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.

Bose just announced its second-generation version of the iconic QuietComfort Headphones, and as if to celebrate, it's just discounted the majority of its existing headphones and earbuds. Are these deals any good, or should you just go with the new model? Let's dig in and find out.

• Browse all Bose deals at Amazon

The closest point of comparison we have to the new model is the previous version, and you can now pick up the original Bose QuietComfort Headphones at Amazon for $229 (was $359). This is the standard sale price outside of a major event, and is a considerable $50 more than the previous record-low price that I spotted during Prime Day in June.

However, this is considerably cheaper than the Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), which have a launch price of $359. A good but not great saving, then, and definitely one that's going to be bested during Black Friday in November, if you're willing to wait that long.

Elsewhere, the five-star-rated Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds are down to $249 (was $299). That's a return to the lowest price this year, so a good chance to pick them up for less if you've missed previous offers. Again, these have been $50 cheaper during last year's Black Friday, so I'd expect a similar offer to return in a few months, but such a big discount like that is rare for these buds.

So, it's a mixed bag of offers. I'm not surprised that many of the record-low prices aren't making an appearance in this current Bose sale, but there are still some strong savings on several of the manufacturer's top headphones and earbuds that I'd snap up if you don't have the patience to wait until November.

Today's 5 best Bose deals at Amazon

Nothing Ear (3a): Two-minute review

Sometimes, reviews are written with a heavy heart, and this is exactly that. I've championed Nothing's affordable "(a)" earbuds for well over two years — with the updated pink set for 2026 appearing to be right up my strasse. But all is not as it first appears.

The issues don't concern their cost. Like before, they come in at just under $100 and are therefore a candidate for our best budget earbuds guide.

Bizarrely, for the review star rating, I also have very few bones to pick with audio quality, which is still best pals with LDAC and now with Bluetooth 6.0 for a stronger connection. I recommend you tweak the sound profile from the box, mind — it's overly bassy by default — but that's hardly unheard of for earbuds at this level, and it can be rectified with a little effort.

It would have been lovely if Nothing had allowed its special sonic tests (for personalised EQ profile curation done by Nothing's software, rather than you tweaking sliders or blobs yourself) to be made available here, but the company has clearly decided that its three-minute hearing test is flagship only — although there is a new "Advanced" 8-band EQ tab with "Q factor" (more on this later).

What of the comfort levels and overall build quality? Here you get everything you'd expect of Nothing: rock-solid, colorful, and with just a couple of new flourishes to enjoy. Battery life has taken a knock, but that might possibly be down to having to work a bigger driver.

So what's the main problem? Actually there are two: Call Recording and Audio Snapshot (sometimes referred to as Audio Capture in Nothing's extensive marketing). Nobody asked for these features and, honestly, they're not the USP I wanted — even as a journalist who interviews people regularly.

None of the best noise-cancelling earbuds we recommend come with these features, but that's hardly a problem in itself. Such tech exists in the world, obviously; I point you to the Viaim RecDot, for example. But the Viaim's buds publicise their raison d'etre; there's a visible "record" button on the case, a light for in-person meetings, and a business-class $249.99 / £185 price tag. That's not the case with Nothing's version, where a surreptitious squeeze of the stem kicks off audio capture of your current call (or whatsapp voice note) in a set of buds that otherwise seem to scream "I'm a bit of fun!"

As with the RecDot, Nothing offers tech to transcribe your recordings (and not just on its own phones, either) — to a point. You get three months of its Pro Transcription service for free, with 120 minutes to use each month. And after the trial? Nothing tells me official pricing hasn't yet been finalised, but will be decided in August. If it was hard to recommend such a package before, it's even harder now when one doesn't know how much it will cost.

I can't help but feel that Nothing has taken a wrong turn here. I'd much rather have seen fan-favorite features such as personalised sound profiles and/or wireless charging rather than in-call recording. Some TechRadar team members have suggested I make like Elsa and just Let It Go, but in a year when consumer tech already feels uncomfortably intrusive (Meta, I'm looking at you with those smart glasses), adding call and voice note recording feels like a step too far. It's important to question where these features are taking us.

At $99 / £99, the price is definitely right. I'm just not sure the feature set is…

Nothing Ear (3a) review: Price & release date

• Released on July 7, 2026
• Priced $99 / £99 / around AU$192, same as the 2024 Ear (a)

The Nothing Ear (3a) cost the same as their predecessor, priced at $99 / £99.

Although the name might suggest otherwise, these are the direct successors to the excellent, five-star Nothing Ear (a) from 2024 – there was never a Nothing Ear (1a) or Nothing Ear (2a). They also slot nicely alongside the still-current but more expensive Nothing Ear (3), with the shared 3 denoting that they're part of the same generation.

The Ear (a) are some of the best budget earbuds I've ever had the pleasure of testing, and I'd looked forward to their update ever since word was out that it was coming.

Key rivals to the Nothing Ear (3a) include the Apple AirPods 4, which offer gesture control alongside a few other iPhone-exclusive features, or, for a little less, the five-star Cambridge Audio Melomania A100. If you're tempted by open earbuds instead, the Huawei FreeArc or even clip-style SoundPEATS Clip1 can both be picked up for less than the Nothing Ear (3a) right now, making them excellent-value alternatives.

Nothing Ear (3a) review: Specs

Nothing Ear (3a) review: Features

• Bluetooth 6.0 (15m range) with LDAC support
• Improved ANC (cancellation up to 45 dB, effective to 5 kHz)
• Pinch stems for Call Recording/Audio Snapshot, no Nothing phone required

It would be easy to say, "Look, you don't like the cutesy branding of Nothing's new 'Audio Snapshot' offering? Don't use it — there's still plenty to like for $99!" but let's dig in to see why the take is not so simple.

Firstly, we should get granular on what Audio Snapshot and Call Recording do, and what they cannot do. I mentioned above that as a journalist, I regularly record interviews, often over Zoom, Google Meet or even Microsoft Teams. When set up as an interview, my subjects usually take it as a given that I will be recording — and where I reside in the UK, it is legal to record calls, even without consent from the other party. I still always ask.

