Tech Trend 247

As you move towards the high-end spectrum of hi-fi, features on gadgets typically disappear. It's not uncommon to see a power amplifier, priced like a family car, with a single button, while amps that cost a few hundred bucks come with a bazillion knobs and switches. The idea is that everything that's not strictly necessary just gets in the way of that perfect sound — and perfect sound is the ultimate goal of expensive hi-fi equipment. 

It's no wonder, then that B&W's latest pair of headphones, the P9 Signature, doesn't have wireless connectivity, noise cancellation, or even a single button. The company's top-of-the-line headphones cost $900, and they promise just one thing: stellar sound. 

Judging from the week or so I've spent with them, the P9 Signature delivers, but that price tag might not be justifiable to everyone. 

Reviewing the P9 Signature, whose launch has been timed to celebrate Bowers & Wilkins' 50 years of existence, was fairly simple, as I've just finished reviewing the company's P7 Wireless headphones, B&W's priciest, best sounding headphones before the P9 came along. The two sets of cans share a similar design and sound (I was able to compare them directly), so my primary task was to figure out whether the price jump from $500 to $900 is worth it. 

Luxurious, comfortable and focused on the music

Let's start with this: If features are what you're after, you're looking at the wrong set of headphones. The P9 Signature comes with three cables (one with included volume and play/pause controls) of varying length, and an adaptor to the larger, 6.35mm audio jack (a must if you have serious hi-fi equipment at home), but that's it. There's no Lightning cable either, a must for owners of iPhone 7 (which has no audio headphone jack) though it will be shipped with the P9s starting early 2017, and those who buy them now can ask B&W for a free cable when it becomes available. 

These headphones are not meant to amuse you with gesture-based operation, smart sensors and similar shenanigans. They're meant to be the link between you and beautiful sounding music. 

Design-wise, the P9s look like a fancier version of the P7s. Brown, Italian Saffiano leather on the earcups, an Alcantara carrying case and an aluminum headband (which is, thankfully, foldable) give the headphones a distinctive, luxurious look. The P7 Wireless looks good, but when you place them next to the P9 Signature, they're just not in the same league. 

The P9s also have a hidden headphone jack — to replace a cable, you need to remove the magnetically-fastened earcup. The solution works better than it did with the P7 Wireless; you're not going to change the cables on these very often, if ever, and it keeps the headphone jack safely (and nicely) tucked away. 

Thanks to the premium materials and slightly bigger earcups, the P9 Signature are also more comfortable than the P7 Wireless — and generally very head-friendly, even though they're quite heavy at 413 grams. Both sets of headphones tend to become a bit heavy on the top of my head — uncomfortably so after an hour and a half of listening — but the effect is less pronounced with the P9s. 

A deepness in the bass

We've established that the singular goal of these headphones is great sound, but is it nine-hundred-bucks good? While the figure might sound outrageous to some, it's not uncommon in the world of high-end headphones; in fact, the world's best sounding headphones often cost several thousand dollars, which would make the B&W P9 Signature entry-level high-end hi-fi (yes, that's a lot of dashes). 

The verdict is not an easy one to give. On a technical level, the P9 Signature have slightly better specifications: their 40mm drivers have a larger frequency range (from 2Hz to 30KHz; good luck trying to hear sounds at the end of that range) and a lower distortion level, but are otherwise the same. They're also angled to provide a sound stage that's in front of you, not on the sides. And the earcups have been decoupled from the headband with a nifty little gimbal system to remove unwanted vibrations. 

But can you actually hear those differences?

The answer is yes, but it really depends on what type of listener you are. The P9 Signature headphones offer an extremely detailed sound. The bass is rich and precise, but slightly toned down compared to the P7s; it won't jump at you at every occasion, but if you focus, you'll hear it's fuller and more detailed. 

It's not just the bass; the sound of the P9s can generally be described as extremely precise, if a little dark. You'll hear it all; the hint of cold in the singer's voice, and the droning of an electric guitar left plugged in on stage at the end of a concert.  

The sound stage is moved a little to the front as promised by the angled drivers, but not vastly. In fact, if I were to point out one flaw (and that's only if I compare the sound with high-end equipment), the sound stage always sounds like a tiny club; you'll never get the feeling of being in a huge arena. 

