Sony Reon Pocket Pro: Updated Personal Air Conditioner With More Advanced Features
As before, it's a hands-free device that sits on the back of your neck and is held in place with a neckband that rests on your shoulders. A cooling plate rests on the back of your neck and a vent releases air at the top. Inside, a fan gently whirs. There are two vent sizes included: a smaller one that can sit under a T-shirt and a longer one so you wear a collared shirt but the warm air is still able to escape.
What's new in the Pocket Pro is that it's noticeably bigger than the previous model, to allow for a cooling plate around twice the size of the Pocket 5 and longer-lasting battery inside.
Additionally, the fan is much quieter than it was previously, and in a moderately noisy environment is hard to hear at all.
The new, larger battery can last up to 15 hours in cooling mode, Sony says, which is twice the previous amount, Sony claims. Recharging around two hours.
Another update is the inclusion of physical control buttons — for the Reon Pocket 5 controls lay in the Sony smartphone app. Now, you can adjust the temperature by pressing a button, defined enough to be found if you're pressing through a shirt, though it may need a little more dexterity in winter if you're using it to warm you up and you're wearing a jacket. More granular control will still need the app.
Smart mode can switch between warm and cool modes automatically, as before, and you can customize the temperature at which the device crosses from one mode to the other.
The Pocket Tag is a sensor which can monitor ambient temperature more accurately. It's included in the box and has a key ring so you can put it on your rucksack if you prefer.
The price is £199 in the U.K. which is $270, though it's not yet available in the U.S.
The Reon Pocket Pro is a hands-free alternative to a fan and offers significant upgrades compared both to a fan and the last Sony device.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tom's Guide
12 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
I tested Sony WH-1000XM6 vs Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones for a month — here's the winner
Sony's latest ANC headphones are a good pair of headphones, with some key improvements over the previous model under the hood. But how do they square up against their noise-canceling nemesis? The Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones are the best way to block out noise, period. But how do they fare when you stack them up against Sony's newest set of cans? Let's find out. The Sony WH-1000XM6 launched with a bang in 2025 and we reviewed them favorably, highlighting their new sound signature and improved noise canceling. They have a new, if un-innovative, look, and a brand-new hard case to protect them in your bag. Yet, they still have to fend off their long-standing Bose rivals: The QuietComfort Ultra Headphones come with a super comfortable fit and better noise canceling, and are ready for the fight. But is that enough to sink Sony's flagship? To find out, I've organized a sunset duel. I've been using both headphones for the last month to work out which ones you should spend your hard-earned dollars on. The fight this time around is tricky for both of our entrants, so let's put them out of their misery. Sony WH-1000XM6 Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones Price $449 / £399 / AU$699 $429 / £449 / AU$645 Colors Black; Silver; Midnight Blue Lunar Blue; Deep Plum; White Smoke; Black Size Not specified Not specified Weight 8.9 ounces 8.8 ounces Battery life (rated) Up to 40 hours Up to 24 hours Connectivity Bluetooth 5.3 with SBC, AAC and LDAC support Bluetooth 5.3 with SBC, AAC and LDAC, aptX HD support support Special features Adaptive ANC, Ambient Sound Mode, DSEE Extreme Audio, Bluetooth multipoint, customizable sound, quick charge, passive mode, 360 Reality Audio ANC, Immersive Audio, Bluetooth multipoint, customizable EQ, quick charge We don't need to spend much time on this point. Both headphones will set you back between $428 and $449, depending on which sales you're looking at. That's not a small price for a pair of headphones, and marks what looks to be the new launch price point of flagship headphones from now. At $449, both models $150 cheaper than the Apple AirPods Max, and the same price as our pick for the best wireless headphones, the Bowers & Wilkins PX7 S3. Although the 1000XM6 are currently cheaper, the Bose headphones have a lower price floor. They've been on the market for a longer time, and we've seen their price drop significantly during deal events. You can save $20 on the Sony by buying them today, or you can wait for Black Friday or Prime Day and pick up the Bose headphones at two-thirds the price. The XM6 are a well-built pair of headphones, with compact earcups and a folding hinge so that they can fold up and fit into a case. The headband has also been widened for comfort reasons (we'll get to that), rounding out the key physical differences between the old and new models. