controls of the Get are much easier to operate as they’re considerably larger. I also like the idea of the jog dial for the volume – this allows you to quickly change volume instead of the linear response of the ES100 which can take quite a while (and can easily make you press the other side which are the FWD and RWD buttons.
The [Get’s] jog dial doesn’t seem to digital though (not infinitely rolling) – which would suggest a basic potentiometer approach. I wonder if it would get noisy during operation over time as the contacts get dirty. I can’t be certain and I’m not keen on opening this thing up just to find out.
The positioning of the jack (underneath) is also ideal because naturally headphones tend to have long-ish cables, so you just want them to naturally drop. The ES100 has its jacks on its side, so unless you’ve got an L-shaped cable (or are clipping it sideways) it can get pretty annoying. It would’ve been better had they put both jacks at the bottom along with the USB connector.
This is where the Get’s praises stop – because here on out I’m just basically going to prove how inferior it is to the ES100.
The Get was funded in Dec 2016, the ES100 in July 2017. My ES100 obviously shipped three months earlier despite the fact that they started the campaign more than half a year later.
The Get feels pretty basic compared to the ES100. Granted, the ES100 was launched later – so if it was a matter of competing, they obviously had more time to see how to “outdo” the competition (which at that time I would’ve said it was pretty much just the Get) but given how much features are packed in the ES100, and that the Get shipped later, excusable or not, it makes them look really bad.
So shipping aside, let’s see how the ES100 outclasses the Get feature-wise.
Starting with the output jacks, the Get has the typical 3.5mm TRS jack, but the ES100 has two output possibilities: the 3.5 and a balanced 2.5mm TRRS (which I’ve been using exclusively ever since I got it), and you can’t dismiss that as a ‘gimmick’ because those types of outputs are usually seen on really high end equipment.
The ES100’s got 350mAh worth of juice vs the Get’s 200mAh battery – in a relatively smaller form factor.
The Get uses the CSR8675 BT platform – which to be fair, is said to be the most advanced bluetooth platform to date but uses its built-in DAC. The ES100 on the other had, uses two external AK4375a DAC ICs.
If you want an analogy on why this might be a better setup, think of it as an Apple laptop that’s using built-in graphics vs having a discrete GPU (or two, in this case). Sure, the platform (board) is certainly “top-tier”, but there are always compromises when just using built-in features vs having discrete hardware added to deal with specific tasks. The Radsone guys have developed headsets/receivers with the CSR8675 and yet have still deemed it lacking for high-quality audio requirements.
You can upgrade the firmware on both, but the ES100’s updates allow much more low level access on the hardware – for example they’ve just enabled ambient mode via hardware button – which previously could only be toggled via the App. I seriously doubt the Get could do anything close to adding extra features apart from just trying to “tweak” existing ones.
The Get is supposed to have a companion app – but as of this post it still hasn’t been released… so it’s difficult to determine exactly what added value (if any) is to be had. So I’m going to talk about the ES100’s instead. 1 Which, FWIW, was available for download even before their units shipped
The ES100’s EQ setting can be set via app. This feature is huge as it allows you to tune your headphones further of your music source.
Furthermore, the ES100 further extends its mic functionality with an “ambient mode” – basically allowing you to hear your environment should you be using sound isolating earphones or in-ear monitors. The Get doesn’t do this.
You can also adjust the actual voltage being delivered to your earphones via the app. This, interestingly enough, exposes one major flaw of the Get; it was “tuned” for high-impedance headphones. That means if you, like me, are using more “sensitive” equipment – there will be an audible “hiss.” Not only can’t you adjust voltage to compensate on the Get, but you know what their actual solution was? To offer a cable that attenuates the signal.
Bluewave’s offering the attenuator for free – but you’d still have to pay for shipping… and honestly it makes me wonder why can’t they deal with this on a firmware level!? Which just goes to show how much better designed the ES100 is. That voltage switching feature is how Radsone solves the ‘impedance dilemma’ – the fact that Bluewave’s “solution” is a hardware addon just underscores how limited the Get is in its implementation.
