The Ray‑Ban Meta Audio smart glasses earn an 8 out of 10 rating, with a price tag of $349 whether bought from Ray‑Ban or directly from Meta. Reviewers highlight several strengths: the lack of cameras makes them feel less invasive, they are waterproof, audio and call quality are strong, transition lenses adapt quickly, and the battery lasts up to 12 hours. On the downside, they are still relatively expensive, the frames are bulkier than ordinary glasses, and while Meta’s AI assistant is improving, it is not yet top‑tier.
I was sprinting through Los Angeles, drenched in sweat, and trying to boost the volume of the pulsing techno track blasting into my ears. “Hey Meta,” I gasped, “I need to get back; tell me where to go.” The music faded as the AI voice delivered turn‑by‑turn directions. After a few missteps, I found my way, thanks to the navigation feature that has been part of Meta’s glasses for some time. The new Ray‑Ban Meta Audio is essentially the same device but without a camera, a change that dramatically alters the user experience.
Meta originally equipped its glasses with cameras because its core business, Facebook, thrives on visual content. Early versions were criticized for being “creepy,” and some users even called them “pervert glasses” after reports of pickup artists recording strangers without consent. Hacks that disabled the recording indicator light prompted Meta to release a software fix that shuts the cameras off if the light is tampered with. The company also flirted with facial‑recognition technology, which it first denied, later admitted, and eventually removed after lawsuits and public outcry. In September, Meta faced a lawsuit over its facial‑recognition system, yet the firm insists that public pressure did not drive the decision to launch audio‑only glasses.
Without cameras, the Meta Audio glasses also do not record ambient sound unless you interact with the AI chatbot; those voice requests are stored in the Meta AI app. Live language translation is possible, but it requires opening the app first. The removal of cameras eliminates many privacy concerns and, in the reviewer’s view, actually improves the glasses.
I have been testing the Burbank frame, though I personally prefer the rounder Clubmaster style. A friend who saw me in the glasses for the first time laughed and said the frames looked a bit thick. Despite the bulkier appearance, the glasses may be ideal for runners. Their transition lenses shift swiftly to bright sunlight, the built‑in speakers provide clear music while still allowing important ambient noises, such as oncoming traffic, to be heard. Call quality is solid; people on the other end of a call rarely notice the speaker is embedded in glasses, though the sound does leak a little and bass response is modest.
The glasses are lightweight—43 grams for the Burbank model and 47 grams for the Clubmaster—lighter than the 51.5‑gram camera‑equipped Gen 3 Wayfarer. A 12‑hour battery supports all‑day wear, eliminating the need to juggle earbuds or worry about recharging frequently. Knowing that the device cannot record video or audio unless I actively use the AI makes walking around feel more natural and less intrusive.
Smart glasses with cameras have legitimate uses, especially for augmented‑reality applications that rely on visual input. However, for users who simply want audio assistance and basic smart features, removing the camera seems the right move. After testing many smart glasses this year, most ended up stored away in a drawer. The Ray‑Ban Meta Audio are currently the only pair I would keep on my face willingly, even if future competitors like Google eventually surpass them.