Latest news with #Majority
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
Majority Stylo turntable review: Classic vinyl meets modern streaming
Vinyl is back, and in a big way. I'm constantly amazed at how busy my local record shops are, no matter when I stop by. Whether you're rediscovering dusty favourites or starting fresh, modern turntables like the Majority Stylo blend old-school charm with new-school convenience, including Bluetooth streaming. Design and build The Majority Stylo certainly looks the part, featuring an all-black, minimalist aesthetic that gives it a sleek and modern appearance. It has a matt black MDF plinth that is clean and understated. The aluminium die-cast platter adds a bit of weight and stability, and the carbon fibre tonearm is a surprising touch at this price point. It feels more premium than expected, though the overall construction is light. This isn't a tank of a turntable, but it's solid enough for regular use. There are a few plastic elements that remind you it's an entry-level model, but nothing that feels flimsy or likely to break with careful handling. Features The Stylo is packed with features that make it appealing to newcomers and casual listeners. The built-in phono preamp allows you to connect it directly to powered speakers or systems without the need for a dedicated phono stage. There's also a pitch control slider for minor speed tweaks, which is useful for correcting minor playback issues. Of course, the big feature here is Bluetooth connectivity. It streams wirelessly to any compatible speaker, headphones, or hi-fi system, with no cables needed. That kind of freedom is a huge win, especially in small spaces or clean setups where you want fewer wires on show. You also receive a pre-installed Audio-Technica AT3600L cartridge, which provides reliable tracking and a smooth, balanced sound. It's not high-end audiophile gear, but it's more than enough to bring your records to life. One area where the Stylo could use improvement is the pre-amp. While it's great to have, it's a little underpowered. You'll get better results running it through a separate amp or powered speakers with some extra grunt. Another downside is the lack of an autostop function. The platter continues to spin at the end of a record, which means you'll need to be nearby to avoid unnecessary stylus wear. Real-world use I tested the Stylo with Majority's own D100 bookshelf speakers, using both Bluetooth and a direct line-in connection. The Bluetooth pairing was fast and hassle-free. It worked right out of the box, and within seconds, I had warm, rich vinyl playing wirelessly. This is precisely the kind of plug-and-play simplicity newcomers need. The D100 speakers proved an excellent match. Their clarity and balanced response brought out the best in the Stylo's sound. There was none of the harshness you sometimes get with budget Bluetooth setups. Vinyl purists might still prefer a direct wired connection, and I tried that too. Unsurprisingly, the wired route gave a little more punch and detail, especially at higher volumes. Bluetooth doesn't match the fidelity of a clean analogue signal, but the trade-off for convenience is more than fair, especially in everyday listening scenarios. I found myself reaching for the wireless option more often, simply because of its convenience. Verdict The Majority Stylo is a versatile turntable that nails the basics, sounds excellent, and keeps things simple. With solid audio performance, good build quality, and an accessible price, it's easy to recommend. €249
North Wales Live
7 days ago
- North Wales Live
Review: Majority D100 Bookshelf Speakers punch above their weight
I'm an unashamed fan of Majority, the Cambridge-based audio company that specialises in decent kit at a very good price. I've reviewed many of it products and haven't come across a dud yet and I'm happy to report the D100 Bookshelf Speakers continues that run. The most powerful Majority sells, the D100s are a pair of good-sized speakers that will look nice sitting next to your TV or home stereo set-up. As well as the audio quality, which we'll get into later, the ace in the hand is the number of connectivity options the D100s give. You can choose from 5.3 Bluetooth, HDMI ARC, optical, aux and phono - so it's pretty much plug-and-play all the way. I tested out all four and I'm happy to report they all work as expected. The Bluetooth option - which can be a bit tricky on other devices - was dead easy to get working when I paired it with my projector. The speakers are a little retro-looking with a solid wood housing in black and brown. And for a first, you ger an understated, metal remote rather than the usual plastic one. It's an old-fashioned IR remote rather than Bluetooth, which is the only real hint at the budget price. You do get dials on the left speaker that allow you to switch inputs as well as control volume, bass and and treble levels. To the back of the same speaker you'll find all the ports, as well as a USB for playing on-board music (and installing firmware updates). Now on to the sound. While they obviously won't compete with the real high-end speakers on the market, they certainly punch way above their weight. You could pay double and get less, is how I put it. The audio will easily fill your average living room thanks to the metal speaker cones, three-driver sound and 100W of amplification gives them a bit of oomph. If you're a true audiophile, you might notice a lack of detail - and a bit of hiss - but the average consumer just won't notice. All in all, they look nice, will connect to anything and deliver quality way above the £120 price tag. As with any Majority product you also get a three-year warranty. There's not much more you could ask for. The D100 Bookshelf Speakers are available via Amazon for £119.95. What users say "Sound quality is way above what one might reasonably expect for the low price, and they are voiced very much in the 'British' style. They are in many ways reminiscent of the classic BBC LS3/5a, with a communicative bass, articulate midrange, and polite treble." "Excellent value. Used with another mains powered device, there is some hiss - a good, balanced power supply unit might solve that. Used with a decent DC (battery) MP3 player via the phono jack the sound is poignant, crystal clear, with a good bass punch. Much better than I expected for the price."