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. The case is vastly improved, however. I really like the magnetic clasp, and I've only come to like it more during my comparison period. I'm not sure about the longevity of the mechanism as of yet, but for now it's a winner. Comfort is also better, but still not perfect. I've found that the headband, while wider, still presses on pressure points across the top of my head. There are also bits inside the earcups that interfere with my piercings. The Sony WH-1000XM6 are not wholly uncomfortable — far from it — but they're less comfortable than their Bose rivals. Bose's headphones are not only more padded in all the right places, but also uses better foam inside to make sure that they remain comfortable for long periods of time. They're light, which can make them feel slightly cheap, but that does add to their overall comfort in the end. The Sony WH-1000XM6 are not wholly uncomfortable — far from it — but they're less comfortable than their Bose rivals. The case is much the same as the XM6 in terms of sturdiness, but it's slightly more compact. That makes it easier to pack into a bag when you're going on a trip or getting ready to go to work. The QuietComfort Ultra Headphones are a more handsome pair of headphones as well. There's more variety to the kinds of materials used here, with metal in the folding armatures making them feel better built than the flimsy feeling XM6. Overall, thanks to a more comfortable fit, better case and more interesting style, the QuietComfort Ultra take home the points for design. After a strong start for Bose in the design and price sections, the controls section is the place where Sony is going to start clawing back some crucial points. The controls you'll find in the Bose QuietComfort Ultra headphones aren't really all that good. I don't like the inaccurate touch volume slider, and the multifunction button that does almost everything else is a pain to use. The two buttons on headphones are the same shape, only differentiated with a little bump on the Bluetooth pairing button. I've found skipping accidentally and initiating pairing mode unintentionally is far too easy. I don't like touch controls, but the gesture based controls on the XM6 are better than those found on the QuietComfort Ultra Headphones. The touch pads on either earcup can be swiped for volume and skip, and then tapped for play/pause. I still don't like how moving my hair can be mistaken for a command, or how I can accidentally pause when I want to turn the volume up, but there are some redeeming factors. For example, the power button and ANC button are very easy to tell apart — the power button is round, and the ANC button is long. Simple and easy to use. The Sony WH-1000XM6 take the round when it comes to controls. The Sony WH-1000XM6 have an updated sound profile, and while it's not my favorite, I do prefer to the way that to the Bose sound. Sony has focused more on the vocals of your music this time around, and we've ended up with a pair of headphones with some top-notch vocal clarity. Unfortunately, I've found that means that soundstage has taken a hit. The XM5 had a very wide soundstage, and that's taken a back seat with the XM6. The new model is slightly more restricted, and spatial imaging (where everything is on the soundstage) isn't as well defined. Sony's bass-heavy sound isn't horrible, but I wish it were a little bit less in-your-face. I've found dialing it back in Sony's very solid EQ helps a bunch, but it's a shame that I have to. To be clear: The Sony WH-1000XM6 sound very good, but the likes of the Bowers & Wilkins PX7 S3 have shown what wireless over-ears are really capable of. The Bose straight-up sound worse than the Sony WH-1000XM6. They're bassier and warmer, and you lose some top-end detail and presence. There are going to be some people who are fans of their looser attention to detail and sloppier low-end, but the Sony sound noticeably better. You can EQ the Bose slightly with a three-band adjuster, but they never quite manage to sound as good as Sony's headphones — let alone other headphones you can pick up for the price. Both sets of headphones have good apps and well-rounded feature sets that have their fans and detractors. Both sets of headphones have good apps and well-rounded feature sets that have their fans and detractors. We'll start with the XM6. The Sony Sound app has been recently re-done, and it works very well. It can be slightly confusing for first-time users with some of the features hidden away in separate sub-menus, but once you know where everything is you'll be navigating the headphones' multiple features with aplomb. It's in the app that you'll find the noise-canceling modes. I don't really get these — I just leave my ANC on max level when I want it. Transparency is the one