In the US, however, the laws on recording phone calls are different, varying from state to state. For calls crossing state lines, the stricter 'two party consent' law (as per the Federal Wiretap Act) applies, where both parties on a call must consent to a recording.

So what is Nothing doing about it? In its reviewers' guide, the company says it "aligns with internationally recognised privacy standards ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and EN 18031". To this end, during setup, the Nothing X app also displays a short tutorial reminding users to obtain permission before recording calls — as shown below.

Interestingly, on a traditional phone call made in the UK, the "prompt" Nothing promises will be played to everyone on the call is a simple beep. On Google Meet, a female voice announces "This call will be recorded in 3, 2, 1", presumably so anyone not OK with that can scream "Oh no you don't!". From smartphone to smartphone, there's no vocal.

Thanks to the Nothing Ear (3a)'s 32MB of onboard storage, you can start recording with just a pinch of the stems, storing up to two hours of audio on the earbuds themselves. You can also record and transcribe voice notes from apps such as Instagram or WhatsApp — and from August, Nothing says it will add summaries of call recordings, speaker identification and the ability to create calendar reminders based on what was discussed.

What these earbuds can't do is record conversations that take place around you, or indeed your own voice. So, thankfully, there's no scope for eavesdropping around the water cooler.

However, my thoughts on this are clear— I'm not wholly OK with it. It puts the onus on buyers to adhere to laws, and opens the door for flouting rules of consent. I tried muting my mics to see whether the beep could be silenced, but it still plays for the person on the other end of the call to signal that recording has begun. Nevertheless, I think I've made my concerns around this feature clear.

Elsewhere, you get Bluetooth v6.0 and LDAC support for hi-res audio (the Sony-developed codec that lets you stream high-resolution audio up to 32-bit/96kHz over Bluetooth at up to 990kbps, if your device supports it and the file is up to scratch). While the predecessor did also include the latter, it remains a valuable inclusion here.

There's also onboard spatial audio, albeit of the "static" variety rather than head-tracked spatial audio that keeps the sound anchored to your source device as you move your head. It adds a little extra depth and height to the presentation, but for me, the effect is decidedly light-touch compared to what you get from pricier earbuds.

Note that you don't get the Ear (3)'s splendid personalized hearing tests, or the useful "walkie-talkie" Super Mic. That said, there's in-ear detection (to pause music when you remove the buds and resume it when they're in), a low-lag toggle for gaming, seamless pairing, multipoint to two devices, an ear-tip fit test and a Find My Earbuds feature, which emits a rattlesnake-style sound from whichever bud you're trying to locate, to help you find it.

Nothing's Transparency mode is decent. It's a little warm, but it still delivers a more three-dimensional presentation than many buds at this level. I could hear the placement of the TV, voices in my home and a dog outside, rather than all of these sounds appearing tinny, omnipresent and seemingly on top of one another.

When deploying ANC (rather than "Transparency" or "Off"), you can once again select from High, Mid, Low, and Adaptive noise-nixing profiles. High is decent: Nothing tells me performance is up to 45dB (effective to 5 kHz), which equates to a 17.1% improvement compared to the Ear (a), thanks to a software upgrade and improved architecture regarding where the mic sits.

The issue in 2026 is the existence of the AirPods Pro 3 and Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds (Gen 2). Although it would be unfair to compare like for like, owing to the chasm in pricing, you can get better if you're willing to pay for it. That said, the ANC here is no slouch, giving a fairly clean, largely uninterrupted and issue-free neutral background for my music.

If you have a Nothing Phone, the Nothing X app and the ChatGPT app, then you can once again you can also access ChatGPT access via the Ear (3a)'s stem; simply squeeze and talk.

The new EQ tab is now an eight-band offering (up from three in the older buds), as well as the more basic audio splodge Nothing made its own — and which I rather like since it reminds me of Nura True Pro's visual depictions, rather than a mixing desk. You also get five presets in the Advanced tab, and four in the Simple tab — but you can create your custom EQ using whichever system you prefer.

And I think you'll need to get familiar with these, as I'm about to explain…

• Features score: 4 / 5

Nothing Ear (3a) review: Sound quality

• LDAC support represents value
• Fun, V-shaped sound — if a little quiet
• A little bass-heavy from the box, but you can fix it

As was the case with their siblings, it would be wrong of me to knock Nothing Ear (3a) in the sonic department for this money. The sound quality is easily worthy of the outlay.

That said, there are a few points to bring to your attention.

Those with a Sony or Samsung smartphone (I used a Sony Xperia) will find much to celebrate in LDAC music streaming. In My Chemical Romance's The Ghost of You, guitars snake from my left to right ear in a cohesive mix — with Gerard Way's vocal central, petulant and every bit as emotive as I remember it in the mid-noughties.

Even when I stream Apple Music songs from my iPhone, the Nothing Ear (3a) offer ample width as my playlist continues to Thank You For the Venom and the intro guitars find a spacious home in my left ear. There's room around every stem in the mix to shine, but they're all held properly in check, even in this fast-paced and challenging song.

It's a little bass-heavy at times, though. Fleetwood Mac's The Chain is a good test of a regimented low-end, and alongside the kick-drums, I did lose just a little of Stevie Nicks, Christine McVie, and Lindsey Buckingham in that glorious upper harmony through the chorus. It seems to be Nothing's modus operandi to offer a bassy listen generally, and while I did find that the new Advanced EQ tab helped, I think the enhanced low-end went a little far here.

Nothing offers a "Q Factor" in addition to what you've just tweaked in the 8-band tab, to control the width or sharpness of your adjustment. So, imagine it as a "quality factor" (because that is what it stands for), where the number you select between 0.1 and 10 determines how wide or narrow of a frequency range is boosted or cut — all of this specific to your chosen frequency. Selecting a low Q Factor will generate a wider, more gentle curve to your adjustment, where a high Q Factor will make the change narrower, steeper and more effective around that specific frequency augmentation (or reduction).