But to hear all this, I've had to listen to CDs or flac files. And I used a 24-bit DAC audio module to connect to my MacBook Air. I've listened mostly to amazingly well-recorded music: Pink Floyd's The Wall, Ryan Adams' Live at Carnegie Hall and Nick Cave's Live from KCRW. This is where the P9s shine; put any of these on, and you'll instinctively close your eyes and lean back into the chair to listen to the song through to the end. 

If you just slap on a 128kbps mp3 of Kruder and Dorfmeister's K&D Sessions, it will still sound great (in fact, it's amazing how much these headphones can squeeze out of those compressed files), but the P7 Wireless won't lag too far behind.  

Unfortunately, I didn't have anything like the Sennheiser HD800 or the Audio Technica ATH-W5000, which fall roughly in the same price range, to compare with the P9s directly. Working from memory, the P9s are not as transparent as some of the high-end headphones I've heard; they flirt with high-end but still remain a great option for folks that just like a good dose of pop, electronic or dance music.

For long, home listening sessions

The P9 Signature headphones are beautiful, luxurious, comfortable and they sound great. The price point, while high, is still below the level of most flagship headphones from renowned hi-fi companies. Could they be a little cheaper? Probably, but they're aimed at the person who wants the best and can afford it. 

You can't have it all, though. These headphones are not the everyday workhorse cans you'll throw in your backpack and use on commutes and plane rides. They're a bit too heavy and bulky for that. Furthermore, they don't have wireless connectivity, noise cancellation, an attention button or any of the latest bells and whistles you can now get in the $200-$400 price range. If you want all that, you'll need to look elsewhere. But if curling up with some great-sounding recordings is your thing, the P9 Signature are nearly perfect. 

There are three reasons why wireless headphones mostly suck and I've steered clear of dropping serious dough on a pair: poor sound quality, frustrating pairing and weak battery life.

Beats' new Solo 3 wireless on-ear headphones solve all three. And they do so while looking stylish and recognizable on top of your head for hours.

Announced with the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus, the Solo 3 headphones improve on the Solo 2 in every possible way. 

They're still a little pricey at $300, but for the wireless pairing convenience and battery life alone, I think it's money well spent. Sure, you could get a pair of sleeker B&O BeoPlay H8 or noise-cancelling Bose QC35 for $100 and $50 more, respectively, but the Solo 3 hit the sweet spot.

From the outside, the Solo 3 look virtually indistinguishable from the wireless Solo 2. Beats could have went with some more upscale materials like metal, but that would have also made them heavier. Plastic will have to do.

As they are, the Solo 3 are super light, the ear pads soft and the adjustable headband comfortable to wear all day long. They also fold up and fit snuggly into an included case. 

They're available in six colors to match the newest iPhone palette: white, silver, gold, rose gold, matte black and gloss black.

A battery LED indicator on the bottom of the right ear cup shows you how much battery power is left and there are play/pause and volume buttons embedded into the left ear cup (these are real buttons, not touch-sensitive gesture controls).

Beats provided a gloss black pair that matches my jet black iPhone 7. I'm just a breathing mask, cape and boots short of being Darth Vader every single time I step out of my home. Do not buy this color if you hate seeing smudges and fingerprints. 

Pairing magic

Ask any person with a pair of Bluetooth headphones and they'll tell you pairing can be a real bitch. You never know how well the pairing process will go. There's always something that creates interference. Or your computer can't detect the headphones. Or the battery died and the next time you go to pair them, they don't.

The Solo 3 are one of four pairs of new headphones (the others are the BeatsX, Powerbeats 3 and AirPods) from Apple and Beats that contain a tiny chip called the W1. The headphones are still connecting to devices via Bluetooth, but the W1 chip essentially acts like an assistant, talking to Apple devices (iOS devices, Macs and Apple Watch) to make pairing dead simple. 

And I really mean dead simple ... if you're pairing them to an iPhone running iOS 10, which I am. To connect, just press the power button for a second and place them near your iPhone. A screen slides up asking to connect, and that's it. No listening for beeps. No jumping into Bluetooth settings. No waiting for your headphones to appear on a list of nearby Bluetooth headphones. It even shows you the battery percentage.

Better, the headphones can pair with your Apple Watch, iPad or Mac easily using your iCloud login.

It feels good to finally be able to say, "It just works" — which is Apple's unofficial tagline of making complicated processes idiot-proof.

Unfortunately, if you're pairing the Solo 3 to iOS devices running iOS 9 or earlier, you won't get the pairing magic. Nor will you get it if you pair the headphones to an Android phone or other standard Bluetooth-supported devices; it's back to "pairing mode" and all that junk for you.