mode I do use frequently, however, as well as the 'off' setting, so that I can save a little battery. Inside the app there's also the EQ, and it's very good. Plenty of bands for adjustment make it very easy to dial the sound in exactly as you want it. Spatial audio is here as well, and it's much better than Bose's option. It's similar to Apple's headtracked Dolby Atmos, only it's built for Amazon Music Unlimited as opposed to Apple Music. Bose's app is also very easy to use, I find. Everything is better laid out than Sony's app, but there are fewer options for customizing your headphones. I don't miss the multi-step ANC adjustment, and I like how you can turn the ANC to transparency and back. Not off, however, for Bose does not believe in turning ANC off. To each their own, but it would be nice to have the option to save some battery life. EQ is good, although not as in-depth as Sony. It gives you ample opportunity to change the sound of your headphones in the long run, however. Giving you ample opportunity to make use of the 'off' slider is Bose's version of spatial audio. It's an in-house 'enhancement' of whatever music the headphones are playing, but I find it just makes music sound anemic. It's the best of these in-house systems, also found in the likes of the Marshall Monitor III and the Nothing Headphone (1), but it's still better left in the 'off' position. Perhaps the most important part of the whole competition here — has Sony finally caught up to the might of the Bose noise-canceling machine? Short answer: No. The longer answer is that Sony's noise canceling is better than that found on the older XM5. Thanks to a new chip and some more clever algorithm changes, the ANC handles some annoying noises better than before. But Sony where promising the best ANC, and the best ANC we have not received. They still struggle slightly with really loud noises that the Bose manage to block out, and they're less of a step up over their predecessor than I was hoping for. Perhaps that's unfair, but the Bose headphones prove that better noise canceling is possible. The Bose headphones prove that better noise canceling is possible. The QuietComfort Ultra Headphones have sat at the top of the list of the best noise-canceling headphones for a long time for a reason. They're really, really good at it. They block out more noise than just about anything else, making your commute and office time more comfortable. Transparency modes across both are good and sound natural. However, the Bose win thanks to superior ANC overall. If only it could be turned off for some extra battery life. Another quick and easy one to decide here: The Bose lose out on battery life thanks to their limited 24 hours of staying power. That's not great, and the Sony handily beat them out with 35 hours of battery. During my testing, I found that the battery life claims of both pretty much matched the expected life on the specs sheet. Remember that you can extend the XM6 to 40 hours when you turn off the ANC as well, something you can't do with the Bose headphones. Fast charging is a helpful bonus for both headphones: 3 minutes of charging the XM6 gets you 3 hours, while the Bose get 2.5 hours after a 15-minute charge. Both aren't the best around, but there is a clear winner overall. I put these two headphones head-to-head when the XM6 launched, but I didn't have both in hand at that point. Now that I've had ample testing time with both sets of headphones, I can find a clear winner — and it's Sony with the XM6. They might not look quite as pretty as the Bose or have better ANC performance, but their sound, features, and battery life ultimately win them the competition. If you're looking for the best ANC you can buy, I've found you're still better off with the QuietComfort Ultra Headphones. For just about everything else, the Sony are the headphones of choice. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button. Sony WH-1000XM6 Bose QuietComfort Ultra Price and value (5) 3 3 Design (15) 13 14 Controls (10) 7 5 Sound quality (25) 22 20 Active noise cancelation (20) 15 20 Call quality (10) 9 9 Connectivity (5) 5 5 Battery life (10) 8 5 Total Score (100) 84 80
Tom's Guide
3 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
This breakthrough TV tech has Samsung, Sony and Hisense seeing dollar signs — here's why it could beat OLED in one big way