So normally the only way I could recommend the Get is if you were using high impedance headphones… but here’s the kicker: The Get retails at $130 (but I hear they’re still selling it at their crowdfunding price of $99). 2 Which is how much I got it for, btw The ES100 retails at $80-$90 – and I got mine for $50. And if you re-read this entire article with this little fact, every issue is now magnified. Because as far as I’m concerned, I just spent $40 more for a ridiculously inferior product.
The only way left is for them to slash the price further and undercut the ES100 by a considerable margin – because seriously, why would anyone bother with the Get at $99 when you can get the ES100 $10 cheaper? Nevermind the fact that Bluewave technically should’ve had longer to work on this product, I’m just trying to come up with a good reason I could recommend the Get in any context – when basically a cheaper product does more, and does it better – and I’ve got nothing.
FWIW, the folks at Bluweave have mentioned they’ll be making another model for low impedance headphones, 3 Which previous backers will still have to purchase anew – but the fact that the ES100 exists makes that plan of theirs pointless and silly at this point. Because it’s not unreasonable to say “don’t bother with the Get; just get the ES100 and be done with it.
There’s absolutely no reason to get the Get over the ES100. A good purchase analogy would’ve been like getting the GoPro Karma when there the similarly priced DJI Mavic that was better in every way.
]]>The Subtech pro dry bag is a 45-liter waterproof duffle style bag that is over-engineered in its durability. It can be used as a backpack or a regular hand carry bag and the sealing design doesn’t stop at making it waterproof – but airtight – which is quite a claim to have.
Unlike other products that promise things and then fall short of expectations, by design, this bag – even in its prototype stage – was being tested by athletes in various situations. One particularly memorable (and totally extra) demo video I saw was having someone dive into a pool with the bag (in backpack mode) filled with air – from a proper competition diving platform – just to demonstrate how solid the seams/connections were.
Apart from being able to use it as a backpack, it also has a removable and inflatable shockproof inner lining system (that entire yellow thing you can see in the picture. If you look closely enough, you can also see the inflation valve which gives it its shockproof characteristics at the expense of total volume capacity. Of course, inflation is optional.
The bag has one single zippered opening running diagonally – and the actual hardware used is no joke:
The zipper system (rails/etc) is yuuuge. The zipper pull, if you can’t figure it out by looking at it – was meant to be “hooked” onto by your fingers – so vertical part goes through your fingers, and the horizontal part locks behind them. Which is great because the type of hardware used to achieve proper sealing requires a bit of mechanical advantage to pull on the zipper in either direction (and to make sure it’s fully zipped when closed). I just added the paracord loops for extra leverage.
There’s really nothing much more to talk about as far as its function as a bag goes: it can hold 45L (less if you inflate the internal lining) worth of stuff – and is waterproof.
But it being airtight was always something that I wanted to confirm for myself. I mean sure I’ve seen the videos – but it’s still different to actually know for sure. So I sealed it up, put something heavy on top of it.
And if that didn’t convince you – let me do one better: I took it to the beach and treated it as a flotation device.
If that doesn’t convince you, I don’t know what will. And to think to this day I never had to use the sealing lubricant that came with it – which just goes to show how good the quality of this bag is.
While the bag seems to be packed with “uncommon” features – they all contribute to a very straightforward (and frankly, quite useful) experience. None of the features get in the way but are there when you need them.
I honestly can’t think of anything to complain about. Even the aesthetics are nice (but of course, that’s subjective) I like the minimalism and them having just enough accents to not make it look boring. They give off a tactical vibe to them. And it ages so well! I don’t know if it’s just because I’m good at maintaining my stuff, or if it’s because of the material used, but that picture with the paracord was VERY recent – the material just makes it look as clean and crisp as it was when it was brand new.
Ever since I received it, this bag has been my go to bag whenever I need to pack/lug a lot of stuff. The only times I don’t use it is when I travel on my bike (in which I have purpose built bags for that) or if I need to get on a plane (where I use proper luggage bags) But other than that, out of town, the beach, a performance, I just use this bag and it has served me very well.
I was very tempted to back the v2.0 since it had some added features – but decided against it for practical reasons – I did however back their 95L tote bag and internal divider that was backwards compatible with the model I own.