I eased off the bass and selected a Q Factor of 3.2, but you must of course play with these things yourself — and sadly, Nothing hasn't included its hearing tests here, to check how perceptive your ears are within this particular tuning.

For dynamics and nuance, the Nothing Ear (3a) are perhaps a shade less engaging and arresting than I'm used to, owing to their volume. Once criticism often levelled at Nothing's budget earbuds is they don't go especially loud, and I frequently found myself listening above 50% volume. Also, since battery life is measured at that volume, it did mean the quoted "4.5-hour battery life with ANC deployed" claims although bang on, were still disappointing.

• Sound quality score: 4 / 5

Nothing Ear (3a) review: Design

• Curvier case
• That 1mm bigger driver is sucks up power
• And the battery life isn't great

Hold the Nothing Ear (3a) earpieces and case next to their older Nothing Ear (a) and you'll certainly struggle in a game of spot the difference. There's the color, obviously — also available in black, white and a slightly different yellow to the hue I love in this older set — and the 50% curvier case. There's also a trio of LEDs on the case that deliver a total of six status indications for battery status, pairing status, charging levels and so on.

For further tweaks, we have to look deeper.

The driver is now 12mm rather than 11mm and features an "aerospace-grade diaphragm". You also get an extra set of ear-tips in the box, four in total, and although the XS will appeal to owners of small ears, the actual earpieces here aren't tiny, despite being lighter in weight than Ear (a), at 4.53g versus 4.8g. The actual design of the tips has been finessed, too: they're a little thicker and more flared across the outer wall. I found the buds very secure, if a little big to accommodate comfortably over my small-ish ears over the course of long listening sessions.

I've said it before now and I'll say it again: I think we've reached a point of diminishing — perhaps even negative — returns when it comes to ever-larger earbud drivers. Every new release seems to tout a bigger driver without adding weight, as if bigger automatically means better. But where does it end? 13mm drivers? 15mm drivers? To my ears, the Ear (3a)'s 1mm larger driver hasn't negatively impacted the sound, but I don wonder if it's contributed to sthe shorter battery life. In my briefing, I was told the buds themselves would last 10 hours — but that turned out not to be the case.

While the battery in each earpiece — along with the larger driver and onboard 16MB flash drive — works hard to power the buds, it's only good for up to 6 hours without ANC, or 4.5 hours with ANC turned on. And remember, I had to pump the volume up higher than 50%, which the level at which those measurements are typically taken. With the case, you'll get up to 25 hours with ANC off, or up to 18 hours with it on.

None of these stats is much to write home about. Take Nothing's own Ear (a), which offered up to 9.5 hours of playback on a single charge with ANC off, and about 5.5 hours with ANC on. Now, consider the very inexpensive Cambridge Melomania A100, which offer 11 hours per charge or up to 39 hours with the case, along with aptX Lossless. I know which I'd rather take on long road-trips…

Again, Nothing's pinch-to-control stems return here, and while volume controls aren't enabled by default, you can assign them in the Nothing X app — provided you're happy to sacrifice another shortcut in the process.

While I'm here, a quick note on call-handling. It's absolutely clear and clean as a whistle, thanks to the 3 MEMS mics per bud.

• Design score: 4 / 5

Nothing Ear (3a) review: Value

• Still very good-looking earbuds
• Decent ANC; not so great for stamina
• LDAC adds value, but call-recording (for me, at least) is a no

Before now, I've always championed Nothing's "(a)" buds — and while the basics in the (3a) are fine, there are a few issues that are hard to ignore.

The Call Recording feature is top of the list here. More than any technical limitation, it's the privacy implications that concern me. Much as seeing someone wearing smart glasses now makes me wonder whether I'm being recorded, these earbuds leave me asking why someone might want to capture our conversations. I appreciate that some readers may see this as an overreaction, but it's a genuine concern for me, informed by my own experiences as a woman and former dancer who had to deal with overly familiar fans.

I think the audio quality here is perfectly acceptable for $99 / £99, but the stamina and feature set can be bettered. Even in the open earbuds market, I'd happily direct you to the cheaper Huawei FreeArc or SoundPEATS Clip1 over these earbuds.

• Value score: 4 / 5

Should I buy the Nothing Ear (3a)?

Nothing Ear (3a) scores

Solid generally, but with battery concerns and a potentially problematic call recording 'feature'

Features

4

Sound Quality

4

Design

4

Battery Life

2.5

Noise Cancellation

4.5

Value

4

Overall

4

012345

Group 1 Data

Product	Features ()	Sound Quality ()	Design ()	Battery Life ()	Noise Cancellation ()	Value ()	Overall ()
Nothing Ear (3a)	4	4	4	2.5	4.5	4	4

Buy them if...

Don't buy them if...

Nothing Ear (3a) review: Also consider

How I tested the Nothing Ear (3a)

• Tested for two weeks, listened against the Ear (a), Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds (Gen 2), Technics EAH-AZ100 and AirPods 4
• Listened in the office, walking along a beach, on a train into London, into Central London and at home
• Listened to Tidal Masters, Apple Music Lossless tracks and Spotify on an iPhone 15 Pro, MacBook Pro and Sony Xperia smartphone

The Nothing Ear (3a) became my primary musical companions for well over two weeks — after a 48-hour run-in period.

They accompanied me to work (walking brusquely to our Paddington office and on the London Underground to various press events) and even walking on a beach at sunset.

To assess comfort levels, ANC and battery life claims, I followed TechRadar's meticulous methodology testing and found much of note — including slightly disappointing stamina.

To check the audio quality across the frequencies, I listened for several hours to my own reference playlists on Apple Music and Tidal, alongside TechRadar's reference tracks, plus podcasts and movies. Additionally, I wore them to watch YouTube tutorials from my MacBook Pro.