Here's a promise I can keep: In the coming years, you'll be hearing a lot about something called RGB Mini-LED. Recently, several companies unveiled TVs that sport this brand-new display technology, and each of these brands couldn't be more excited about the benefits RGB Mini-LEDs bring to the viewing experience. We're talking brighter pictures, improved contrast, and color volume that very well could exceed what we've seen on the best OLED TVs on the market. Here's everything you need to know about how Samsung, Hisense and Sony are putting their own spin on RGB Mini-LEDs, and why these sets could be the start of a new era in TV tech. While each TV maker exploring post-Mini-LED panel technologies is playing around with different formulas, the basic approach is similar for Samsung, Hisense and Sony. Previous iterations on LED backlighting have revolved around making the LEDs smaller with more controllable zones, thus enhancing contrast. This is why Mini-LEDs are considered the current gold standard for consumer LED TVs. However, in addition to their super-small size, RGB Mini-LEDs have an additional trick up their sleeve: color variation. RGB Mini-LEDs have an additional trick up their sleeve: color variation. Even the best Mini-LED displays on the market today use white LEDs and color filters to produce color. RGB Mini-LEDs, however, tap red-, green- and blue-colored LEDs that can be independently controlled across all dimming zones. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. This hardware upgrade allows for some seriously sensational hues. According to the brands leading the charge, RGB Mini-LED TVs are capable of covering 95% to 100% of BT.2020 (an international standard for color accuracy that industry folks use to measure a display's color production). If OLED TVs are the kings of contrast, an advantage like this would make RGB Mini-LED the undisputed kings of color. To date, even the best, quantum dot-equipped OLED TVs hover around 89% to 92% coverage of the BT.2020 color gamut. Remember: Not all TV brands are leveraging this new tech in precisely the same way. There are key hardware- and software-related differences from one brand's design to the next, and exactly how this new technology is deployed depends on a number of factors. With that in mind, let's take a look at where Samsung, Hisense and Sony stand with their take. Samsung recently unveiled the first of its TVs to bridge the gap between traditional Mini-LED and next-generation Micro-LED with the Samsung Micro RGB TV. Currently, it's only being made available in a 115-inch model, which will set you back a whopping $29,999. Samsung claims that it's capable of covering 100% of the BT.2020 color gamut. That would be higher than any TV I've measured in my ten-year history of testing TVs. The Samsung Micro RGB TV comes with a native 144Hz refresh rate, built-in smart features and Samsung's Vision AI software suite. Similar to the brand's flagship OLED, the Samsung S95F, this Micro RGB TV is dressed with a matte, glare-free finish. Credit where credit is due: Hisense was the first brand to introduce me to this next-generation TV technology earlier this year. Originally, Hisense was calling its take TriChroma LED, but according to recent press materials, this has been swapped out for the name RGB Mini-LED. Originally unveiled at CES 2025, the Hisense 116UX is launching this year in an exclusive, 116-inch version. If you're keeping score at home, that's one inch bigger than Samsung's Micro RGB TV. It'll also be available for the same eye-watering price of $29,999. The 116UX debuts alongside a slightly smaller (but still huge) 100-inch version, the Hisense 100UX. This TV is reportedly hitting shelves at $19,999. Hisense claims that the 116UX can clear 95% coverage of the BT.2020 color gamut. We've already been lucky enough to take a look at the 116UX with our testing equipment, and according to measurements, the 116UX is the brightest commercial TV we've ever tested, easily cracking the 5,000-nit mark in HDR. Of the brands tinkering with this technology, Sony is taking the most time to forge its own path. To date, Sony hasn't officially given a name to its take on RGB Mini-LED, nor has it given a name to the model we saw during a press event in Tokyo earlier this year. For now, at Tom's Guide, we're colloquially referring to the TV as the Bravia 10 and to Sony's take on the technology as Sony RGB LED. Neither of these names are confirmed. Based on what we know, Sony's version of this display operates similarly to that of Samsung and Hisense. Sony says the display covers 90% of BT.2020 and can get as bright as 4,000 nits. Unlike its competitors, Sony is currently planning on debuting this TV sometime in 2026, so we'll have to wait to get more details There's no way around it: Most people can't afford TVs in the $20,000 to $30,000 price range, and while big screens are more popular than ever, 100-inch TVs just aren't practical. But if you're hoping to put a 65-inch RGB Mini-LED TV for your living room, you'll probably have to wait a while. As time moves on, these TV-makers are banking on RGB Mini-LED being brought down to popular sizes, like 75 and 65 inches. Display technology can be tricky to scale down. When it comes to pricey, carefully engineered display hardware, it's much more cost effective to start at larger display sizes before developing a reliable way of manufacturing it at smaller size points. This is why most of these TVs are both gargantuan and expensive. But as time moves on, these TV-makers are banking on RGB Mini-LED being brought down to popular sizes, like 75 and 65 inches. In the meantime, consider RGB Mini-LED to be a bridge between the Mini-LEDs of today and the TVs of the future. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
