We've seen a keyboard with a built-in macro pad, and a keyboard with a touchscreen and a separate, add-on numberpad, but what if you want a keyboard with a numberpad and a built-in macropad without having to spend an extra $100?

I guess that's why there's the Turtle Beach KB5 — a full-size, wired mechanical keyboard with low-profile switches, an 8,000 Hz polling rate, and a built-in 2.4-inch touchscreen that functions as a mini macro pad (with six buttons). It's got the built-in numberpad, unlike the Corsair Galleon 100 SD and the Turtle Beach KB7, as well as the touchscreen / macro pad, though its version is about half the size. Still, maybe that's all you really need. The KB5 is also significantly cheaper than both of those keyboards, which retail for $300 and $200, respectively.

The Turtle Beach KB5 is available now, in black, for $149.99.

Design and Construction of the KB5

The KB5 is a full-size low-profile wired mechanical gaming keyboard with extra macro keys, a volume roller, and a full-color 2.4-inch touchscreen in the upper-right corner (above the 10-key numberpad). It has a roomy layout and is slightly larger than the average full-size keyboard, measuring approximately 18.78 inches (477 mm) wide by 6.89 inches (175 mm) deep. It's 1.06 inches (27mm) thick at its thickest point, including the keycaps.

The KB5 has a silver brushed-aluminum top plate with a coppery accent in the upper-left corner. It has a sturdy metal roller bar on the top toward the left side — though it's not really close enough to the left side to be in the corner, and I found it a bit awkward to have to reach over my function row to use the roller. I would have preferred it in a corner or even on the side, like the volume roller on the NZXT Function 2. It's a nicely-built roller, however — thick, metal, clickable, and with etched diagonal lines for grip.

The keyboard also has a row of five macro keys on the left side, as well as a 2.5-inch color touchscreen in the upper-right corner, above the 10-key numberpad. The touchscreen bumps up past the rest of the keyboard — the touchscreen side is just under 7 inches deep, while the other side is about 6.25 inches deep — so it doesn't cut into your keys. The KB5 has a full function row, a full 3x2 navigation cluster, arrow keys, and a full 10-key numberpad, along with the standard alphanumeric keys.

The KB5 features Turtle Beach's (formerly Roccat's) signature aesthetic — an open board with flat, shallow keycaps that leave the switch exposed, which makes for both easy cleaning and brighter, more visible RGB lighting. The keycaps are low-profile double-shot PBT, with shine-through legends; the board comes with four textured keycaps that you can use to replace the W/A/S/D keys (or, I guess, any four keys) for better recognition.

The bottom of the board is plastic, with six rubber anti-slip pads and two sets of plastic flip-out feet for angling the keyboard toward you. It's a fairly lightweight keyboard, weighing just under 2 pounds (1.96lbs / 887g), not including the wrist rest (which weighs an additional 7.5 ounces / 213g). This is about the same as the Logitech G515 Lightspeed, though the G515 is a TKL while the KB5 is full-size (plus a touchscreen and macro keys).

In the box, the KB5 comes with a plastic wrist rest, a 5.9-foot (1.8m) USB-C to USB-A cable, four textured keycaps for replacing the W / A / S / D keys, and a keycap puller.

Specs

Typing and Gaming Experience on the KB5

The KB5 comes with Turtle Beach's Titan low-profile linear switches, which are rated for up to 50 million keypresses and have an actuation point of 1.2mm and a force of 42gf. These are traditional low-profile mechanical switches — not magnetic Hall Effect switches like you'll find on the KB7 (and KP7). They're linear, which means a smooth keypress with no audible or tactile bump, and they're pre-lubed so they're pretty smooth.

While I'm not a huge fan of linear switches, the KB5's are quick and stable, and you get a decent little 'thunk' when you bottom out on the keyboard's aluminum top plate. The typing experience is very similar to that of the KB7, which is to say that it's very pleasant for a mainstream gaming keyboard with low-profile linear switches.

The keyboard has flat, shallow keycaps made of double-shot PBT. They have a slightly matte texture and should resist shine better than ABS keycaps, but I'm not fully convinced that'll be the case (maybe they just feel cheaper because they're thinner, overall, than regular keycaps, though). The keycaps are wide, with slightly curved tops, and the keyboard is roomy — I didn't have any problem getting used to the layout for the most part, though the extra row of macro keys on the left did throw me off a few times (this happens whenever there's an extra row of macro keys).