I’ve been testing audio products for well over seven years, full-time. As a dancer, aerialist and musical theater performer in another life, sound quality, fit, and user experience have always been a priority for me, but having heard how wonderful ANC can be when done well, I know what I'm listening to here, too.

Read more about how we test earbuds at TechRadar

• First reviewed: July 2026

Shokz OpenDots Air: Two-minute review

I've long pointed to the flagship Shokz OpenDots One as the best open earbuds in the clip-style category, so I'll admit that I watched the release of the brand's budget-grade option with trepidation.

All too often, a brand's wallet-friendly earbuds tend to fit poorly, cut too many features, completely miss the mark sonically, or launch at a price point that doesn't make sense. But I'm happy to report that the Shokz OpenDots Air side-step those issues.

In fact, for most buyers, this pair just makes so much more sense than its sibling, the Shokz OpenDots 2. That's despite the set you're here to read about being an inferior model, on paper.

Like the numbered OpenDots, the Air uses dual 11.8mm drivers; you're only going to be able to hear a difference in sound quality if you really need Dolby Atmos or some of the unique Shokz features (which, I'm guessing, most people don't).

The OpenDots Air take a largely similar design too, which means they're just as reliable in your ear on long runs or gym sessions. Now and then, I did find them to pinch a little, which I take to be the fault of a few design tweaks, but it was nothing that stopped me using them.

There's more: the battery life is great, the carry case is nice and small and the connection was reliable. But some carry-overs are a little less desirable: like other OpenDots, the touch controls are finicky to use. And while Shokz offered some of the best-sounding open earbuds last year, the Air (and 2) launch to a much more competitive market.

What sets the OpenDots Air apart from the 2-suffixed set, making them a better buy, is the price; you can get them for roughly 25% less. For most buyers, I'd say that you should save your money and buy the Air... unless any of the other fantastic cuff-style buds (which typically do undercut any of Shokz' options) pique your interest.

After all, the Shokz premium is still in play, even with its more affordable buds.

Shokz OpenDots Air review: Price and release date

• Launched on June 4, 2026
• Sells for $129.95 / £129.99 / AU$219
• Cheaper alternative to OpenDots 2

The Shokz OpenDots Air were released on June 4, 2026, alongside the OpenDots 2. That was about 10 months after the original OpenDots One became available.

You can buy the earbuds for $129.95 / £129.99 / AU$219, so they're markedly cheaper than the $199.95 / £179.99 / AU$339 OpenDots 2. The original OpenDots One also went for that price, though a year on they're easy to find at around $150 / £150 / AU$239 (and even less during sales).

Note also the flagship Shokz OpenFit Pro, (more 'traditional' shell-like open earbuds) which include noise reduction and launched in January 2026, at the significant cost of $249.95 / £219 / AU$399.

I'll continue to refer to the OpenDots Air as affordable cuff-style buds, but that's only in comparison to the OpenDots 2 and the other Shokz options listed above. Remember, Shokz is a class-leader in this category, and you pay for that. You can easily find great alternatives for even cheaper (we've even listed a few at the bottom of this review).

Shokz OpenDots Air review: Specs

Shokz OpenDots Air review: Features

• You'll get 9 hours of listening; 36 with case
• EQ has four presets, 5-band custom mode
• App is pretty light on features

You're getting 9 hours of battery life with the Shokz OpenDots Air; at least, that's the cited listening time, and from my testing, I have no cause to doubt it. That's a hair below the OpenDots One / 2's 10 hours, but the difference is negligible, and it's still a solid battery life.

The case rounds that figure up to 36 hours of listening, including recharges. That's more in line with industry standards.

As with most open earbuds, there's no noise cancellation here. It's a shame, because Shokz is one of the few companies to offer ANC-adjacent tech in open-ears (the OpenFit Pro have 'noise reduction', but we tested it and it's the same thing), and I find it's even more useful in earbuds of the like.

While the OpenDots Air aren't as featured-packed as many other earbuds, downloading the Shokz app lets you play around with what there is.

Possibly the best reason to download the app is the equalizer; there are four presets (standard, vocal enhancement, bass enhancement and an audio leakage reduction mode), as well as a simplistic five-band custom EQ which lets you create your own mix.

The app also lets you turn on Multipoint Pairing, change what the touch controls do, turn on (or off) microphone noise cancellation in calls, and turn on (or off) wear detection.

Admittedly, the list is a little svelte. Beyond review purposes, I only opened the app a single time, and that was to double-check I hadn't accidentally turned gesture controls off (I hadn't, more on that later).

• Features score: 3.5/5

Shokz OpenDots Air review: Design

• Svelte carry case
• Attractive blue marbled design
• Not designed to stick in the ear

They ain’t called clip-on buds for nothing – the OpenDots Air are clip-shaped earbuds with a C-shaped band joining a rounded earbud with an ovoid counterweight. The 'dot' goes in your ear-well, the 'egg' sits just behind it, looping around the lower part of the helix.

The earbuds weigh 6.3g each, with silicone and plastic making up the casework of the earpiece. I tested them at the gym, on cycles and on runs (and in other, less-intensive settings) and never had a fit issue; that’s a benefit of this form factor, and I’ve never had a wobbly clipper.

However I did find that the Air could pinch a little during longer wear sessions, and I was surprised by the relief I felt at removing them after an hour-plus run. On the topic of criticisms, the buds technically have touch controls, but I could barely get them to pick up my touch. You have to be incredibly precise to find the right spot, and I quickly gave up on using them. At this level, it's not a deal-breaker in this type of design (at least not yet), but it's my job to notice.

You can buy the earbuds in black or purple, a choice which carries over to the charging case. They’re IP55 protected, which means they’re safe from dust and jets of water, but you shouldn’t take them swimming.

The charging case is lighter than most I’ve seen, tipping the scales to the tune of 37.3g — that’s without the buds, and you’re looking at a total package that’s under 50g. It’s nice and small too, and I really appreciate case like this that’s lightweight and portable like this: it disappeared in my pockets with no problem.