If there’s anything to be learned from this post is that Subtech products are the bomb. They may be pricey – but considering their durability and performance, I’d put them over most “commercially known” brands – because their products, marketing or not, will definitely stand on their own merits – and when you get to use the – you’ll get to confirm this yourself.
]]>To save readers from possibly wasting their time, let me preface this review by mentioning that this product was made for fountain pen users. I honestly don’t have the time to explain why one would even want to consider using a more “involved” instrument as far as utility goes given the I-just-wanna-get-things-over-with-quickly mindset we tend to have with everyday tasks.
Instead, let me point you to this article. There are a bunch of other articles that discuss the merits of fountain pens, but they all essentially say the same thing.
Whatever you may end up reading, either you agree with them, or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s totally fine, and and it’d be best that you stop reading now and just wait for the next post/review.
If you do then read on…
Apparently everyone but Visconti itself calls this an inkwell. Probably because it sounds better than “ink pot” – which is amusing given that’s the actual phrase printed on the product. To be accurate, I’d call it an ink tube, but I digress.
It’s a pretty straightforward product despite its ridiculously large user manual. 1 Seriously, unfolding that and you end up with something the size of a newspaper page It is exactly what it says it is; an inkwell made for travelling.
“Why in the hell would anyone need something like this!?” you may ask. Well, simply put – nobody does. But it doesn’t make it any less useful for those who may find use for it. Maybe some people just write so damn much outdoors that they find themselves out of ink often.
My case is much simpler: I hardly write [physically] – but when I do, I want some “joy” to be had out of the endeavor. But all the same, I don’t write often enough to ensure that the ink doesn’t dry out. So filling the reservoirs or getting cartridges full of ink [that I won’t get to use regularly] is very inefficient and wasteful – and will most likely just dry out by the time I do need to write.
I found that simply dipping my pen in ink usually gives me enough ink to last the entire “session” I needed to use the pen for. That’s how seldom I physically write. Which now then leaves me in a conundrum: bringing an ink bottle obviously is daft. Bringing a vial of it is much more practical (and is what others do) but trying to refill your pen from such [small] containers can be really messy 2 You could bring syringes, I guess, but we have to admit how ridiculously extra everything would be at that point – let alone trying to dip it – which is impossible.
That’s where this little puppy comes in.
There’s a tapered rubber gasket inside that allows you to shove in pens of varying body sizes and get a proper seal – avoiding spillage. You then turn it upside down to soak/submerge the feed in ink allowing it to be sucked it into your converter/bladder/etc.
In my case, I don’t even have to use my converter – just tip it over and back and I have essentially “dipped” my pen 3 Of course in this case, I soaked the nib/feed – which is essentially the same thing
Gotta admit as far as function goes – this is a well thought product. It allows you to put in a massive amount of ink (5.5ml), it seals very well, and it allows you to refill your pen with minimum fuss – all in the size similar to a whiteboard marker.
The cap also doubles as a not so secret container for some absorbent material for cleaning up excess ink. They were even thoughtful enough to include an eyedropper tool for putting ink into it. (The dropper, obviously – you leave at home)
For what it’s supposed to do – I’d say that this is product does it very well. There’s really nothing to complain about function wise. Sure there’s a limit as to how thick a pen you could shove in there, but any wider and it would end up impractically large.
The only thing I would be concerned about is how the rubber gasket deteriorates over time – that single point of failure (short of crushing/shattering the thing) just so happens to be most critical part; the one that keeps the ink from bleeding out all over your shit… and its secured by a material that can wear down.
Another would be the price. This is a $70 contraption. And considering it’s just made of plastic and rubber – I’m having trouble recommending this to anyone unless they feel they absolutely need it. Personally I could justify the $70 price tag had they used premium materials for it. Like a metal body, tempered glass for the measurement window, threaded main cap with o-ring instead of just relying on the internal gasket and friction to keep it in place. To be fair it’s really snug – so I’m not worried about it accidentally popping of… for now, at least.