The touchscreen is located above the numberpad, and is fairly responsive. It responds to both taps and swipes (you can swipe through "pages" of controls / buttons), and I found the 2 x 3 layout a little more intuitive to navigate than the KB7's much larger layout — though still not as intuitive as it would be with tactile buttons, like the Corsair Galleon 100 SD has. In addition to the six customizable "buttons" on the touchscreen, there's also some other info displayed at the top — your current profile (you can switch between profiles by tapping this) and some keyboard info (e.g. numlock, caps lock, scroll lock).

The KB5 is also a solid keyboard for gaming, thanks to its quick, responsive linear switches and 8K polling rate. While it doesn't have magnetic switches like its pricier sibling, it does implement Turtle Beach's ReacTap, which is a software solution similar to simultaneous opposing cardinal directions (SOCD).

Features and Software of the KB5

Like all Turtle Beach products, the KB5 ships with firmware from 2001 (or at least it feels like it) and requires at least 16 mandatory updates before it can be used with the brand's Swarm II software. I'm exaggerating, of course — but not much.

Once I managed to get the KB5 up to date on firmware (and Swarm II up to date on software), I was able to customize the touchscreen, keyboard, and lighting. Swarm II is kind of mandatory for this keyboard, as you can't really customize the touchscreen without it — and the touchscreen is a large part of the selling point here. There's not a ton you can do with the touchscreen that you can't do with regular keys, at the moment. There are options for keyboard / Windows / multimedia functions, opening apps and websites, and assigning macros. And there are a couple of "dynamic" options such as a timer setting and performance monitoring, but it's not a robust ecosystem like that of Elgato or Loupedeck. Still, it's probably enough to get you started, and the Swarm II app includes a handful of templates in case you're out of ideas.

Keymapping is pretty straightforward, and you can map keys to do most of what you can map the touchscreen to do (save for visual things, such as performance monitoring, obviously). You can record and save macros in the app and configure ReacTap. You can also customize the lighting from a handful of presets (or per-key, if you so desire). The keyboard can save up to five onboard profiles, which you can switch between by tapping the profile number in the upper-left corner of the touchscreen.

The Bottom Line

The KB5 is actually a pretty nice compromise, and I like it better than the pricier (and fancier) Turtle Beach KB7. I love having a built-in numberpad that doesn't cost an extra $100 to snap onto the side of the board, and the smaller touchscreen is actually more manageable to use quickly and without (really) looking. The KB5 may not have magnetic Hall Effect switches, but its low-profile linear switches feel and sound pretty good for a mainstream gaming keyboard. And at $150, it's basically half the price of the combined KB7 keyboard and KP7 numberpad.

Of course, if you're really dedicated to making your keyboard a streaming deck substitute, the Corsair Galleon 100 SD is the only real option. Not only does it have physical buttons, it also has knobs — and it's supported by Elgato's Stream Deck software, which is still the real differentiating factor for macropad and touchscreen devices these days.

Think our tech is getting a little too smart for its own good? You're not alone.

In the past few weeks, TechRadar brought you three key updates on the invasion of your privacy without consent, owing to the AI learning models nestled in our gadgets and appliances.

In case you missed the latest missives, new LG TVs can record you in the background and will ask you to notify anyone who comes into your home, to comply with "wiretapping" laws. Next up, Nothing's new earbuds offer a 'squeeze the stems to record calls' feature being called Audio Snapshot, which is tantamount to phone-hacking in cute packaging. And finally, there's the continued backlash over Meta's AI glasses. Despite the social media giant implementing a feature that stops recordings if a wearer tampers with the front-firing light, hatred of these and other smart shades (oft-renamed 'pervert glasses' by the general public) has led to people calling for camera-less glasses.

So, in a world where our glasses can watch, our earbuds can hear, our speakers can speak and our TVs are a little too closely invested in our lives for comfort, how much more will we allow our tech to intrude before enough is enough — and what can we do to regain some privacy?

Your tech will see you now

Lauren Hendry Parsons is a seasoned advocate for digital rights and a gifted speaker in making these complex issues accessible. She is a director within the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, helping to make the organization's push for a "technology future that serves and is shaped by the people who use it" a message that resonates on a global scale.