The simplicity extends to the ports and buttons; you’re getting a USB-C port but no wireless charging, unlike the OpenDots 2, and intriguingly no Bluetooth pairing override. I don’t recall the last time I saw an earbud case without this ‘hope-you-don’t-need-it’ feature, but Shokz apparently thinks you don’t need it at all.

• Design score: 4.5/5

Shokz OpenDots Air: Sound quality

• Dual 11.8mm drivers
• Well-defined treble and bass
• Some premium features missing

Shokz has found an audio set-up it likes and has stuck with it. As with the OpenDots One and OpenDots 2, the OpenDots Air have two custom 11.8mm drivers providing the music. The company is coy on what each of these drivers are actually handling, but I’m guessing at least one is tuned towards low-end, given how much "Bassphere" is mentioned in marketing.

(What’s Bassphere? Um, a marketing word, by the sounds of it, and Shokz is quite light on specifics. I've done my due journalistic diligence in trying to dig through the fluff to get granular on Bassphere, but have been unsuccessful. It seems to be what the company refers to as its two-driver system.)

The OpenDots Air do miss some features of their pricier stablemates. There’s no Dolby Atmos tuning, for one, and it lacks a few other Shokz-designed features, including MirrorPitch (which aims the sound into your ear) and Bassphere 2.0 (like 1.0, but designed to reduce distortion which could arise from the two-driver system).

Okay, I’ve been dancing around the topic; how do the Shokz OpenDots Air actually sound? They’re rather good, for open-ears — they’re not quite on par with the higher-end OpenDots, or some varied rivals, but I enjoyed listening to music with them.

It’s clear to my ear that one of the drivers is dialled into the low end, giving bass a clear scooping distinction that’s often missing in open-ears. Songs like Brian Kelley’s Beach Cowboy or Kasabian’s Superpowers offer clean low-end that sit comfortably below higher-frequency sounds, without blowing it out.

The lack of support for better-than-vanilla codecs such as LDAC, or seemingly any higher-quality streaming, means audiophiles might not find these an enjoyable listen. I can’t pretend they’re on par with ‘standard’ in-ear earbuds costing this much, including ones which are geared towards sports users. But for fitness-first listeners who need their ear canals free to hear traffic, they’re all you need.

Naturally, when you’re out and about, the bass will struggle a little bit — it has a harder time cutting through surrounding noise than treble does. That’s par for the course for this kind of earbud, but it bears repeating for those not familiar with the form factor.

• Sound quality: 4/5

Shokz OpenDots Air review: Value

• Great value for money compared to Shokz roster
• Other cufflinks undercut these

If you’re comparing the OpenDots Air solely to the OpenDots 2, they're great value: you’re basically getting the same earbuds for a sizeable discount. I see the Air being the better buy for most people, out of the two.

But when you look at the wider earbuds market, my recommendation gets a bit more muted. I’ve tested plenty of pairs of clip-style earbuds that hover at, or below, the £/$100 mark, which perform basically the same as the OpenDots Air do. If you’re not married to buying Shokz buds, then you’ll find a few different money-saving alternatives below.

• Value: 4/5

Should I buy the Shokz OpenDots Air?

Buy them if…

Don’t buy them if…

Shokz OpenDots Air review: Also consider

The open earbuds market is incredibly competitive. Here are some others that I've tested and would recommend.

How I tested the Shokz OpenDots Air

• Tested for one month
• Paired with Android phone for Spotify, streaming and games
• Used during multiple kinds of activities

I used the Shokz OpenDots Air for roughly a month to write this review. This ensured they underwent some extensive testing.

This testing included countless runs, several cycles, many gym sessions, loads of walks around my neighborhood, plays on various kinds of public transport, a house move, and a trip to a surf town during a holiday.

During this time, the buds were paired to my Android smartphone. They got most of their use through Spotify, but I also used them for calls, watching some YouTube videos and playing games.

I've tested gadgets for TechRadar since early 2019. Since that time I've reviewed countless earbuds, including loads of open-style ones and the Shokz OpenDots One.

• First reviewed in July 2026

• Read TechRadar's reviews guarantee

• Audio engineer Cameron Oatley is better-known as 'GoldenSound'
• He's teamed up with Status to add a special tuning profile to its Pro X buds
• The result is Pro X GoldenSound; the fruit of impressively extensive labor

Sometimes in this job (as TechRadar's Audio Editor), I just get sent a set of earbuds and a press release. Sometimes, I'm invited to an online briefing so that a marketing rep can explain key terminology before I start my review process.

Rarely am I invited to a lovely pub in London, lulled into a false sense of security with a drink and a comfy chair and then taken through a brief but intense Doctorate in audio engineering.

I jest, of course. But if you've ever come into contact with either Status Audio (see the Status Audio Between 3ANC or Status Audio Pro X for previous examples of greatness) or Cameron Oatley, aka GoldenSound, you'll know that things are about to get decidedly audiophile. And given that this is a collab between the two, it's doubly so.

What you're looking at is the Status Pro X GoldenSound Edition. Yes, it's gold-tone on the top of the case and on the accents of the stems — but that's not all. Inbuilt here (and definitely not available in the non-GoldenSound variant) is a special new piece of software that Oatley thinks is the "most accurate tuning that a TWS product has ever had" and a "faithful recreation of real-world sound".

And this version will be $279 when it hits shelves in August (so $30 more than the current price of the Pro X, at $249) or around £209 / AU$400, give or take.

Status Audio Pro X GoldenSound: are listeners up for a Harmon Curve rewrite?

In terms of hardware, you're looking at everything built into the Status Audio Pro X, so two balanced armatures and a dynamic driver — something Status has been working with for some time and with no dearth of success.

But this time around, Oatley describes his granular approach to tuning thus: "What you measure is the IEM plus the impact of the rig" ie. your inner ear — albeit a metal tube to represent it with a mic at the end, for the purposes of his testing.