In short, this would’ve been a great product at a lower price; I’m thinking $10-$20. At $70, it’s just ridiculous. One would expect a more premium build at this price range. Too bad I only realized it when I opened the box – in the videos and pictures it looked pretty “premium” 4 And those who reviewed in videos didn’t seem to comment on the build materials – but in the plastic, it definitely doesn’t feel like something that costs $70.
Notes
⇡1 | Seriously, unfolding that and you end up with something the size of a newspaper page |
---|---|
⇡2 | You could bring syringes, I guess, but we have to admit how ridiculously extra everything would be at that point |
⇡3 | Of course in this case, I soaked the nib/feed – which is essentially the same thing |
⇡4 | And those who reviewed in videos didn’t seem to comment on the build materials |
At the end of the day though, they’re relatively unknown commercially – so all their documentation/claims could be smoke and mirrors… or maybe I’m just not into the industry that much – and that I may have ignorantly misjudged a well regarded brand.
Whatever the case may be, they launched a product in KS/Indiegogo that looked promising: a studio quality Bluetooth audio receiver. At an early bird price of $50, I thought it was worth a shot.
I’m a line-in sorta guy. I would never call myself an audiophile (on principle) but I do know good sound when I hear it. 2 That’s as far as I can confidently claim “expertise” on that subject. So for me, if a wireless technology can get close to a line-in sound, then I’m a happy camper. A lot of BT products have claimed that in the past (and continue to do so) – but the reality is that going from line-in to BT (especially in a portable setup) most of the time is like going from line-in to radio.
The problem is a lot of companies focus on the more “pedestrian” features such as having booming bass. They never really focus on balance, separation, and clarity. Granted, it could be argued that asking for studio grade quality is pointless in a mobile scenario where the environment constantly changes – but with the advent of noise canceling headphones and IEMs, 3 In Ear Monitors common folk now have access to pretty good sound isolation where the audio you’re listening to can now take center stage wherever you are.
While the BT standard can certainly handle enough audio throughput to support lossless (or extremely high quality audio at the very least) the bottleneck has always been in the quality of their DACs 4 (Digital to Analog Converters – and for some reason, 5 although it’s highly possible that it’s simply because I have never been doing my due diligence a reasonably priced/portable BT receiver that can deliver good sound is quite elusive.
To be fair, I had purchased a Jabra Clipper years ago – and was quite happy with its performance (although only intended to use it for running then) – the only major issue was it had too much bass (which I guess most people like) and couldn’t be adjusted. Nevertheless, it was one of the few decent receivers that allowed me to use my own headphones.
As an aside, checking their site right now, they have no model that does what the Clipper did – either they have headsets that have their own built-in earphones, or actual speakers. I wonder why they didn’t continue the receiver-only line.
But getting back on topic… you get the point – the same goes for car audio – but I digress. What I needed was a modern replacement for my Clipper – and the Radsone EarStudio ES100 showed lots of promise.
So the gist is that this is supposedly able to output 88.2kHz/24-bit sound, supporting lossless audio though the BT protocol. Of course it would ultimately depend on what actual codec(s) it supports (more on this later), but as far as hardware goes, it seemed more than capable.
The box out of the post office was pretty banged up, but thankfully it was just cosmetics – the foam molding inside provided adequate protection.
The package contained three things: The ES100 unit, a micro USB charging cable, and a 2.5mm TRRS balanced cable – which was an optional add-on I purchased.
The unit is extremely light; made entirely out of plastic – but the finishing on it was impressive – it didn’t look plasticky. The rear had a clip which is pretty much par for the course – but far easier to use than the Clipper’s – so that was a plus. You can also see the 3.5 headphone jack and the volume controls on the sides.
The opposite side has your playback controls, and a 2.5mm TRRS balanced full differential output jack – which is worth noting because this sort of connector configuration is usually found in higher end equipment. This, coupled with their documentation, and responses to the KS comment section inspires confidence as they sound like they really know their stuff 6 At the very least they know better than I do LOL
Powering up the thing enables a single multicolor LED embedded beneath the translucent surface – which I have to say, looks extremely elegant. The startup/shutdown tone however could’ve been more “professional” like just a couple of ascending descending beeps – instead they went with a chime sound which quite frankly reminds me of cheap Chinese electronics. I’m nitpicking obviously Besides, it could’ve been worse – like some talking female with a janky accent.