Wales Online
7 days ago
- Wales Online
Review: Majority D100 Bookshelf Speakers punch above their weight
Review: Majority D100 Bookshelf Speakers punch above their weight The D100s are a pair of good-sized speakers that will look nice sitting next to your TV or home stereo Majority D100 3-Driver Active Bluetooth Bookshelf Speakers I'm an unashamed fan of Majority, the Cambridge-based audio company that specialises in decent kit at a very good price. I've reviewed many of it products and haven't come across a dud yet and I'm happy to report the D100 Bookshelf Speakers continues that run. The most powerful Majority sells, the D100s are a pair of good-sized speakers that will look nice sitting next to your TV or home stereo set-up. As well as the audio quality, which we'll get into later, the ace in the hand is the number of connectivity options the D100s give. You can choose from 5.3 Bluetooth, HDMI ARC, optical, aux and phono - so it's pretty much plug-and-play all the way. I tested out all four and I'm happy to report they all work as expected. The Bluetooth option - which can be a bit tricky on other devices - was dead easy to get working when I paired it with my projector. The speakers are a little retro-looking with a solid wood housing in black and brown. And for a first, you ger an understated, metal remote rather than the usual plastic one. It's an old-fashioned IR remote rather than Bluetooth, which is the only real hint at the budget price. You do get dials on the left speaker that allow you to switch inputs as well as control volume, bass and and treble levels. To the back of the same speaker you'll find all the ports, as well as a USB for playing on-board music (and installing firmware updates). Article continues below Now on to the sound. While they obviously won't compete with the real high-end speakers on the market, they certainly punch way above their weight. You could pay double and get less, is how I put it. The audio will easily fill your average living room thanks to the metal speaker cones, three-driver sound and 100W of amplification gives them a bit of oomph. If you're a true audiophile, you might notice a lack of detail - and a bit of hiss - but the average consumer just won't notice. All in all, they look nice, will connect to anything and deliver quality way above the £120 price tag. As with any Majority product you also get a three-year warranty. There's not much more you could ask for. The D100 Bookshelf Speakers are available via Amazon for £119.95. What users say "Sound quality is way above what one might reasonably expect for the low price, and they are voiced very much in the 'British' style. They are in many ways reminiscent of the classic BBC LS3/5a, with a communicative bass, articulate midrange, and polite treble." "Excellent value. Used with another mains powered device, there is some hiss - a good, balanced power supply unit might solve that. Used with a decent DC (battery) MP3 player via the phono jack the sound is poignant, crystal clear, with a good bass punch. Much better than I expected for the price." Alternatives Roxel Onyx Active Bookshelf Speakers Article continues below Audioengine A5+ 150W Powered Home Music Speaker System
Tom's Guide
13-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
I just tested this $67 soundbar, and I'm blown away for the price
The Majority Naga 60 has something I've never seen before on a soundbar: a sub-$70 MSRP. The Naga is by far the cheapest soundbar I've ever tested. But is that enough to make it one of the best soundbars on the market today? Well… it depends on what you're after. Are you looking for a super affordable upgrade from TV speakers? Then it could be the one for you. Conversely, if you're looking for a buildable home theater setup, then it's probably not adept enough to impress you. If you configure the EQs correctly (Movie mode and 3D on), then the Naga can hold its own. However, for just $67, I'm inclined to say that this is the top bang-for-buck soundbar out there — admittedly, there's not that much bang, but there's so little buck that I can forgive it. Find out the full info in this Majority Naga 60 soundbar review. Price $67 / £69 Connectivity HDMI ARC (not eARC), Optical, Bluetooth, USB Weight 3.7 pounds Dimensions 24 x 4.6 x 3 inches Colors Black Subwoofer Built-in, but poor. Sub output for wired third-party Dolby Atmos No Channel 2.1 The Majority Naga 60 is incredibly affordable. The 2.1 channel soundbar is just $67 from Amazon U.S. and £69 from Amazon U.K. It is, by far, the cheapest soundbar I've ever reviewed. The other budget options I've tested are the Majority Elias ($99, 3-stars) and the Sony HT-S100F ($99, 4-stars). While I would wholeheartedly recommend the Sony HT-S100F (which you'll be hearing a lot about in this review) over the Naga 60, for that extra $32 saving, the Naga 60 could be a good option for those on a very tight budget. I'm just