Luckily, she has agreed to talk to me on the growing concern over surveillance tech's prevalence in our lives.

Parsons states that in order to zoom in on these issues, we need first to zoom out. "I see this as part of a bigger pattern," she begins, "that is a push by technology and other forces to normalize consumer surveillance — surveillance of people by other people — and that's something that we're seeing cropping up a lot."

So what's changed — after all, recording devices have existed for some time? The answer is the growing number of places where such surveillance is becoming normal.

"It's something that started in the Internet of Things home devices," she says. "You might talk to a smart speaker, or talk actively to another product that is doing your bidding — but it was usually tied to a place.

"Now, we're seeing the normalization of surveillance-chic behaviors, where fashion influencers are sharing their own Ring doorbells to show off their outfit of the day.

"That moves surveillance from something fixed inside a home, where people can at least see the object and talk about it, to something that's constantly moving through every space and every conversation."

And it's being packaged in pink earbuds, chic sunglasses or fun doorbells? Parsons agrees: "The chicification of surveillance to me is deeply concerning."

Who counts as the user — and should they really have control?

I want to talk about Meta's AI glasses and the involvement of Kylie Jenner in the ad campaign, especially when women's safety (regarding non-consensual surveillance and distribution of such footage) has been listed as a key concern.

I mention the fact that when speaking to several male colleagues about the benefits of such glasses (rather than the concerns), not one of them mentioned what I suspect all women thought: that wearing such glasses might mean filming your potential attacker, and that would be a very good thing.

"There are absolutely situations where people might want the convenience these products provide," Parsons agree. "Being able to translate something on the go or take a quick snapshot without getting your phone out. For people with disabilities or limited capacity, these tools could be genuinely useful.

"But I don't see the trade-offs being clearly explained. I don't see meaningful ways to opt out. Even if these companies have perfect data handling processes and perfect privacy records, the risk is being transferred to the consumer instead of being held by the tech company."

Parsons mentions one of the core issues at Mozilla Foundation: privacy by design. "Privacy by design, which is what we recommend as best practice, means products should be private by default," she says. "And that has to include bystanders.

"Technology companies talk about giving the user control, but who's counting as the user?

"With smart glasses, televisions, and recording earbuds, the purchaser isn't the only person affected. Just as children are affected by smart speakers or passengers by dashcams in cars, the person across the table or on the other end of the call is also a data subject, even though they have no access to the controls and no real way to opt out.

"True privacy by design must protect both the person operating the device and the people involuntarily brought into its data collection environment.

"When something (with surveillance tech built in) is fixed in your home or office, you can at least choose not to go there. You can suggest meeting somewhere else. That's difficult and has social consequences, but it's possible.

"If it's something someone is unobtrusively wearing in their ear or on their glasses, or something you don't even know they have, opting out becomes almost impossible."

I ask how we might regain some agency here, or at least get a handle on our privacy regarding AI glasses, call-recording earbuds and all-seeing TVs. Parsons points to the work she does.

"Mozilla's privacy principles are useful here," she says. "They're about no surprises, genuine user control, limited data collection, sensible settings, and multiple layers of protection. These examples show what happens when products fall short of those principles."

Another thing Parsons is keen to impress upon TechRadar is central to her work: understanding the trade-offs. "I don't see how everyone on the phone can understand those trade-offs and give informed consent," she says.

"The only way that could happen is if this (the recording of everything we do) became such a standard operating procedure that everyone expects it, because everyone has it. At that point, we would have completely accepted constant surveillance as the norm.

"I don't think the answer is necessarily to prohibit recording technology. It's to stop presenting recording as an ordinary, consequence-free convenience."

She mentions translation in AI glasses as an example: "Companies could show translations without collecting or storing the underlying data, but we know that's not what's happening."

Another watch-word in Parsons' work is 'friction', and how disproportionately easy it has become to monitor, film and record secretly and without consent.

"Features with serious privacy implications should involve equal and proportionate friction," she says. "The more sensitive the activity, the stronger the consent mechanism should be."

I mention that when testing a set of earbuds recently, a simple beep to signify that recording has begun is the only notification the caller on the other end of the line receives. Parsons believes concern there is valid.

"Notification is not consent," she says. "We've become used to surveillance in places like train stations and public spaces because it's framed as being for safety. But I'd hate to see that extended to person-to-person interactions."