As you may have noticed from the previous picture, it is pretty small. Below you can see it compared to my old Jabra Clipper. Considering it has much larger (and stylish) LED, an added dedicated output jack, and I’m assuming a larger battery – not bad at all!
Using it with the much shorter 2.5mm cable allows me to store it with my IEMs connected to it – making it a breeze for busting out and storing. And of course, it’s very neat when worn because of the minimal cable length.
They definitely sound better than the Jabra. I wouldn’t necessarily say they sound the same had I plugged directly into the phone, but it’s pretty close.
It’s also worth mentioning that I’m using an iPhone, so AFAIK the output is not utilizing the full capabilities of the ES100. AirPlay requires WiFi so I don’t think Apple actually has a BT counterpart for lossless audio, unlike Android’s aptX
. They obviously got their AirPods which run on BT 4.1, but I don’t think they opened up the protocol for other manufacturers to integrate into 3rd party products – and I’m not even sure if it’s even doing lossless audio, at that. I would like to try this with an Android device and see how much of a difference using aptX
with it would be.
Long story short, the sound is excellent, but not optimal – and that’s not the ES100’s fault (or at least I don’t think it is). So again, I wouldn’t take any points away from it. It’s more than enough for someone like me until something better comes along, and whatever it may be lacking, it makes up with a bunch of useful features such as:
Probably the most useful feature. Being able to adjust frequencies is always a good thing – so this alone already blows my old Clipper (and possibly most receivers) out of the water. I like it especially because it allows me to tune the ES100 to the particular phones I’m using it with. So for example, my FlipEars Alpha Greens have a relatively early rolloff on the highs, so I can tweak those back in for a more balanced sound. Then when i switch to my UE IERMs – I could just set it flat. Or when I use my IE40’s, I could dial down the lows and highs a bit. I can basically dial in my headphone sound without having to tweak anything from the actual source device.
The jury’s out on how useful this exactly is. It sounds (pun not intended) like a good idea especially for those of us who use IEMs which tend to completely block out all other sounds around us. Even more so with some of us that use IEMs that are custom fit to our ear canals – because it can get tedious to have to remove them whenever someone wants to talk to us, then put them back in. So having a way to just let the sound in when needed is certainly useful.
Luckily the ES100 has a microphone – so not only can it be used for hands free calls, but the mic can also be used to allow external sound to pass through and mix with your jam.
Why is the jury out on this you may ask? Because it only activates while sound is playing on your device (whether it be music or system sounds) – after which it disables itself. The sound isolation provided by custom IEMs are equivalent to legitimate earplugs, so I’d still have to take them off if someone happens to talk to me while nothing is playing.
Also, it’s a fully on or off sort of deal – there’s no noise gate, limiter, or any sort of threshold algorithm. So for you to hear someone properly you’d have to set it at a level that basically literally lets you hear the ambient sound as well all the time it’s on with your music – which defeats the purpose of having sound isolating earphones.
While you think it’s just a matter of turning it on or off as needed – you’d be right. However you’d always have to dig into the app to do it – which is not as quick and efficient as you think it is. It would be nice for them to put a widget on the iOS lock screen to switch it on/off – then it would be much more usable then – but as it is, it’s just not practical to use unless you can anticipate when you’ll actually need it to be on.
Oh and I forgot to mention that it’s got a considerable amount of latency – so you’ll find yourself a bit distracted by the delay when trying to converse through it.
There are other “proprietary” algorithms they employ such as “Distinctive Clear Technology” and Jitter Correction, both of which, quite frankly are imperceptible regardless of settings – but again, perhaps it’s because my source isn’t utilizing the full bandwidth of the device. Or maybe I just have lousy ears – so take this with a grain of salt.
It even allows you to manipulate the actual voltage/current driving your headphones… which personally I feel is unnecessary – and awfully dangerous unless you know what you’re doing. Then again, it means that you’ll have no problems driving even high impedance earphones so perhaps it’s worth the risk.