going to discuss the Naga's connectivity issues right off the bat. Even though it has an ARC HDMI output, it won't work without fiddling with your TV's settings. Once the soundbar is connected, you'll need to go into the advanced settings and change the S/PDIF settings to PCM. PCM is usually reserved for optical connectivity, so I was utterly baffled by this. However, once this was sorted, I was able to watch TV as usual with the Naga soundbar. While this might seem a bit daunting for newbies, if you follow Majority's steps carefully, it should be easy to correct. Connectivity issues aside, the soundbar looks like any other soundbar. It's a little bulky at 3 inches tall and 4.5 inches deep, which is considerably bigger than the Sony HT-S100F's 2.5 and 3.5 inches respectively, but this could be a worthy sacrifice for the $32 saving. There's a range of buttons on top, but these are all remote controlled too. The remote feels decently made, with slightly tactile buttons. These buttons control EQs (flat, movie, music, dialogue, 3D), bass and treble levels, and Bluetooth connectivity. Disappointingly, though, I didn't find the tone controls all that effective. This is either due to such a weak built-in subwoofer that increasing the bass volume to max does nothing, or that the button controls don't actually do anything. The minimum volume (01) and max volume (04) sounded virtually identical to me. Volume 4 resulted in some unpleasant vibration interference, but didn't actually improve the movie's sound, so I turned it back down to stop this vibrating. Considering this is a $67 soundbar, I didn't expect a massive range of features, and that's exactly what I got. There's a built-in subwoofer, Bluetooth connectivity for music or linking to your phone/laptop, and a range of playback EQs I mentioned above. I got the best sound out of the 'Movie' mode with '3D' mode turned on. It appears you can turn on 3D mode and one of the listening modes simultaneously. I found 'Flat' to be very tinny, so I would never choose that EQ. Similarly, 'Dialogue' and 'Music' did little to improve the sound itself — only 'Movie' mode sounded good. I'll discuss the quality of the sound and Bluetooth connectivity for music in detail in the 'Sound quality' section below. I always test soundbars with 'Top Gun: Maverick' on 4K UHD Blu-Ray, a range of TV shows on Netflix, and music via Spotify and Qobuz. As with all soundbars I test, I watched 'Top Gun: Maverick'. The opening scene is fantastic for putting soundbars through their paces: it has thumping bass in both the diegetic jet engines and the soundtrack, plus high-frequency sound effects of whipping ropes, clinking metal, and radio sounds. While a lot of this nuance was lost, I could still hear sounds like the roaring engines and the whooshing wind. True, I couldn't make out the clinking metal sounds and flicking rope effects, but for a $67 soundbar, can I really complain? Throughout the movie, the OST's brass motif was a little tinny and flat, and I wanted some extra oomph from the action scenes — especially when Maverick was flying. However, this soundbar is a little better than my Panasonic TV speakers, and is just $67. There were some moments where the Naga 60 couldn't handle the sound: for example, when Maverick's jet is taking off at the start of the movie. This sound was condensed and clipped, almost muted. When I increased to volume 20+, the jet sound didn't really get louder, while dialogue and the soundtrack did. To test sound quality on TV, I watched a variety of shows on Netflix. Considering the Naga 60 is just $67, I think it's a worthwhile assumption that most customers will be using it for TV rather than surround-sound Dolby Atmos setups. Especially as the Naga 60 isn't actually compatible with Atmos. There were a few standout moments during testing: for example, when I was watching 'Stranger Things', the characters speaking over walkie-talkies was really immersive. The radio dialogue sounded as if it was coming from around me. When the characters were hiding in a school bus, the footsteps on the metal body echoed throughout the scene. While the soundtrack was pinchy in the treble and a little crackly at the top of the frequency range, this didn't detract massively from the general experience. The soundbar really struggles with high-pitched feminine voices, especially Winona Ryder's — which is a massive shame seeing as she's the main character in 'Stranger Things'. This impacted my ability to watch the show for long periods. The Naga 60 also really struggled with the 'Stranger Things' intro, which is very bassy, and just churned out an unpleasant vibrating and grating sound. Overall, the soundbar performed well, all things considered. It's a major step up from TV speakers, but it won't impress when playing Dolby Atmos-enabled movies or home cinema enthusiasts. For that, I'd recommend the Sony HT-S100F. To test music playback, I connected to my Naga 60 via Bluetooth on Qobuz, our best music streaming service for audiophiles. First, I listened to 'Certified' by Miso Extra, which is an upbeat pop track with synth motifs and a groovy bass beat. I couldn't really hear the bass synths, but the treble melody was audible. The vocals were soft yet a little flat, but overall the song sounded alright — just nowhere near as good as one of the best Bluetooth speakers. 