Oatley explains that the Harman Curve is often implemented incorrectly by audio engineers, because when it was developed in 2012 (and subsequently published in 2013, quickly becoming a trusted reference), true wireless earbuds hadn't yet been invented.

Because of this, the Harman Curve uses the pinna, or outer ear, as the reference point — ie. part of the "rig". But when developing in-ear products, from a purely sonic perspective (not including the creation of ANC antiphases) you can ignore the outer ear because the product starts within your ear canal. I know! Contrary to what we were taught as kids, the answer to 'My, what big ears you have!' isn't actually 'All the better to hear you with'…

How does all of this stack up against AirPods Pro 3?

I ask Oatley what he's most proud of with this project and he's surprisingly open: "Look, for ANC I think AirPods will always be tough to beat. But a lot of work has been done to make these sound better. These are for the user who wants the best possible sound in a true wireless design. I hope I've achieved that".

He then points me to a graph that's like the Harman Curve, but different. It's what he was able to achieve with the GoldenSound Edition. He's particularly proud of the graceful line between 80Hz and 100Hz, juicy bass frequencies he feels are more accurately relayed in the Pro X GoldenSound Edition. And I have to agree: in this area, these earbuds glitter like gold.

Let's get to the meat of the thing: listening. Both Status and GoldenSound actively encourage me to do this, and even set me up with a Qobuz screen, an LDAC source device and some AirPods Pro 3 for comparison. Oatley adds, "something tuned perfectly on a low codec is still better than something tuned badly on a higher codec", and while we all know you won't get LDAC out of AirPods, it's a very valid point.

Billie Eilish's Bad Guy is expansive and clean, with a snappy, impactful low end. Dire Straits' Money for Nothing is as brooding, snaking and exciting at the outset as you'd ever want it to be. ACDC's Back in Black? A head-nodding and beautifully regimented, cohesive mix.

What's gone are the… I hesitate to call them 'parlor tricks', but that typical V-shaped augmented treble one so often hears in designs of this type feels eased. And know this: the sound is altogether more open as a result.

It's not all glowing praise: during my limited time for an initial listen, you understand, I found Apple AirPods Pro 3's audio just marginally more woolly overall in direct comparison. That said, AirPods Pro 3 do have a slightly more soaring treble from the box. As such, some tracks sound more fun, forthright and zealous using the Apple product. It's the age old debate, isn't it: integrated hi-fi sound or fun, V-shaped in-ear mix?

I know my ear is keenly tuned to treble sounds (I've done the tests) but some listeners will love what's been achieved here. I spy an industry disruptor and no mistake. It's nothing if not interesting — and I'd say the industry standard was due a shake up.

I often find listeners might think they enjoy a certain tuning (typically, wearers might augment bass frequencies straight away) when in fact, if we play with their EQ settings, they actually prefer something quite different.

Here, Oatley hasn't given users the option to tweak his proprietary GoldenSound profile within the EQ settings, although you can select from 'Status Signature', 'Status Audiophile', 'Knowles Preferred' or 'Vocal Enhance' presets, or create your own using an 8-band tab set at neutral from the Status Hub app. Sadly, there's no similar visual for the presets so you really need to trust GoldenSound has done it right here. And given the extensive amount of work that's gone into them, I think your trust is well-placed.

This is not to be considered a full review, you understand. For that, I need more time. But what I can tell you right now is that the process won't be a hardship.

• Skullcandy launches Crusher 1080 ANC, new premium over-ears
• They mark the debut of three Bose-made features in a non-Bose product
• Just launched and available right now, for $280 / AU$399.99 (about £210)

It is as I foretold: after we saw Skullcandy teases about new headphones, the brand has unveiled exactly the pair of cans I predicted. Meet the Skullcandy Crusher 1080 ANC; they're the pair that skate legend (and brand ambassador) Tony Hawk is pointing at in the picture above — yes, it really is him.

These are, according to the brand, its "best-sounding product" (although interestingly, not the most expensive because Skullcandy's Aviator 900 cans are a little pricier) and in case you didn't know, a 1080 in skateboarding involves three complete skateboard and body rotations performed either frontside or backside.

As a new member of its Crusher line-up, part of the draw will be the adjustable bass (see the big dial on the ear cup), but there's a lot more to celebrate besides that.

You can buy the Crusher 1080 ANC right now; they cost $279.99 / AU$399.99 (about £210) so they're a little cheaper than the likes of the $449 / £449 / AU$699 Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones (Gen 2) which they borrow features from.

They come in black, gray, brown, and pink, as you can see modelled sans Tony Hawk below. I rate them in the following order: brown, pink, gray, black, though I'd love to see a camo or floral redesign as Skullcandy is wont to do.

Colors aren't why you'll buy the Crusher 1080 ANC, though. No, it'll be because they offer three new Sound by Bose features at a non-Bose price...

That which we call a Bose by any other name would smell as sweet

We've seen Skullcandy headphones with Bose features before, but the Crusher 1080 ANC are the first pair of cans not made by the brand which have three specific features. And these three features are a big selling point of the product.

The biggest will be Bose QuietControl ANC, which is a massive draw within Bose's own products (including the QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds 2nd Gen). The company's noise cancellation is best-in-class, and now that proprietary Bose technology is baked into Skullcandy's headphones too. To many, this could be a reason to buy the Crusher all on its own.

Bose's TrueSpatial audio with head-tracking (for surround sound profiles irrespective of source material) and WaveForm audio engine (for snappy digital signal processing) are also stepping foot off the Good Ship Bose for the first time with the 1080. These will be great little extras to refine and finesse what Skullcandy already offers.

And that's before we even mention the Sound by Bose tuning and SpeechClarity voice pickup, to improve the music you listen to and your call quality. The latter is new to Skullcandy, but we've seen the former on some earbuds like my beloved Method 360.

And what about the headphones themselves, beyond the Bose stuff? Skullcandy hasn't confirmed the drivers, but I'd guess they'll be 40mm and joined by woofer units.