I ask if perhaps people should simply get OK with omnipresent filming or data collection by individuals and wider companies, since it seems so hard to avoid? Parsons' answer is emphatic: "That's deeply problematic."

"We're seeing the expectation that people should be comfortable being filmed all the time. Even terms and conditions often state that by attending, you agree to being photographed or filmed for marketing purposes. The default is that your data is collected unless you make the effort to opt out or avoid the event entirely. Again, that's deeply problematic.

"The diminishment of privacy is cumulative. It's one thing to have a fixed camera in a train station. It's another to be filmed by multiple people in different places without your consent, or to have your audio collected."

'The burden of this issue is not distributed equally'

Parsons reads me a quote from one of her own features, and it cuts to the core of the agency, consent and privacy debate better than anything I could ever try to surmise.

"The burden of this issue is not distributed equally, and the risk of ambient recording will fall disproportionately on people who already have less control in a situation," she says. "That includes workers, children, parents, patients, tenants, domestic abuse survivors, and protesters. This makes vulnerable populations more vulnerable."

Turning the cameras around

Parsons mentions a novel but initially counter-intuitive solution suggested by some prominent female content creators. Instead of shunning Meta's glasses (or playing Disney songs if you realize you're being filmed, because Disney's music is better protected than women's lives), the idea is that women do wear them, specifically to film men when they start to behave in an inappropriate or predatory manner, then upload the footage everywhere. The thinking is that these products might then get regulated very quickly.

"If women collectively used them in that way — in a kind of, let's call it a neo-Me Too movement — I'd put money on consent issues being addressed much more quickly," Parsons says.

"The issue isn't simply that these products can record. It's that the examples you gave (the earbuds, the glasses, the TV that records in the background) all prioritize effortless capture over meaningful consent, when there are other ways to do it.

"The person operating the product gets all the convenience and control, while everyone else gets a light, a beep, or a legal disclaimer. That's an unacceptable imbalance.

"Recording has many legitimate and valuable purposes, but companies should be asking how to build consent into the infrastructure, minimize what's captured, and protect bystanders as rigorously as they protect the user.

"The false dilemma is, 'Do you just not want this technology?' But we shouldn't have to choose between useful technology and privacy.

"Preserving both means companies need to treat consent as a product requirement, not something buried in their terms and conditions."

Facial recognition (and how to make it disappear)

I ask Parsons about Mozilla Foundation's stance on digital facial recognition, a highly controversial feature that our phones and smart glasses are technically capable of. Although the big brands have so far disabled or restricted the software on glasses, there are strong suggestions that hackers have managed to scoot around it.

She mentions the rise of anti-surveillance fashion; garments that make their wearer invisible to the algorithm and thus can thwart the surveillance tech stuffed into our handsets and wearables.

"Looking ahead, we have two things happening simultaneously," Parsons says. "We have vastly increased computing power and data analytics capabilities that allow us to store and analyze more information than ever before, and we have recording devices embedded everywhere in increasingly unobtrusive ways. That combination is worrying.

"One of the brands we spoke to, Capable Design, explained it well: 'The problem with surveillance technology is citizens don't have a possibility in the physical world to opt out. In the digital space, we can say yes or no to cookies. In the physical world, we don't have this option. We wanted to create physical protection that would allow citizens to give their consent or not.'

"It feels as though we're being forced to pick sides: either you're comfortable with surveillance or you're actively trying to avoid it. Again, it comes back to the false choice between privacy and convenience because technology developers aren't prepared to give us both.

"I think these efforts are people trying to take back some agency. There's a feeling that all of this is inevitable.

"Particularly in the UK, where social norms and politeness are strong (this interview is taking place in the UK), I worry we're going to politely accept our way into a surveillance state because people feel uncomfortable challenging others or assume this is an inevitable progression."

Our time together is nearly up, but Parsons wants to talk just a little more about the future. "I want to say this loudly because it's a core Mozilla Foundation belief: the future of technology is not inevitable," she says.

"These are choices being made by people within companies. They could choose a different path.

"That's why Mozilla Foundation funds projects and people who challenge the status quo. We're investing in positive alternatives because opting out as a consumer can feel almost impossible.

"We need companies making better choices, regulators setting stronger requirements, and a greater appreciation that friction isn't always a bad thing. A little friction can protect people, encourage creativity, and ensure meaningful consent.