'Memoirs of Miso' by The Orielles is a psychedelic indie track with rolling guitar melodies and airy vocals. This track sounded quite muffled in the bridge and chorus, as if the soundbar couldn't separate all the instruments layered across the track. However, the sound was still palatable. Another track worth noting was 'There's No Future In Optimism' by Garbage, which has a dense soundscape with electronic bass, guitars, and heady percussion. There was a little crackling at the peak of the bass, and the vocals were a little overpowered by the rest of the sound, but, again, I can't really expect more from a $67 soundbar. Overall, the soundbar did alright with music, but I'd just recommend getting a speaker (like the JBL Flip 7, $149 on Amazon). The Naga 60 soundbar is a great way to upgrade from TV speakers for as little money as possible. However, $67 is still a decent amount of money for a first soundbar, and, given the setup headache, I'm not sure how easy this is to use for complete beginners. If you can spare another $32, I'd recommend the Sony HT-S100F soundbar. It's just $99 and has fantastic, room-filling sound quality. On top of that, it never struggled with dialogue or bass like the Naga 60 did. However, it's worth noting that it doesn't have a subwoofer output (unlike the Naga, which can be connected to a wired sub), so it is not great for building a home theater. With all that being said, if you want a super cheap soundbar that sounds better than TV speakers (but not as good as a pricier soundbar), then the Majority Naga 60 is a good option — it just won't blow you away.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Sports Betting Is a Plague
When do practical policy effects trump cherished principles? The mess that has come with gambling liberalization should force the thoughtful kind of libertarian to consider that question. Set aside, for the moment, the recent ideological devolution of the Republican Party into national socialism: Traditionally, most of the Americans who called themselves 'libertarians' were in effect conservatives ('Republicans who like weed and porn,' as a Marxist friend of mine used to put it), while American conservatism was thoroughly libertarian, and not only as an economic matter but also in a way deeply rooted in the live-and-let-live sensibility of figures such as Barry Goldwater, with his suspicion of Moral Majority types. ('Mark my word,' Goldwater famously said, 'if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem.') Libertarians and conservatives both prioritize freedom; libertarians and conservatives both admit the unwelcome reality of trade-offs; libertarians tend to lean a little more into freedom, and conservatives tend to dwell more on the unpleasanter facts of life. Here is a sobering write-up of a study published in December by scholars at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management: At the outset, the researchers observed a sharp increase in sports betting in the states where it was legalized. 'The figure goes from zero in most states to sizable amounts, and it continues to increase for several months as people learn about it,' [Kellogg professor Scott] Baker says. 'Only a year or two after it's been introduced do we see a bit of a plateau, and this is at a pretty high level in terms of money spent and people involved.' By the end of their sample period, the researchers saw that nearly 8 percent of households were involved in gambling. These bettors spent, on average, $1,100 per year on online bets. While the amount of money people put into legal sports gambling rose, their net investments fell by nearly 14 percent. For every $1 a household spent on betting, it put $2 fewer into investment accounts. As bad as that sounds, the report in toto is considerably worse. For example, the researchers also found that sports gambling correlated with greater participation in other forms of gambling, especially lotteries, and that this trend is more pronounced 'among households that frequently overdraw their bank accounts,' i.e., poor people and those living on the financial edge. There is an open question of real relevance to policymakers in this: whether sports gambling is a cause of other reckless economic behavior or is a symptom of more general economic recklessness, especially among those already under economic stress. Economic pressure moves some people in the direction of conservation (cutting spending, saving more, etc.) but moves others