Battery champ

Aside from the W1's awesome pairing sauce, the chip also provides another major advantage: long battery life.

With the W1 chip, Beats was able to improve the Solo 2's 12 hours of battery life up to 40 hours, an increase of over 3x.

The best wireless headphones, some of which cost more than the Solo 3, only get up to half the battery life of Beats' new headphones. The only one that I could find that matches the Solo 3 on battery life is Sony's DRBTN20, which seems to have middling sound.

Beats was able to improve the Solo 2's 12 hours of battery life up to 40 hours.

On a weekday, I average about two hours of music listening during my commute to and from work, about four hours during the work day and another two hours when I'm at home. That's up to eight hours per day. I went five days before I ran the battery down from 100 percent. 

The BeoPlay H8s I tested last year needed to be charged every two days. The QC35s needed to be charged every three days for my listening habits.

If you don't listen to music as much as I do, you could easily go a few weeks without needing to charge the Solo 3 headphones again. Say you only listen to music on a two-hour roundtrip commute; that's up to 20 days of usage.

On top of that, the headphones have a "Fast Fuel" charging feature, which is basically like the quick charging features on many smartphones. With five minutes of charging, the headphones can give you up to three hours of listening time. That's more than enough to juice up in the morning and get you through your commute to work, where you'll be able to plug the Solo 3 in and charge them proper.

If you prefer, there's also a cable that plugs into the left ear cup for wired listening. The only downside is you'll need to supply your own 3.5mm headphone jack-to-Lightning or USB-C dongle if your phone doesn't have a headphone port.

Any way you slice it, the Solo 3 come out on top in terms of battery life. 

Solid sound

By now, you're probably thinking, "Ray, it's great they pair easily and battery life is awesome, but how do they sound? Do you they still sound like Beats?"

The answer is yes. But not like the old Monster-era Beats when they were tuned mainly for heavy bass and sounded terrible for everything else.

The Solo 2 reworked the sound for a wider range of music and the Solo 3 offer more or less the same audio experience. Mainly, they sound great on the low-end with dubstep and EDM and today's heavily audio-tuned vocals. 

That's intentional. Beats headphones are tuned for today's music, not Bob Marley or The Beatles. If you want a pure listening experience for the classics instead of Eric Prydz or Frank Ocean or Kanye, you'd be better served looking elsewhere. Beats headphones are made for modern digital music and your average millennial could care less.

So yeah, the Solo 3 sound like Beats and you know what? I have no issues with that. They're better than EarPods, but not as clean as more expensive wired headphones. For wireless headphones, they sound great to my "regular" ears in bed, on the subway and at work. 

They don't have noise-cancellation like the Bose QC35s, but the noise-isolation from the ear cups are quite good in blocking out ambient sound.

It's a mistake to dismiss the Solo 3 for a modest update because it doesn't look any different from the Solo 2. What Beats has achieved with the W1 chip in terms of convenience and power efficiency is game-changing. 

Years from now, when wireless headphones won't need to be charged for months, we'll be laughing at charging headphones every week (like I am now at existing wireless headphones that need to be charged every two to three days).

Audiophiles will never like Beats, but the company couldn't care less. Who needs to please audiophiles when the majority of people are streaming their music on Apple Music or Spotify, anyway?

I’ve been in the tech publishing industry for 25 years, but that no more makes me a programmer than someone watching football on TV for a quarter of a century makes them a quarterback. 

Code is my Achilles’ heel. Its proximity to formulas makes me queasy. It’s not that I can’t understand any code. Back in high school, I was a whiz at geometry, but then stumbled badly in chemistry and trigonometry. Similarly, I spent a summer learning BASIC and coding an incredibly simple program. I’ve also tackled HTML, but when it came to JavaScript, I could do some, but almost entirely based on code I’d copied and modified from other sites.

Real programming and code baffles and terrifies me.

A few years ago, Apple introduced the Swift programming language as a sort of simple gateway drug for deeper, Xcode programming. It could be the foundation of real apps in the formal language.

The first time I saw some of the code up on screen at WWDC 2014, I felt like I sort of got it. I recognized some of the words and structure.

That’s why, ostensibly, Apple's new, free code-training app Swift Playgrounds should be for me and much more agile-minded students. During the recent iPhone 7 launch, Apple also introduced Everyone Can Code, an educational initiative designed to help get code training — specifically Swift code training — into schools and curriculums. Playgrounds is a key part of that program.