"That's what I hope for the future: that we don't accept inevitability, that we invest in better technology choices, and that responsibility isn't pushed entirely onto the individual consumer at the point of use."

AI another way

So, are there people within companies — even AI companies focused on "autonomous agents, edge intelligence, computer vision, and robotics" — looking to make different choices? Actually, yes.

Div Garg — CEO and Co-Founder of AGI (an AI on-device 'personal assistant' company) — is perhaps most famous for turning down a big gig at OpenAI in order to work on a "Siri that actually works" within his own startup. Fortunately, he's prepared to talk to me about the concerns surrounding the scraping (and in-cloud storage) of our personal data for AI learning.

"The debate around whether AI wearables that record our everyday lives are an invasion of privacy overlooks the fact that this technology doesn’t need the cloud whatsoever," he had said, prior to our meeting today. "It’s cheaper and easier for manufacturers, but it isn’t a necessity. Put the model on the device, and no data ever has to go beyond it."

Now, I ask him to expand. "My company hasn't cared about audience growth," he says. "We believe all AI agents and assistants should be running on-device, so the user should own the model and the data.

"What's happening now is people are typing their data into services, and companies use that data to show you ads. I think all of this can be misused to sell you more things, and we don't want that.

"AI is great, but it's only great if it's neutral and genuinely beneficial. It shouldn't become a source of revenue for corporations through people's data. That's what we're trying to change. We believe this kind of edge AI is the future, and we want to build something that's fully privacy-safe and that people can truly trust.

"We don't want people giving away their data without knowing more about it. We need the opposite approach, and I don't think enough people are thinking about this."

Garg pauses. "Maybe Apple should have been the company doing this," he adds, "but they've been lagging behind when it comes to AI".

I agree, and ask him why that might be? "No one has really taken the initiative to solve these privacy concerns. We've been holding a lot of events recently; for example, the founder of Edward AI, who built Edward before it was acquired by Google, joined us as an advisor. He believes in building the next personal operating system."

Trust issues

Can AGI build something that's truly personal, where people trust it, and where everything lives on-device? Garg believes so but, interestingly, he doesn't see trust as the deal-breaker.

"A big thing we're proposing is almost a zero-trust approach," he says. "You don't actually have to trust the provider. If the AI model itself is guaranteed to be running on the device, then no data leaves the device. You don't have to trust that a company is telling the truth — you know because of the way it's built. That's where I think the world should be moving."

The idea that brands are prioritizing AI in a product, because they know it's a buzzword, but with a more watchful eye on profit margins rather than the privacy of a user's data (and consent to capture that data) doesn't sit well — with either of us.

So why might companies try to not keep AI on-device, aside from cost issues? Does it drain your battery? Does it make a device heat up? Does it use a lot of RAM?

"I'd say you have to think outside the box," Garg says. "It requires a lot of innovation. You have to figure out how to make these models small enough to run locally.

"Modern phones (because this is where Garg sees AI, as the chief controller of your other devices) now have GPUs and processors called NPUs that can run AI models. I think the world is moving towards deploying more of these models on phones, but it's still very new.

"For example, we have a collaboration with Qualcomm. We're talking with their R&D and machine-learning teams about how our models can be highly optimized for phones. We want to make sure they don't drain your battery, cause overheating, or create other issues.

"This is a new frontier in technology, and you have to be innovative to make it work."

I ask Garg what he would say to anyone wary of adding a personalized AI model to their lives? "It depends a lot on who's making the decisions," he says.

"We want consent. We want to make sure people aren't being recorded without permission — I'm pretty sure there will be lawsuits around some of these issues in the future.

"My belief is that AI should be consensual. Even if you download a new AI app, it should ask, 'Are you OK with us collecting your data?' If someone gives consent, that's OK. But if someone says no, they shouldn't be forced into it."

On-device only

Garg is obviously only interested in an on-device AI future, but I worry that affordable convenience often wins out and that people may not understand the true benefits of such precautions.

I mention a set of headphones I tried, that offer real-time cognitive strain detection. My issue was that these cans (which were $200 cheaper than the inaugural 12-channel EEG sensor over-ears) use cloud processing in combination with on-device processing for some of the new metrics. The company didn’t reveal exactly what data was being sent to the cloud, but it had the potential to change my mind pretty drastically about using the product. What if the publishing house I work for was able to access and monitor how hard I'd been focusing throughout the work day?