in the opposite direction as their anxiety and sense of hopelessness work together to make high-risk activities seem more attractive: Gambling is fundamentally a form of entertainment based on wishful thinking about the likelihood of a big payoff—the economic version of George Orwell's man who 'may take to drink because he feels himself a failure but then fail all the more completely because he drinks.' The cause/symptom distinction is relevant, but the answer, whatever it is, is not dispositive: Even if increased gambling is only a secondary effect, it remains the case that, other things being equal, people in financial distress probably would be better off if opportunities to increase their distress were less readily available. A few regular readers will be thinking: 'Wait—this from the guy who supports legalizing heroin?' The thing about the prohibitionist argument is, it isn't always completely wrong. Alcohol consumption really did go down in the early years of Prohibition—it was a bad policy, but it did not fail on every front. And the benefits to be had from libertarian reform often turn out to be more modest in practice than what had been hoped for. For example: The presence of legal prostitution in some parts of Nevada has done little or nothing to alleviate the problems associated with street-level prostitution in Las Vegas and elsewhere and may have made it worse in some ways, with poorly informed visitors to Sin City believing that prostitution is legal there, which it isn't. Experiments with de facto legalization of some 'hard' drugs, and the more general liberalization of marijuana laws, has not eliminated the black market for drugs and thus defunded the cartels, while drug use generally has increased where drugs are legal. And now gambling legalization has led to more gambling and arguably to more destructive and addictive forms of gambling via app. You can make a good libertarian case that some of these intractable problems above point to reforms that were insufficiently libertarian: There is not very much legal prostitution in Nevada, and what there is remains relatively difficult to access and much more expensive than illegal prostitution—a couple of high-priced brothels an hour's drive from the Strip were never going to eliminate prostitution on the street of Las Vegas or in casino bars; black markets in marijuana and other drugs endure because prohibition of marijuana and other drugs endures, and this has effects even on legal production as marijuana cultivated for use in the liberal states is diverted to the black market in the prohibition states. ('What's the matter with Kansas?' indeed.) But if your best argument amounts to, 'The ideal hypothetical version of my policy is preferable to the non-ideal real-world version of your policy,' then you haven't made a very good case for your policy. And clear-eyed libertarian critics might have a few important things to say about legal gambling, too: that lotteries are state monopolies and that the casino industry is a series of regional state-organized cartels, that neither really is an example of free enterprise in action, and that, as with drinking alcohol, only a minority of gamblers develop problem habits. It is difficult to make a cost-benefit analysis here, because the benefits are almost entirely a matter of taste: Walking through an Atlantic City casino, I myself do not see anything that seems worth preserving—but, then, we have free markets, and more general liberty, precisely because different people have different values, interests, and priorities. (Given the advertising footprint of the sports-betting industry, you can bet that bro media would push back hard against any attempt at limitation.) Still, my thoughts linger on that money being diverted from retirement savings to be pissed away on sports gambling. The Kellogg authors offer the possibility that this is only partly a problem with sports gambling per se and that the pathology is made much worse, as so many things are in our time, by its having migrated to the lonely world of the smartphone, where you can make a spur-of-the-moment bet on a sleepless night at 3 a.m., perhaps after a few drinks. They suggest that the situation might be improved by restricting sports gambling to on-premises wagers in gambling parlors. But if you ever have visited any of those ghastly little mini-casinos that have popped up in converted convenience stores and gas stations around the country – or most of the big gambling palaces, for that matter – then you may come to assume that location constraints are unlikely to produce substantial results. Gambling is an ugly business, morally and aesthetically, almost everywhere it exists. Even the world's most famous baccarat enthusiast knows that. But you know what I'm still thinking about: $2 in vanished retirement savings for every $1 gambled. That's not the kind of return a reformer would hope for.