On Tuesday, Apple drops Swift Playgrounds in the app store. I've been been immersing myself in this iPad-based code school for a week.

Now, as I stare at a Swift Playground lesson plan, I realize I was half right. Yes, there is something intrinsically knowable about Swift, but there’s still the code-theory leap that my mind struggles to make. 

This, of course, is probably just me. 

Inside the code

Swift Playgrounds is partially just that, a coding playground where you can repeatedly try out different commands, calls and code variations to propel entertaining animations over and over again. You are, in essence, the code-breaker and maker here.

And you’re doing it on the iPad, a platform that’s generally thought of as the place where you consume the result of code, not create it.

The basic lesson plan, called Fundamentals of Swift (there's also second one called, naturally, Beyond the Basics), is set up so there’s code on the left-hand side of the screen and an animated environment on the right that’s driven, almost in real time, by your code. Each lesson offers a challenge designed to teach you one rudimentary piece of Swift code. You can also try some of the challenges, which let you alter code and change the functionality of pre-built games and apps like Blink. Blink is a simple grid — almost a      Minesweeper-style game — where surrounding cubes influenced the kind color cube I could have in cube clusters. Apple plans on adding more of those challenges over time.

Fundamentals, though, eases you into code. It starts with command and the style in which Swift commands are written. At this level, the commands use English language words and follow a clear and consistent pattern. What’s more, the iPad’s virtual keyboard and QuickType suggestions immediately offer the nearest, best code option as soon as you start typing a letter. Typing in “t” will, for example, show “turnLeft ()” which is, naturally a turn left command. Typing “m” brings up “moveForward.” I can then click on any of the commands to add them.

To my surprise and pleasure, I breezed through a series of command lessons. Each time driving the animated character, Byte (you can choose from among three animated oddballs), to move forward, toggle switches and collect gems in the right order or, at least, to the satisfaction of the app, which would cheer my progress.

Going deeper

Things got a bit trickier at Functions, which let me group some of these commands or tasks. It took me a while to figure out that I define the Function, with all its embedded commands, at the top of the programs. After that, I just call the Function below to execute the series, as many times as I wanted. In between the Functions, I used smaller commands, like “moveForward ()” to tie together these groupings, sort of like the cartilage that joins more complex bone.

To be honest, I was stumped by this simple fact for a good 30 minutes and Swift Playgrounds didn't quite help. One reason is that, while you can write code, compile (done by simply hitting “Run My Program”) and run it over and over again, watching as Byte runs and, sometimes, stumbles through, your poorly written commands, the app doesn't highlight the exact command that’s executing at the exact moment that Byte is performing an action. That’s something that would have been invaluable to me as I tried to debug my code.

To get around this, I added spaces between chunks of code so I could keep track of what Byte was doing in relation to the code. This helped me make it through Functions to Loops. I then somehow solved the first lesson in Loops in one try. Seriously, it took me about a minute.

Swift Playgrounds would let me go as far as I wanted with the code. The first Lesson goes all the way into Algorithms, which scare me.

However, if I can get through to Beyond the Basics, Playgrounds will even let me write code that accesses the iPad's sensors and camera. I'll also be able to import my own visual assets and program them, all of which is almost enough to make me want to push through my coding fears.

Whatever I choose to do, the whole system is self-guided and designed to let me jump around as much as I like. I can even accelerate the program playback, if I want (worth doing since Byte moves through tasks pretty slowly – a playback speed slider would be helpful here). The problem with doing that, though, is if you jump ahead, you get lost, as I did. Some things still made sense, while others did not. Learning to code requires patience, which is why the animated program playground is so smart. It turns learning to program into a series of puzzles and games. The desire to learn is driven by the desire to solve the puzzle.

A dawning realization

The more time I spent within Swift Playgrounds, the more I realized that it’s really written exactly for people like me, as well as children and people of all ages, who want to code.

I can’t say that I ever felt comfortable coding or that what I’ve learned rooted itself into some hidden cranny in my brain – a half-day away from it and I feel lost. However, that isn’t entirely true; I am starting to see the patterns. And now I remember something about my old HTML and JavaScript coding days.

At the start, they too left me confused and bereft, but through sheer repetition and a ton of trial and error, I eventually became an expert at HTML and comfortable with at least 60 percent of JavaScript.

That’s what Swift Playgrounds asks of you. Do the code and do it again, with the carrot of an entertaining avatar plating out your code creations over and over again, looking sad when you fail and elated when you succeed.