Digital Trends
a day ago
- Digital Trends
I wouldn't have an issue with gaming going all digital if it still wasn't so anti-consumer
There was a time when I naively thought that digital games would be one of the most important revolutions in gaming. It had been the norm in the PC gaming space for years before it even started becoming viable for consoles, but starting with the Xbox 360 and PS3 generations, things really started kicking off. We moved from downloadable demos to indie games to full titles within the span of a generation. By the midpoint of the PS4 generation, digital sales were already starting to overtake physical ones. But despite how much more of the market they were taking up, I wasn't seeing any of the platforms adapting in the ways I expected. We've been coasting on how convenient digital games are to access for over a decade now when they lack in every other regard compared to physical media. We're already seeing PlayStation and Xbox easing us into an all-digital future by phasing out disc drives, and I would be shocked if the PS6 or next Xbox even has one by default. I appreciate the need for physical games to stick around for preservation, but that's not the main reason I still reject the notion of an all-digital library in the future. That would be the simple fact that the system, at least on consoles, is stubbornly anti-consumer. The future of gaming is stuck in the past Digital games aren't the future of gaming, they're the present. I understand there is a passionate section of the audience who will fight tooth and nail against the all-digital future, but the truth is it has already arrived. Just this year, Sony's earnings report revealed that 76% of all sales on the PS5 and PS4 were digital, and that number has been steadily rising over the years. We're also starting to see physical games appearing on shelves that are boxes with download codes inside rather than discs. Physical games won't go away overnight, but I suspect they will become more of a niche and enthusiast thing. Recommended Videos The loss of physical media is a topic on its own, but I think the two are intertwined. My hope for digital games was that they would be more convenient, cheaper, and easier to manage. In reality, only the first part has come true. Even though digital games don't require printing and shipping physical goods, companies have simply maintained the standard pricing for new games. That's a dream I admit I never should've expected to come true. If a company has a way to save money, it isn't going to willingly pass those savings on to us. It sucks, but it is what it is. Where my real issue with digital games comes in is that nebulous 'easier to manage' statement I made. I say it that way because there's no clean term for the flexibility physical games have that digital ones simply don't. The options we have with our digital games haven't evolved much at all since the first versions of the PSN and Xbox stores and that's an inexcusable problem. Where's my option to sell digital games? Why can't I trade or give a game as a gift? How come the act of even getting a refund is borderline impossible? These are all such basic consumer rights that we've seen solutions to elsewhere — mostly on Steam — that I can't help but think it is being deliberately withheld from consoles to maintain that level of control. I could forgive it in the early years, but we're three generations deep and only Nintendo has taken even the slightest steps to improve this system with its Virtual Game Cards. I refuse to believe that Nintendo is the only company able to figure out a way to make sharing digital games simple and (somewhat) convenient on console. I can appreciate that sharing or trading games could open up a lot of doors for exploitation within these systems, but a few bad actors can't be cause enough to deny us those basic consumer rights. And this is why I use the anti-consumer buzzword. I see it thrown around a lot to describe things we simply don't like, but this is one instance where I think it is apt because we're getting a worse product in digital games than physical ones. Yes, the content of the games themselves is the same, but the lack of freedom in what we can do with them is totally one-sided toward the corporations. Virtual Game Cards are a long-overdue first step toward reaching some sort of parity between digital and physical games. If PlayStation and Xbox expect me to fully commit to digital games by the time next generation rolls around, I need to see a full revamp in how they let me handle those games. Refunds, selling, trading, and gifting are the bare minimum of what we deserve.