Garg laughs, but only for a second.

"I think it's definitely possible, but it comes down to the developer," he concedes. "If a developer is doing something with your data or trying to collect it, that's hard to detect unless you're the operating system itself or the phone manufacturer.

"The phone company can probably detect it and tell you, but a lot of this comes down to how much you trust the people building the software. That's one reason we're so focused on the operating system.

"Right now, if you use something like Claude, you have one place where you do everything, and it connects to different services. We believe in a world where you have a single personal AI assistant connected to different devices, like the neuro-headphones you mentioned. Then you can see for yourself where the data is going because everything is connected through your own personal assistant rather than being scattered across different services."

Are we ready for unique personal AI assistants?

I mention Pete Steinberger's OpenClaw and the early adopters who tried to create their own personal AI assistant over a weekend. Does Garg think people are ready for that?

"We definitely want to make it easier," he says. "Even if you're using something like OpenClaw, you need to buy hardware, set up API keys, and do a lot of technical work. Most people don't have the patience for that, especially if they're not developers.

"We want this to work out of the box. You download an app, and it starts learning your routines. It can make proactive suggestions like, 'Would you like me to order your favorite coffee?' It's learning your habits.

"If it's all happening on-device, that solves the privacy problem because you can have personalization and all these useful features without your data leaving the device.

"Over time, your phone becomes more intelligent. It gets to know you better and becomes better at helping with the things you like to do.

"We also think this works well with smart glasses and other wearables. Your phone becomes the control center, just like an Apple Watch connects to an iPhone. The other devices become satellites connected to your phone, and the AI model lives on the phone itself."

Despite my continued reservations, it's a compelling argument. I can absolutely see a world in which a personal, on-device AI might be helpful in simplifying our lives.

I have one more question, since Garg is the visionary developer here. Is AI still essentially a loop (meaning something that is not intelligent in itself or autonomous — just very persistent at completing tasks) and does he ultimately see it moving beyond that? Or will humans always have the agency and autonomy, with AI just working in the background?

"A combination of both," he responds in an instant. "You want it to feel like collaborating with a co-worker. Depending on how much you trust it, it could manage your calendar or your emails automatically.

"It could say: 'I know you have a meeting tonight. Would you like me to help you find a restaurant? Would you like me to call a cab?' You want a system that's learning about you, but you also need trust. You need to know you're not being exploited by giving it access to your data, and that it's genuinely beneficial.

"That's the missing piece. If you use ChatGPT or Claude today, they're serving the same thing to billions of users. Everyone has the same assistant.

"In the future, people will want their own completely personal assistant. Maybe you'll even give it a name! It'll be unique to you. You can give access to your own data because it's running on-device. You trust it, and no one else has the same AI."

Of course, myriad users already trust AI chatbots with their innermost thoughts, and even as romantic partners, so perhaps by continuing to give the tech a wide berth I'm in the minority.

Then again, it's actually not the technology I fear. It's the technology in the hands of people who seek to misuse it.

Thoughts? There's a comment section below, dearest gentle reader — and my human eyes are ready to read your human thoughts.

Go onto any forum or mechanical keyboard subreddit these days, and it can be a minefield as to what people recommend. It's an essential wall of noise with regards to size, shape, switch type and even more that can be daunting if you're a first-timer or you're someone getting back into the hobby after years of being out of it.

I was speaking to a fellow tech journalist at Computex 2026 a few months ago, and he raised this exact point with me. After being out of the hobby for several years, he'd come back to find it being more confusing than ever before, which completely switched him off.

Likewise, I've often thought we've reached a state of choice paralysis compared to where the hobby was, say, a decade ago. Back then, you had only a handful of switch choices, and while we've since seen the democratisation of hot-swappable sockets, machined aluminium chassis and open-source software, it can be horribly overwhelming when it comes to the decisions that actually matter — layout, switch feel, and budget.

Before I go any further, let me give you my credentials – I've been a tech journalist for the best part of a decade, reviewing keyboards from brands big and small, and I've been involved in the mechanical keyboard hobby since before it hit the mainstream. I've seen this market go from a small niche to something that can feel genuinely impenetrable if you're coming to it fresh.