I don’t know if this is the beginning of me, perhaps, coding a basic app and graduating to Xcode or not (probably not), but for anyone who wants to get started learning (or teaching) solid, baseline coding skills in a touch-based envrioment, Swift Playground is an excellent place to start.

"It’s not the camera, but the person behind the camera that makes great pictures." 

Every seasoned photographer will bestow these words of wisdom on the less financially equipped. But in the case of smartphone cameras, superior hardware really makes a world a difference if you want great photos. 

Just when I thought Motorola’s Moto Mod attachments for its Moto Z, Z Force and the new Z Play Droid couldn’t get anymore over the top, out comes the Hasselblad True Zoom. 

The Hasselblad True Zoom is an entire camera that overrides the phone’s included back camera, while simultaneously adding a physical shutter button, grip handle and 10x optical zoom. 

If you read my review of the Z Play Droid, you’ll understand that I wasn’t particularly impressed by the 16-megapixel camera. It’s fine for what it is, but it doesn’t compare to the Galaxy S7 and Note7’s back camera, which is currently the best smartphone camera. 

With the Hasselblad connected, the Z Play Droid instantly gets upgraded to a point-and-shoot-like camera. 

With the Hasselblad connected, the Z Play Droid instantly gets upgraded to a point-and-shoot-like camera. 

The module works just like all of the others. It clips on magnetically and latches into place around the bulbous Z Play Droid’s camera hump. The magnetic pins on the backside sync up to the phone and just like that you’ve got a bonafide point-and-shoot. 

I’ve tested a lot of these shutter button-and-grip handles (minus the optical zoom, unless you’re talking about Sony’s bizarre QX camera attachment) and most of them fall short. Shoddy grips and flimsy half-baked shutter buttons and special apps are needed to work — I’ve seen them all. 

The Hasselblad works with all camera apps. Read that again: ALL CAMERA APPS. I tried a bunch of camera apps from the Z Play Droid’s stock camera app to Snapchat to Instagram and the Hasselblad works as if it’s the actual native camera on the phone. (The only thing you will have to do is update your phone’s software, which doesn’t take too long.) 

With the Hasselblad, you get a larger 1/2.3-inch sensor that’s commonly found in many point-and-shoot cameras and you trade in whatever megapixels your phone has for 12-megapixels (which, for some reason seems to be the sweet spot for resolutions on smartphone cameras these days). 

I had my worries, but my concerns quickly faded as I shot with the camera module. 

Image quality is vastly better than what the Z Play Droid’s capable of producing, with more accurate colors that aren’t as saturated (like skies), sharper details and wider dynamic range. 

Just like a real camera, you can press the shutter button (love that it’s orange) halfway to autofocus and then keep pressing to take a photo. It’s not as precise as a real camera, but comes pretty close to mimicking the same process. There's also a zoom switch connected to the shutter button.

The textured, rubberized grip is a nice touch, too. I’m really happy it’s not just a blocky hunk of plastic grafted onto the front. It feels good in the hand.

Like pretty much all smartphone cameras, the Z Play Droid’s camera doesn’t have optical zoom. It’s difficult to put optical zoom on a smartphone because of the added bulk on the back. And the digital zoom is almost always terrible. At its highest magnification, the image becomes so blurry that there might as well be no digital zoom to begin with. 

Optical zoom, on the other hand, physically magnifies an image through actual lens elements instead of relying on software. And the Hasselblad’s 10x zoom is a real winner when compared to your phone’s digital zoom. You can also toggle on a 4x digital zoom for a maximum 40x zoom, but let’s just pretend that doesn’t exist because of how crummy it looks beyond the 10x optical zoom.

Here are some shots I took with and without the Hasselblad with the Z Play Droid (click to enlarge): 

Not only does the Hasselblad allow farther zoom, but it also retains image quality with crisper details thanks to its f/3.5-f/6.5 aperture. 

Here are some more comparisons (click to enlarge): 

The larger camera sensor also has a wider lens for a wider field of view from its 25-250mm focal length (35mm equivalent) range.

As for low light, the Hasselblad's a mixed bag. It's barely better than the Z Play Droid and image noise a real problem. The Z Play Droid actually exposes the image better in low-light situations as you can see below.

And while you’ll almost never see me shooting with a flash on, the powerful Xenon flash (I had one of these bright babies on my ancient Sony K810i candy bar phone years ago) is bright enough to blind or provide suitable fill flash to brighten up the shadows (yes, using flash when there’s plenty of light can be good thing). 