The battery life is 60 hours with ANC off and 50 hours with it on, which is pretty impressive; there's a 5-band EQ and other features via the Skullcandy app (not Skull-IQ, which some of the firm's earbuds use). Pictures show a dial on the side of the headphones, amongst other physical controls; I'd wager this is a redesigned bass slider, and given how easy it is to miss this on my Crusher 540 Active, I appreciate the rethink.

Reading between the lines, and having tested the Method 540 earlier this year (a 540 is a one-and-a-half skateboard and body rotation performed either frontside or backside, which I cannot do), I get the impression that Skullcandy is undergoing a push to really level up.

The company doesn't seem to be abandoning the commitment to bass that's defined its products in the past (or its love of athletes as brand ambassadors), but seems to want to bring that into a better-rounded audio package with higher-fidelity music on offer. And if the Skullcandy Crusher 1080 ANC is the culmination of this process, I'm really intrigued to know how they sound.

How many more times (and in how many more ways) can I say this? Nothing's most recent batch of colorful, joyful and hang it all refreshingly different listening gear is nothing short of excellent for the money.

And the thing is, those already-excellent asking fees have just been further reduced, in some cases by up to 49% off for Prime Day.

• View the full Amazon Prime Day sale

My pick of the over-ear headphones bunch would be the excellent noise-cancelling CMF Headphone Pro, which have absolutely no business looking this good, or indeed sounding so fabulously fun, for just $65 — a massive 34% off an original launch fee that's barely eight months old.

And if you're after earbuds, it'd be easy to just opt for the cheapest of the cheap, and let me be clear, 49% off the CMF Buds 2a, making them just $19.99 rather than $39 is incredibly low, however you try to slice it. But for me, the Nothing Ear (a) still win out, with a new lowest-seen price of just $53.20 (was $99 at launch, although $79 is their most-recent discounted price) .

And I'm not even done! I also love the firm's second stab at flagship headphones, the Nothing Headphone (a), not to be confused with the inaugural Heaphone (1) which do not feature in this list (yes, I know Nothing's naming strategy can be confusing. That's why you stick with me). No, this newer, far better set of over-ears retains the unusual aesthetic of the original effort but adds much better, fuller, more expansive audio and offers excellent on-ear controls to further enhance it all, plus a battery life that's, well, nothing short of excellent.

Not after headphones or earbuds? It's OK, you can see the best of the new deals, as they drop, in our Amazon Prime Day live blog.

Nothing's insane Prime Day savings – quick links

• CMF by Nothing Headphone Pro: was $99, now just $61.75
• Nothing Headphone (a): was $199, now just $151.05
• CMF by Nothing Buds 2(a): was $39, now just $19.99

Nothing's huge Prime Day sale — the cans and earbuds to snap up

If I had to pick, I'm still going for the delightfully fresh, luxuriously padded teal CMF Headphone Pro, which I regularly reach for (and I test headphones for a living, remember) owing to the easy-breezy on-ear controls and fun, zealous sound when I'm out and about.

That said, there's a little more clarity in the Headphone (a) and I do love the cassette-type look of the ear cups. But if you need a bit of wiggle room in your bag for other essentials, earbuds suddenly start looking very good indeed, no?

That said, the Nothing Ear (3) are the best if you regularly record your voice, thanks to their 'Super Mic'. It's the shiny button directly under the snappy case magnet labelled 'TALK' and it's a lot of fun. It's best to think of it as very much like those little clip-on wireless mics content creators hold very close to their mouths on social media — except now, they might hold an earbuds case to their lips to add voiceovers.

Nothing calls Super Mic a "breakthrough dual-microphone system driven by ambient-filtering technology." Essentially, the dual MEMS beamforming mics built into the case focus on your voice, cutting through surrounding noise (up to 95dB is the claim) for clearer calls and voice notes. And no other product in this little roundup has it. Food for thought, then…

More Amazon Prime Day deals

• Amazon Prime: sign up for a 30-day free trial
• Amazon Devices: Fire TV, Ring & Blink from £21.99
• Apple: AirPods Pro 3 for a record-low price
• Appliances: up to 45% off Ninja, Tefal & Sage
• Essentials: household goods from under £10
• Laptops: from £149.99
• Tablets: Samsung & Lenovo from £125
• TVs: from £129.99

Here at TechRadar, we test dozens of pairs of headphones every year. And while we've been won over by many an ultra-pricey set of cans, we also love a cheap pair of headphones that punches above its price tag. This article is dedicated to showcasing these wallet-friendly wonders. I asked TechRadar's audio specialists which headphones they'd recommend to buyers on a budget, and you'll find their suggestions below.

If it's true wireless in-ears you're after, you'd struggle to do better than the Nothing Ear (a) buds, which Audio Editor Becky Scarrott awarded a perfect five stars, calling them "a resounding home run" for the British startup and praising the noise cancellation, sound quality and battery life in particular. In the current Amazon Prime Day deals, they're unbeatable value at under $55 / £50.

In the over-ear arena, standouts are the CMF Pro and the 1More Sonoflow Pro HQ51, both of which earned 4.5 stars in our tests. The former were put through their paces by Becky, who was impressed with the "superb" sound quality in general, and was pleasantly surprised to discover "the sort of... personal sound profile curation [we're] more used to seeing in headphones much higher up the food chain". The latter were reviewed by our review's team's resident headphone specialist Harry Padoan, who praised the "adept audio, noise-crushing ANC and eye-catching design". Both are even better value than usual right now, too, thanks to those Prime (and rival-Prime) deals.

Read on for more budget-maximizing buys — and hit the 'View details' button for a summary of what we thought of them in our tests, plus links to the full reviews.

Top cheap earbuds and headphones

Do you need headphones for the next semester or term? I get it. And is money, er, relatively tight? Again, I understand — and the good news is, a huge sales event known as Amazon Prime Day is here to help.