To be truthful, it doesn't have to be that complicated. Underneath all of that noise, choosing your first mechanical keyboard still comes down to a few simple decisions, which I'll guide you through below.

1. Pick a size

It might seem a bit of a strange, but a good starting point is thinking about what size of keyboard you'd like. I don't mean the physical dimensions of the 'board, rather the layout and arrangement of the keys.

Keyboards can come in all shapes and sizes, ranging from the typical full-size 100% down to ridiculously tiny 40% keyboards. So, let's divide them into categories.

Firstly, we've got between 60% and 65% layouts, which eschew a lot of features, such as a function row, nav cluster and number pad in the name of saving as much desk space as possible. These layouts have been popularised by gamers who need desk space for sweeping mouse movements and find the elements mentioned above quite redundant. Between the two, a 65% layout adds arrow keys and some navigation keys, which I think are non-negotiable for productivity work, but your mileage may vary.

Moving up a tad, we go to between 75% and TKL, or tenkeyless, keyboards. These bring back the function row and navigation cluster, giving you a lot more functionality than smaller layouts, while still chopping off the number pad. Personally, this is my favourite option, and I think a strong middle ground if you want to save space without sacrificing too much. I use this kind of layout a lot of the time, for what it's worth.

Then, you can go bigger, up to 96% and full-size 100% options that give you everything and the kitchen sink, number pad and all. It's what you're most likely used to, and if the number pad has become non-negotiable, then it's one of your only options. Opting for a 96%, also known as a '1800 layout', keyboard can give you the number pad while moving some keys around to save a little bit of desk space, if you want a slight compromise.

2. Pick a switch

This is perhaps the most difficult section, as each switch feels different, and we've got so many options these days it can be hard to know what's best for you. Muddying the waters further, the old color categories aren't quite as clear cut as they used to be.

For instance, a Red switch would usually be light and linear, a Black switch a heavier linear switch, a Blue switch tactile and loud with an audible click and a Brown switch soft tactile, with a slight bump halfway down the keypress.

Now, however, we've got switches named after everything from all the colors of the rainbow to planets, birds and more besides, and it can be so difficult to understand the minutiae behind how each switch feels.

My genuine advice is to order a switch tester – there are lots of them floating about on the internet – which can give you a range of different types of switch in one convenient place, and help you decide what you like.

When you've selected a tester, pay attention to how each switch feels – the worst thing you can do is bash each of them in turn with as much force as you can. Pay close attention to how it feels under finger with regard to consistency of the operating force as you go down the travel, and whether you like something that's linear with a smooth keypress or tactile, be it with a click or a bump.

Once you've honed in on a switch you like, then you can do some digging into which keyboard features those switches. Or, if you're up for a little bit of work, then you can pick up a bare-bones chassis with a hot-swappable PCB – this means it comes with no switches or keycaps, which you'll need to supply yourself.

Going for something hot-swappable is a key piece of advice I think – it saves the hassle of soldering, and gives you more freedom and choice. It's also dead easy to assemble a keyboard this way, even if you haven't done it before. Each switch will have little pins on the underside – line these up with holes in the PCB and push straight down until you hear it click into place. I recommend picking up more than enough switches to give you some spares in case you bend pins when putting them into the hot-swap sockets on the PCB.

The point here is that everybody has a different preference for switches and how they feel. There are other considerations, such as lubrication, which can make a switch feel smoother, and the acoustics of a case and how this plays into the sound signature you'd like, but that's getting into the weeds a little. It's important to make sure your case doesn't have any rattle or ping and has some form of sound dampening, but that's as far as I'd go at this point.

3. Set your budget

Pricing is arguably as integral as any other point of consideration for choosing a keyboard, as your budget can decide what kind you end up getting. It's worth going in with a list of features you'd like; good things to look for include PBT keycaps, good wireless connectivity and a sturdy chassis.

It's possible to get some excellent affordable choices (i.e. around £50–£70 / $60–$80) that seem to pack in everything when it comes to features: hot-swappable switches, versatile wireless connectivity, addressable RGB lighting and all the rest of it, but outside of a few options, some seem to sacrifice build quality by being mostly plastic, which can feel quite cheap and scratchy. At this tier, I'd do your research carefully and lean towards boards with a reputation for punching above their weight rather than just grabbing whatever looks good on paper.