Lastly, you can also upgrade the firmware of the device – which is promising because I hope the support for better Apple codec performance is just a software thing – rather than requiring new hardware. I will subtract some points for the fact that you can only upgrade via Windows. Where’s the love for Unix users, right? I mean it’s just a commandline batch file in Windows, you mean to say they can’t just port it to a Terminal script?
Or better yet, since they have a mobile app – why not allow the upgrade to be done from the app?
Overall, I’m very pleased with the ES100. I think it’s well worth even at retail ($80) given how much quality and functionality is packed into this thing – and that’s from an Apple user. What more if you have an Android that can use it to its full potential.
I really don’t use a point system in my reviews 7 Which is ironic since I keep on mentioning “taking points” here and there. But if I were to rate it on a scale of 1-10, I’d say it’s a solid 8. I don’t think anyone would be disappointed with this thing unless you have dog’s ears.
aptX
and aptX HD
audio codecsThe ES100 as of this posting is not yet commercially available, but I would imagine you could purchase them at their site when available.
Notes
⇡1 | Short for Radical Sound – beats me where the E came from LOL |
---|---|
⇡2 | That’s as far as I can confidently claim “expertise” on that subject. |
⇡3 | In Ear Monitors |
⇡4 | (Digital to Analog Converters |
⇡5 | although it’s highly possible that it’s simply because I have never been doing my due diligence |
⇡6 | At the very least they know better than I do LOL |
⇡7 | Which is ironic since I keep on mentioning “taking points” here and there. |
In a previous post, mentioned the CardTec CA4 Pro being one of two devices I go to whenever I need to be mobile with my laptop. The other device is the one I’ll be reviewing for this post: the Mofily Marble DCS1
While they both can charge my laptop (13″ MacBook Pro) in place of the stock power block, they have subtle differences that make it difficult for me to consider one as better than the other.The main difference is that the DCS1 is also an interface hub apart from being a power block. The DCS1’s purpose was to free Apple users from the dongle-hell that usually accompanies purchasing their new laptops that use USB-C/Thunderbolt3 ports exclusively. So instead of having separate dongles, they built USB 2 USB-C ports, 2 USB-A ports, a microSD reader, & an HDMI port right into it.
It’s the sort of thing you wish apple had made their own power blocks capable of doing – instead of trying to milk its customers for every last cent with all this dongle shit. I mean seriously, it’s practically just as big as the stock Apple power block – so you know it could be done – especially coming from a company that specializes in cramming shit into really small spaces.
It takes in a standard IEC 60320 C7/C8 (figure 8) power cord which it also comes with. Since it’s a common connector type, it allowed me to purchase a 15-foot cord for it – eliminating the need to worry about reaching power outlets.
So you might be asking, how is it that the CA4 Pro is still in the running compared to something like this? The Marble can also charge two type-A devices so that’s only 1 less charging port than the CA4 Pro… and it can do data.
It all boils down to the footprint, I guess.
While it does merge a power block and USB dongle(s) into one contraption, you still need a cable to connect it to the laptop apart from the one that’ll connect it to the power outlet – and this is assuming you’ve got enough space to have a laptop and a block on the same surface. If you just wanted to slouch on a couch with your laptop on your lap, then you might just have to think about where to put that block. 1 Because it is a charger – and it DOES get hot
Also, in all honesty, you really don’t need to be that “robust” every time – sometimes you just know that all you need is your laptop and some way to charge it (if need be) – and nothing else. It’s in those kinds of situations where the CA4 Pro shines. I could just have that and a charging cable for a cleaner setup and still be able to charge 3 other devices. 2 Not to mention still keeping the outlet free to be plugged into Also, I don’t have to worry about the type of outlet I’m plugging into because it’s a travel adaptor first and foremost.
The Marble is a no brainer if I know I’ll need to be accessing data from other devices that cannot be done wirelessly or if I think I’ll be needing a really long cord to connect to an outlet. but in terms of quick setup, etc. then the CA4 Pro is the better choice.
I guess another way to look at it is if say I entered a cafe and had to plug in. These conditions will be the deciding factors for me personally:
Worst case that I’m in a country with a weird socket and I need a more robust configuration? Then I’ll plug the Marble into the CA4 Pro
So there’s no clear winner if you’re particular about how streamlined your “mobile setup” is.