Stabilizing the optical zoom and keeping all the images tack-sharp is built-in optical image stabilization and electronic image stabilization for when it’s shooting video. 

The Hasselblad records video, but it’s capped at 1080p full HD resolution at 30 fps, which is a downgrade from the Z Play Droid’s max 4K recording, but honestly, I could care less since the screen's not 4K and I don't have a 4K TV at home.

I’m usually not fond of camera attachments. I’m a bit of a purist when it comes to mobile photography. For a long time, I stuck to only using the my phone’s built-in camera and the power of editing with apps to craft photos I felt would provoke some kind of feeling (good or bad), pushing the limitations of the camera with atypical composition and aesthetics before posting to Instagram. 

My Instas didn’t get many likes and I didn’t care. I knew that I had pored over a certain photo with the love and care of a creator and artist. I knew how maddening it was to create each photo to be something more than just a fleeting snapshot and the painstaking process of adjusting each setting and importing into and exporting it out of several apps just to get it until it felt "right" to share publicly. 

The process of mobile photography is me putting my undivided love for the craft and "starving for my art" so to speak.

I still try to do more with less with my mobile photography because I feel it really pushes me to think outside of the box — there’s nothing more dull than seeing 50 Instagram or VSCO accounts that all have the same aesthetic — but I’ve slowly warmed up to adding mobile lenses to push my creativity further. 

I like the Hasselblad True Zoom. Shooting with it reminded me of Samsung’s short-lived Smart Cameras, only you know, without the detachable design. 

But despite enjoying the Hasselblad True Zoom, I don’t think it’s the mod for everyone for the same reason why I would not tell any sane person to buy the DxO One camera attachment for iPhone: it’s really expensive at $600.

For the money, you could buy a real camera instead of the Hasselblad module.

The Hasselblad is $300 from Motorola ($250 if you buy from Verizon). For that money, you might as well buy an RX100 (even the original one) or save a little more and upgrade to an mirrorless camera like Sony’s A5100, which remains one of the most affordable cameras out there. Both cameras even have a screen that flips upwards for high-res selfies, something the Hasselblad doesn’t improve at all (unless you have the rear camera flipped towards you, but then you can’t see yourself). 

And when you factor in the fact the module doesn’t have a built-in battery of any kind, which means it’s sucking up power from whatever Moto phone it’s attached to, it’s even more of a deal breaker.

"The raccoons are back," I frustratingly said to my wife the night after installing the Ring Stick Up Cam in our backyard. 

You see, last summer we had a mommy raccoon and her three babies coming into our backyard and ravaging through bins, looking for every morsel of cat food they could find. 

We made some changes. We started storing the food inside and assumed we had gotten rid of them once and for all. We were wrong, and now I have the video to prove it. 

Ring first broke into home security with its Ring Video Doorbell. When someone rings the doorbell, an alert is sent to your smartphone and you can view and talk to whoever's at your door. Alternatively, the doorbell can begin recording when it detects motion at your door and send alerts to your phone. And thanks to its built-in infrared LEDs, the camera works at night. 

The $199 Ring Stick Up Cam works in a similar fashion, save for the doorbell part. Ring’s goal is to help ease your security fears by providing multiple products that complement one another instead of forcing you to buy a doorbell from Ring and an outdoor security camera from another company.

With the Stick Up Cam, Ring basically took its doorbell design, changed the housing color to all black and removed the doorbell button. 

The two of them look nearly identical. That’s a bit disappointing, especially when you take into consideration the company’s Video Doorbell Pro, which is smaller and far more stylish.

Recycled design aside, the Stick Up Cam isn’t necessarily ugly. Its black housing is unassuming, albeit a little mundane — a welcome trait for a security camera you want to draw as little attention to as possible. 

Set-up is simple 

Ring uses its Android or iOS app to complete initial setup of the Stick Up Cam, something you’ll want to do before mounting it to an outside wall.

Using the provided Micro USB cable, you charge the camera and then follow instructions in the app. The process involves pressing a button on the back of the camera, searching and connecting to its temporary Wi-Fi network and connecting it to your personal Wi-Fi network. 

Installation, on the other hand, can be a bit more involved depending on your comfort level with a screwdriver and putting holes into your house’s exterior. Inside the box you’ll find screws, a screwdriver, a drill bit, and two different mounts. 