Spending a little more and going into the very low triple figures is likely to net you a strong choice from the likes of Keychron with advanced software support and a machined aluminum chassis. That aluminum build makes a tangible difference in practice — it adds rigidity, dampens unwanted noise and gives the keyboard a solidity that plastic boards rarely match. I'm a great lover of the likes of the Q1 Pro and others from its range, which are an excellent starting point in the mid-range.

Beyond that, you can go further into the hundreds with something fully custom or a pre-built choice from the array of boutique manufacturers you'll find online. This isn't what I'd recommend to someone just starting out in the hobby — rather, it's something to consider if you're already knee-deep and have some spare cash to put towards making something truly personal. But it's worth knowing that world exists, because once you've caught the bug, it's a very natural place to end up.

Final thoughts

There are some elements here, such as even more niche layouts, that I haven't even touched on in this article, which proves how deep the mechanical keyboard hobby goes. However, that isn't the point of this article – it's just a (reasonably) quick explainer of key things to look for when you're picking up your first mechanical keyboard.

If you're ready to start shopping, I've looked at plenty of options at a range of prices I feel are worth your time over the years, while the wider TechRadar crew has reviewed hundreds of keyboards that are worth a mention. The Keychron Q1 Pro is a strong starting point (or there's the Q1 Ultra 8K if you want even more features at a premium price). Likewise, at a more affordable price point, the Gamakay TK75 V2 and Epomaker P65 are well-reviewed choices that tick the right boxes in my book. For a more comprehensive overview, our best keyboards guide is regularly updated and a good place to browse.

Ultimately, though, you can go in any direction you want to, and that's the beauty of this hobby. Just stick to some of the advice given here, and you should be in good stead to get a keyboard that's feature-rich, has the feel you're looking for, and at a price that isn't out of your budget.

Valve's second-gen Steam Controller has been a major hit with the community thanks to the company's open approach to its hardware. Modders have already used the haptic motors inside to move it across a desk and charge automatically, while others have built their own open-source pucks. Now, a new project from Pixel1011, called "Steam Haptics Player," can turn these motors into a stereo speaker capable of playing music both wired and wirelessly.

For context, the Steam Controller doesn't have a speaker; there are two linear actuators under each trackpad that vibrate to provide haptic feedback. Previous projects have leveraged these components to make the controller vibrate in a certain way. Since vibrations are the basis of sound, Valve itself built a secret easter egg into the controller that randomly makes it do a Wilhelm scream when dropped from certain heights.

Pixel 1011 discovered that the haptic motors inside can be targeted with low-level HID (Human Interface Device) feature commands using HIDAPI. As such, Steam Haptics Player takes an audio file, downsamples it through FFmpeg, splits it into chunks of a PCM stream, and sends those packets directly to the controller, bypassing high-level software like Steam Input. The controller's firmware then feeds this raw data to the motors, at which point they vibrate to produce sound.

Because of the DIY nature of this process, bandwidth is an issue, especially wirelessly, since the puck isn't designed to carry audio data over its radio signal. This means the audio has to be compressed, and there's a limit to the overall quality the motors can transmit — 8-bit 8kHz (μ-law) over the puck and 16-bit 8kHz PCM over a wire.

Still, the 16-bit audio is enough to produce a surprisingly loud and balanced result that can deceive you as if it's coming from a speaker. The video at the start features Pixel1011 playing the song "Want You Gone" from the end credits of Portal 2, and you can hear the quality for yourself. There's a genuine low-end that you would never expect from a jerry-rigged setup like this, even if it's sitting on top of a towel on a flat surface to give it its best chance.

The wireless audio quality is rough in comparison; it crackles and pops and even cuts off in between because of the bandwidth limitations. Pixel1011 is using 8-bit mu-law companding here, which actually offers dynamic range similar to 14-bit audio while keeping the byte footprint of an 8-bit stream. Even through this compression, the puck is struggling, but the fact that this is even possible is still very impressive, and perhaps there's room for improvement down the line.

You can try Steam Haptics Player yourself on your own second-gen Steam Controller with pretty much any audio file in any format. Just download the archive from the GitHub repo, install FFmpeg (for transcoding, if you don't have it already), and run the program via a PowerShell window in the original directory. Detailed steps are on the linked GitHub page, but we don't know how this affects the controller's battery life. Just don't go all out with your Spotify playlist on these haptic motors.