Another thing buyer’s should be wary of: While the Marble does work, it has its quirks.
For one, using it with some USB devices can be unreliable when it’s (the Marble, that is) plugged in to the wall. The marble seems to behave differently when acting only as a hub, or when it’s acting as a powerblock and hub (i.e. plugged into the wall).
In my case, plugging it in usually ejects some devices (in my case, my iOS devices). And plugging them in to an already plugged in Marble cannot get the latter to recognize them whether for charging or syncing.
The workaround is to use it as a hub instead of a charger – then everything works as expected – well, technically not “as expected” since what we expect is for it to work regardless of it’s plugged state. But it’s better than a completely broken unit that doesn’t work at all. It’s like one of those appliances that only works when you do something special to it LOL.
So your milage may vary depending on the type of user you are. As a product, it’s definitely a design flaw – but whether or not it’s worth dropping at least $100 on something on, you’ll just have to decide if the benefits of the portability and minimalism is worth the trouble of knowing that you have to remember to plug/unplug it depending what you want to do at the moment.
You can purchase a Marble at the Mofily webstore
]]>Until this day, I’m not sure exactly what the relation of Mogics is to Card-Tec, so unless corrected, I’m going to assume they’re sister companies. Sister companies that make great practical products.
Mogics started it with their Power Donut/Bagel, which easily got into my KS Hall of Fame. Followed up with Card-Tec’s CS1-Pro and CG1
Now, the company with a really clever logo brings us the CA4 Pro Travel Adaptor / USB charging hub / power brick.
In case it wasn’t obvious, Card-Tec’s entire product line (save for their bags, I guess) are all basically card-shaped stuff. 1 They even have a 10k+ mAh powerbank the size of a credit card – which is very tempting.
From the limited exposure I have with their products (currently three – four counting the Power Bagel) the quality of their stuff seems to be really well built – and more importantly well thought.
So let’s get into the CA4 Pro. The packaging is decent, and it comes with a high quality protective pouch, and a 1m USB type-C to type-C charging cable. We’ve got one universal socket in front and the the various plug configurations at the back which fulfills its purpose as a travel adaptor.
The back has a removable plate that also acts as a holder for the spare fuse. As to why they felt the need to create such a plate is beyond me (it isn’t really necessary IMHO, and just another thing you can lose), but points for allowing it to clean up the look.
Again, its base function/purpose is a travel adaptor, but size-wise – it’s going to be hard to beat the MA1 that came with my Power Bagel – so what exactly does it have that sets it apart?
For one, it’s a 4-port USB charing hub. 3 Type-A ports and 1 Type-C to be specific. It’s one of the few available charging hubs that allows you to charge your type-C device. Off the top of my head it would be comparable to the Anker Powerport+ 5, but despite having one type-A port less, the CA4 Pro still beats it because of it’s size and total wattage output on the PowerDelivery port.
Of course it’s only a matter of time before type-C ports will be just as ubiquitous as type-A, but for now, it’s great to have this practical a product available and on hand.
So we have a multi-device charging hub that also acts as a pass through travel adaptor – all in the general shape of a credit card.
That’s not all though; the power supply in this is enough to charge laptops as well. It can supply up to 60W – which is enough for charging a MacBook or a 13″ MacBook Pro. It has been tested and confirmed to work with the 15″ models as well (although it’ll probably charge slower)
So now we have a travel adaptor, charging hub (that supports USB-C), and laptop power brick in one… all in the shape of a credit card. If anything, it ought to be enough to choose it over the your stock power brick for your everyday use. And it definitely becomes really practical when traveling. 2 I also have a Marble DCS1 which I’ll be reviewing soon. But in a nutshell, the Marble and CA4 Pro two will be my two go-to bricks depending if I just need power, or data access to other devices.
As such, this definitely deserves a spot in my KS Hall of Fame
Notes
Some people have data plans on their phones. Others, like me, have it on a pocket WiFi (which I’ll henceforth call pWF) device – because WiFi sucks batteries less than data. 1 so you don’t end up with a phone that’s out of juice a few hours into the day The only problem of course is that the pWF itself uses cellphone data (and transmits via WiFi) – so the typical 1600mAh battery for such a device only lasts 6 hours – not nearly enough for a whole day’s use unless you have a powerbank handy.