See all early Prime Day deals at Amazon

I'm also here to help, as TechRadar's audio editor and full-time headphones tester since 2019. So, even if I do flatter myself, I know what makes a good set of headphones — and which pairs will lend themselves to studying that aren't those flagship sets few people can afford on a student loan.

When I went to college, there was no Bluetooth audio (why thank you but no really, it's true). There were also no music streaming services and the MP3 format was very much in its infancy.

What I did have was a portable CD player and some Sony headphones. And let me tell you that I owe every exam I passed to these products (plus my local HMV store, which I scurried along to armed with money from a part-time job waiting tables at a Wimpy restaurant).

As a dancer since age two, it turns out I have always needed music and simultaneous movement (or the compulsion to move) to retain information from books. I've since found out I'm not alone — and maybe that's why you're here.

What follows are the four best pairs of headphones I've found for students. I'll explain why briefly, and link to the best deals live now. And don't worry, you've got this.

1. CMF Headphone Pro: artsy over-ears that won't break the bank

Did you know that CMF is simply Nothing's more affordable arm — so these headphones carry a lot of Nothing Headphone (a) magic, just in a more affordable build? And what a lovely original build it is too.

I tested these budget-friendly, very comfortable and surprisingly customizable over-ear headphones and if zealous, bass-hungry sound quality sounds like a bit of you, you'll love these. Add to this the outstanding battery life, the kinds of hearing tests (and personal sonic profile curation) I'm more used to seeing in headphones much higher up the food chain, an 'Energy-slider' that can ramp up the low end even further and a glorious volume wheel on the right ear cup that's something reminiscent of much pricier headgear (the kind made by a company named after a fruit, if you get me) and they're a winning combination.

All of this for a sub-$100 / £80 fee — before we start looking for discounts? OK, the ANC is acceptable rather than amazing and you don't get a hard case, but still, you’ll struggle to find a more original set of affordable headphones that offer this much for this little. Need more? Read my glowing 4.5-star CMF Headphone Pro review.

CMF Headphone Pro

TechRadar's official review scores

Features

4.5

Sound Quality

4.5

Design

4.5

Battery Life

5

Noise Cancellation

4

Value

4.5

Overall

4.5

Group 1 Data

Product	Features ()	Sound Quality ()	Design ()	Battery Life ()	Noise Cancellation ()	Value ()	Overall ()
CMF Headphone Pro	4.5	4.5	4.5	5	4	4.5	4.5

2. OneOdio Focus A6: one of the team's best budget headphones by a mile

For one of the TechRadar team, these are the best affordable cans they've ever tested — and it's not even close, as a quick scan of our 4.5-star review of the OneOdio Focus A6 shows.

You know the flagship Apple cans I vaguely mentioned before — the ones that very few of us can afford? This particular team member prefers the product you're looking at here to those elite over-ears, for sound. What else makes them so good? Well, USB-C audio support, a solid and classy build quality, plus a super-slick companion app you very rarely see at this level and Bluetooth 6.0 for starters.

Again, the ANC is very good rather than stellar, but this is budget-friendly territory and you will struggle to better it at anything like this price point. Highly recommended.

OneOdio Focus A6

TechRadar's official review scores

Features

4

Sound Quality

4.5

Design

4.5

Battery Life

5

Noise Cancellation

4

Value

5

Overall

4.5

Group 1 Data

Product	Features ()	Sound Quality ()	Design ()	Battery Life ()	Noise Cancellation ()	Value ()	Overall ()
1More Sonoflow Pro HQ51	4	4.5	4.5	5	4	5	4.5

3. 1More Sonoflow Pro HQ51: ignore the name — focus on the value

Try to get past the name that sounds like some sort of water filtration system (sorry, maybe just me?) and there's a musically sensitive and expressive set of headphones here that'll reward you time and again for your nominal asking fee.

In fact, we called them the "ultimate in sound-per-pound value" in our 4.5-star in-depth 1More Sonoflow Pro HQ51 review. The aesthetic is much more 'your average set of basic cans' here, but at school, college or university (where the security of your valuables will never be far from your mind), that's no bad thing. And although they might look fairly anonymous, the budget has certainly been spent on the drivers under the hood, because they sound fantastic for the money.

Here, the app isn't especially slick, but it's functional. Also, the battery life is extensive, the ANC is up to scratch and you can even listen via 3.5mm with the bundled cable in the box. If you don't mind their relatively anonymous looks, it's a winner.

1More Sonoflow Pro HQ51

TechRadar's official review scores

Features

4

Sound Quality

4

Design

4

Battery Life

5

Noise Cancellation

4

Value

5

Overall

4.5

Group 1 Data

Product	Features ()	Sound Quality ()	Design ()	Battery Life ()	Noise Cancellation ()	Value ()	Overall ()
1More Sonoflow Pro HQ51	4	4	4	5	4	5	4.5

4. Sony over-ears, but not as you know them

Alongside the flagship Sony WH-1000XM6 and even newer, arguably even fancier Collexion set of cans, there exists a cheaper set of Sony over-ears. And while they're a little older now (having launched in Spring 2023) they still boast effective noise cancellation and many aspects of the Sony sound quality that made their upmarket siblings the industry standard.

The name — Sony WH-CH720 — is instantly forgettable, but the sound quality is not. OK, the build is a little bit plasticky and you're not getting hi-res codecs, but the ANC does a great job at nixing extraneous sounds for this money. And while the sound feels just a tad compressed when pitted against pricier rivals, Sony's Sound Connect companion app helps to tweak things and make them a fantastic option for the money.

Also, given their relative age, I'd look out for extra discounts on Prime Day…

Sony WH_CH720

TechRadar's official review scores

Features

4.5

Sound Quality

4

Design

4

Battery Life

4.5

Noise Cancellation

4

Value

4.5

Overall

4

Group 1 Data

Product	Features ()	Sound Quality ()	Design ()	Battery Life ()	Noise Cancellation ()	Value ()	Overall ()
Sony WH-CH720	4.5	4	4	4.5	4	4.5	4