Using any combination of the provided tools, you can do everything from mount the cam to an overhang or directly to an outside wall. 

Because I have to return the product after the review period ends, I didn’t want to put any holes in my home. But after looking through the instructions it was clear that installing the camera is a straightforward process that shouldn’t take more than 15 minutes. 

Don’t worry about placing it somewhere rain or snow can’t reach; the camera is weather resistant and should be able to withstand some moisture. My review sample survived three heavy rainstorms in as many weeks without any issues.

Solar power is optional 

Ring states the battery in the Stick Up Cam should last six to 12 months on a single charge, depending on activity and use of its Live View feature. Alternatively, you can provide constant power to the camera through a Micro USB cable and a smartphone charger. Or you can spring for the $50 Solar Panel to provide consistent power to the Stick Up Cam. 

The Solar Panel comes with a 5-foot Micro USB cable and a weather-resistant sleeve to help protect the charging port when connected to the camera. 

Ring advises users to place the panel in an area where it will receive direct sunlight for two or three hours every day. Naturally, Ring includes all appropriate mounting supplies in the box along with the Solar Panel. 

I used the panel during my time with the Stick Up Cam, and found the battery to maintain a charge of 65 to 70 percent. 

Motion detection still needs some work 

Having used the Ring Video Doorbell for the past year, I’ve grown accustomed to its finicky motion alerts. I’ve gone through troubleshooting with customer care, turned off motion detection altogether, turned off only particular sections the camera monitors, turned it back on, and everything in between. 

I’ve come to live with the fact that it’s not perfect and that I have to deal with the random motion alerts pushed to my phone. 

As much as I wanted to believe things would be different with the Stick Up Cam, they weren't. I received several alerts during testing in which I was unable to see any movement at all in the recorded video. I don’t know if something quickly passed by the camera and it didn’t start recording fast enough or if there was a bug that flew by and set off the motion sensor. Look at this video and see if you can find what triggered it. I sure can’t see anything. 

For its part, Ring tells me the company is constantly working on improving motion detection for the Doorbell and the Stick Up Cam through software updates (installed without you having to do a thing), and that the Pro version of its Doorbell has "more advanced motion features." Why that same technology wasn’t brought over to the Stick Up Cam is a mystery to me.

Live view and cloud recording 

All Stick Up Cam users have access to the company’s Live View feature. Using Live View, you don’t have to wait for a motion alert to view your camera’s stream. You can open the app, tap a button and watch. 

In testing the feature before launch, I never had an issue with the amount of time it took to establish a connection (both on Wi-Fi and a cellular connection), nor did I experience any issues with stream quality. The Stick Up Cam captures 720p video, by the way. 

Ring offers a cloud recording plan at a cost of $3 a month or $30 per year for each camera connected to your Ring account. With an active subscription, you can go back and view old videos captured during a motion or live view event, complete with audio from both involved parties. 

Peace of mind is worth the price 

Thankfully, the highlight of my time with the Stick Up Cam was it capturing the raccoon helping itself to dinner. 

The Stick Up Cam did provide peace of mind. Knowing if anything was moving around on the side of my house, be it an animal or would-be bad guy, I would at least have video proof. 

The overall design is boring and the fact that motion alerts arrive when there’s no motion is annoying. Hopefully, Ring is able to figure out the second of these frustrations through future software updates. 

Spending $200 on a camera, plus another $50 for the solar panel, is an investment. But it's an easily justifiable one if you live in an area where added serenity will help you and your family sleep better at night. 

"The raccoons are back," I frustratingly said to my wife the night after installing the Ring Stick Up Cam in our backyard. 

You see, last summer we had a mommy raccoon and her three babies coming into our backyard and ravaging through bins, looking for every morsel of cat food they could find. 

We made some changes. We started storing the food inside and assumed we had gotten rid of them once and for all. We were wrong, and now I have the video to prove it. 

Ring first broke into home security with its Ring Video Doorbell. When someone rings the doorbell, an alert is sent to your smartphone and you can view and talk to whoever's at your door. Alternatively, the doorbell can begin recording when it detects motion at your door and send alerts to your phone. And thanks to its built-in infrared LEDs, the camera works at night. 

The $199 Ring Stick Up Cam works in a similar fashion, save for the doorbell part. Ring’s goal is to help ease your security fears by providing multiple products that complement one another instead of forcing you to buy a doorbell from Ring and an outdoor security camera from another company.

With the Stick Up Cam, Ring basically took its doorbell design, changed the housing color to all black and removed the doorbell button. 

