[General Topics] Menneisyys:
I, generally, agree with the a2dp.info review, particularly with the closing statement "As it seemed to me, among positive comments the 590 A ranks first. In spite of still facing some problems, users consider this headset to be nearly the best choice.". I, however, don’t think the statement "though they will be TOO tight for persons with bigger heads" is right – I have a pretty big head and have absolutely no problems with the 590, not even after 6-8 hours of wearing it. On the other hand, I have major problems with the Moto HT820 on my large head – even after some 30 minutes of listening. Also note that while I have a big head and have been using the 590A very frequently for a little less than two years (!), it hasn’t broken on me, unlike, for example, the TH-55, which broke after about two days (!) of use. That is, if you’re lucky enough, I don’t think it’ll break on you either. I think it was till mid-2006 that the fragile 590's were manufactured; the two 590's I've been using have been manufactured later and, again, haven't broken on me.

ShinyShiny TV’s review is pretty short and not very informative; so is MobileWhack’s and Laptop Mag’s.

MobileTechReview’s review is far longer. I agree with it, particularly with the conclusion ("We’ve reviewed several Bluetooth stereo headsets over the years and the Pulsar 590 is the best we’ve seen and heard so far."), except for statements like "The sound quality is very good when working with both the iPod and the Zune. The Pulsar 590 adds more bass compared to the iPod OEM wired headset, but is otherwise comparable to the wired headsets bundled with these devices." Actually, the Zune is a plain (albeit indeed very good quality – it’s even better, bass-wise, than the earbuds coming with the Nokia N95) earbud model and definitely has worse (less) bass than the 590.

The user reviews at pricegrabber may also be worth reading. I certainly don’t agree with the fourth reviewer’s statement, "Not the best audio quality", though. The reviewer with the post "Warning, not compatable" only refers to the (old and certainly non-A2DP-capable) LG8100, NOT real A2DP sources.

Gadget Review’s very short mini-review is certainly flawed. They state "Don’t expect long playback time, but should suffice for those who use at home." This is in no way true – as long as they can name a stereo Bluetooth headset that has at least twice the battery life (I don’t think they can – most of the small(er) headsets don’t even come close to HALF of the battery life of the 590).

Legit Reviews’ review is pretty long. It, however, having been published more than two years ago, doesn’t elaborate on the A2DP quality when using mobile sources. I certainly disagree with the statement "The volume on the headset was very good and the stereo sound was far superior to that of the Moto HT820" – it’s not really true. The two models have approximately the same sound quality and, with strong equalization in the highs on the 590, frequency response.

CNet’s mini-review is pretty nice. The only statement requiring some additional info is as follows: "We played audio through the Pulsar 590A continuously over a period of about 11 hours without having to recharge. This is not bad, but a word of warning: It's a pain to recharge a device such as headphones when you're not used to doing so." I don’t really get this. First, the 590 has great battery life. Second, you just put it on a charger before going to bed every (second / third, depending on the use) night and, when you wake up, it’s recharged – there isn’t anything different in this than in, say, recharging handsets.

jkOnTheRun’s review is very short (some sentences only); it’s mostly the comments that are worth checking out. So is the case with LiGo’s page.

PC Authority’s review is OK, except for their opinion on the sound quality: "Unfortunately, the sound quality isn’t on par with what we have heard from other offerings, but they’re still worth considering. … The sound quality is, unfortunately, very muddy. Undefined bass tends to drown out the rest of the signal, and a lot of the treble’s definition is lost in transmission. If your source has any EQ settings, you can tweak them to get better results, but using the Pulsar 590A as a pair of wired headphones, instead of as a wireless pair, will give you an increase in fidelity." I think they have messed up something – for example, used the MS BT stack as the source (the article is two years old; that is, before WM6 with it hugely enhanced audio quality, which is now on par with the other mobile alternatives: BlackBerry, Symbian S40/S60 and Widcomm for Windows Mobile).

Some other, comparative shots I’ve made

Pulsar 590 vs. HT820 thickness difference (as can clearly be seen, the HT820 is definitely thicker)

Pulsar 590 vs. Cellink thickness difference