While I do have a powerbank to use for both phone and pWF, our recent trip to Japan enlightened me to the fact that it can be cumbersome to have them both connected to it. So I prefer the powerbank to be used only for the phone if possible.
Another realization from our trip is that the pWF we rented can last a day – as it had a larger capacity battery (2600mAh). After a full day’s of normal use, 2 Granted, we were walking and taking photos more than we were surfing I still had 40% left. Perhaps the unit was more efficient in battery use – or perhaps it has something to do with the signal being readily available, 3 I hear that searching for a signal uses juice more than anything, so it may be that our crappy telcos give pWFs a harder time in general or both.
Whatever the case may be, that Japanese pWF lasted a day easily, and so it was decided: My current pWF (a Huawei E5331) was due for an upgrade. The search for a unit that had enough juice and worked with our cellular networks was on.
Didn’t have to look far. The Huawei E5770s was a unit that was compatible with our networks and seemed to check all the boxes right off the bat.
First, it comes with a whopping 5,200mAh battery. Considering my old pWF could give 6 hours with a 1,600mAh battery – then obviously the math says this will easily last an entire day.
One personal issue the monstrous battery life solved was this: I want my phone to be online all the time because in the event that I misplace it, I’ll be able to track it. But as I’ve mentioned earlier, having your phone’s data on all the time is a huge drain on the battery 4 Not to mention that my phone’s plan only had 400MB consumable data per month. – so using WiFi whenever possible addresses that concern.
In my case, I could now just keep mobile data on and not worry about going over my phone’s free data allotment – because it’s either I’m using our home network, or the pWF that lasts pretty much the entire time I’m out. The only time that’s left for it to actually use mobile data is when my phone is lost – which is ideal.
But perhaps you’re not like me, and feel 5,200mAh is a tad too much juice for your typical use. Not to worry, that extra battery weight is not wasted, it’s got a USB type-A slot that allows you to use it as a powerbank. It even cleverly incorporates a USB charge cable as a lanyard
Not only that, it also functions as a WiFi repeater/extender and can create a wireless connection from regular ethernet thanks to a RJ45 jack built right in as well.
Personally, this is great because I have an old CradlePoint CTR35 that was supposed to be precisely for converting tethered internet to WiFi. 5 I got it for traveling when WiFi wasn’t yet as ubiquitous as it is today The E5770s now merges the two devices and manages a size that’s right in the middle of both.
So at this point, every extra feature is already a bonus from my simple requirement of a pWF that can last an entire day of operation.
But wait, there’s more! It also accepts a microSD card so you can use it as some rudimentary storage device as well. I say rudimentary because it doesn’t function as a network node – in order to have “direct access” to the files, you need to access it through the HiLink App. If you’re not using the app (which is available for iOS and Android) then you’ll have to access the files through a web interface… which only allows you to put in or download from the SD card, not access the file(s) directly.
So for example you want to watch a movie – if you’re on a phone and have the HiLink app, you’re fine – just access the file through the app. But if you’re on a laptop – you’d have to access it through the web interface and download it to your machine before watching it.
I hope Huawei updates the firmware and allow it to function as a regular shared networked drive. For one I’d be able to use different network-enabled mobile apps to access the file (e.g. use a different video player instead of the built in OS media player) and of course on the desktop would just treat it like a regular shared drive.
But like I said, it’s already packed with value as it is – anything more, while welcome, is just icing on the cake.
Notes
⇡1 | so you don’t end up with a phone that’s out of juice a few hours into the day |
---|---|
⇡2 | Granted, we were walking and taking photos more than we were surfing |
⇡3 | I hear that searching for a signal uses juice more than anything, so it may be that our crappy telcos give pWFs a harder time in general |
⇡4 | Not to mention that my phone’s plan only had 400MB consumable data per month. |
⇡5 | I got it for traveling when WiFi wasn’t yet as ubiquitous as it is today |