The two of them look nearly identical. That’s a bit disappointing, especially when you take into consideration the company’s Video Doorbell Pro, which is smaller and far more stylish.

Recycled design aside, the Stick Up Cam isn’t necessarily ugly. Its black housing is unassuming, albeit a little mundane — a welcome trait for a security camera you want to draw as little attention to as possible. 

Set-up is simple 

Ring uses its Android or iOS app to complete initial setup of the Stick Up Cam, something you’ll want to do before mounting it to an outside wall.

Using the provided Micro USB cable, you charge the camera and then follow instructions in the app. The process involves pressing a button on the back of the camera, searching and connecting to its temporary Wi-Fi network and connecting it to your personal Wi-Fi network. 

Installation, on the other hand, can be a bit more involved depending on your comfort level with a screwdriver and putting holes into your house’s exterior. Inside the box you’ll find screws, a screwdriver, a drill bit, and two different mounts. 

Using any combination of the provided tools, you can do everything from mount the cam to an overhang or directly to an outside wall. 

Because I have to return the product after the review period ends, I didn’t want to put any holes in my home. But after looking through the instructions it was clear that installing the camera is a straightforward process that shouldn’t take more than 15 minutes. 

Don’t worry about placing it somewhere rain or snow can’t reach; the camera is weather resistant and should be able to withstand some moisture. My review sample survived three heavy rainstorms in as many weeks without any issues.

Solar power is optional 

Ring states the battery in the Stick Up Cam should last six to 12 months on a single charge, depending on activity and use of its Live View feature. Alternatively, you can provide constant power to the camera through a Micro USB cable and a smartphone charger. Or you can spring for the $50 Solar Panel to provide consistent power to the Stick Up Cam. 

The Solar Panel comes with a 5-foot Micro USB cable and a weather-resistant sleeve to help protect the charging port when connected to the camera. 

Ring advises users to place the panel in an area where it will receive direct sunlight for two or three hours every day. Naturally, Ring includes all appropriate mounting supplies in the box along with the Solar Panel. 

I used the panel during my time with the Stick Up Cam, and found the battery to maintain a charge of 65 to 70 percent. 

Motion detection still needs some work 

Having used the Ring Video Doorbell for the past year, I’ve grown accustomed to its finicky motion alerts. I’ve gone through troubleshooting with customer care, turned off motion detection altogether, turned off only particular sections the camera monitors, turned it back on, and everything in between. 

I’ve come to live with the fact that it’s not perfect and that I have to deal with the random motion alerts pushed to my phone. 

As much as I wanted to believe things would be different with the Stick Up Cam, they weren't. I received several alerts during testing in which I was unable to see any movement at all in the recorded video. I don’t know if something quickly passed by the camera and it didn’t start recording fast enough or if there was a bug that flew by and set off the motion sensor. Look at this video and see if you can find what triggered it. I sure can’t see anything. 

For its part, Ring tells me the company is constantly working on improving motion detection for the Doorbell and the Stick Up Cam through software updates (installed without you having to do a thing), and that the Pro version of its Doorbell has "more advanced motion features." Why that same technology wasn’t brought over to the Stick Up Cam is a mystery to me.

Live view and cloud recording 

All Stick Up Cam users have access to the company’s Live View feature. Using Live View, you don’t have to wait for a motion alert to view your camera’s stream. You can open the app, tap a button and watch. 

In testing the feature before launch, I never had an issue with the amount of time it took to establish a connection (both on Wi-Fi and a cellular connection), nor did I experience any issues with stream quality. The Stick Up Cam captures 720p video, by the way. 

Ring offers a cloud recording plan at a cost of $3 a month or $30 per year for each camera connected to your Ring account. With an active subscription, you can go back and view old videos captured during a motion or live view event, complete with audio from both involved parties. 

Peace of mind is worth the price 

Thankfully, the highlight of my time with the Stick Up Cam was it capturing the raccoon helping itself to dinner. 

The Stick Up Cam did provide peace of mind. Knowing if anything was moving around on the side of my house, be it an animal or would-be bad guy, I would at least have video proof. 

The overall design is boring and the fact that motion alerts arrive when there’s no motion is annoying. Hopefully, Ring is able to figure out the second of these frustrations through future software updates. 

Spending $200 on a camera, plus another $50 for the solar panel, is an investment. But it's an easily justifiable one if you live in an area where added serenity will help you and your family sleep better at night.