What you need to know

• Samsung announced that its Hearing Aid feature for the Galaxy Buds 3 Pro and 4 Pro has been FDA-cleared.
• It states this will work alongside its Hearing Test, which lets users use "clinical-grade, pure-tone audiometry" to test their hearing and see clear results.
• Samsung says Hearing Test and Hearing Aid will arrive on the Buds 3 Pro and 4 Pro in the U.S. and other approved markets in Q4 2026.

Samsung announces that a major accessibility feature for its Galaxy Buds has cleared a key governmental hurdle.

The company announced this morning (Aug 11) that its Hearing Aid feature for the Galaxy Buds 3 Pro and 4 Pro has been FDA-cleared. Samsung says this enables the previously mentioned devices "to serve as an over-the-counter hearing aid for adults (18 or older) with perceived mild to moderate hearing loss."

For users, this means you'll have access to the Galaxy Buds' Hearing Test, alongside this Hearing Aid feature. Hearing Test is self-administered from the Galaxy Buds menu in your Settings. Samsung says it uses "clinical-grade, pure-tone audiometry" to test your hearing in each ear. Hearing Test is also said to highlight any "hearing deficits." Your Galaxy Buds will generate an "audiogram" that Samsung says mirrors what you'd receive from a professional test.

Once completed, your test will categorize your results in one of the following categories: mild, moderate, severe, or profound.

Your Galaxy Buds will then use your Hearing Test results to fine-tune its Hearing Aid feature. It might boost "high frequencies, surrounding whispers, or distant voices." The Galaxy Buds 3 Pro and 4 Pro benefit from familiar true hearing aid features, such as "noise elimination and beamforming." Hearing Test and the Hearing Aid feature for the Buds 3 Pro and 4 Pro will arrive on Galaxy devices in Q4 2026 in the U.S. and other approved markets.

Hear the world around you

Samsung has continued to focus on the user's hearing health ever since its huge Health app update in June. In the spirit of being proactive, Samsung announced Hearing Health. It will leverage your Galaxy Watch, phone, and Buds to monitor the noise level around you. If loud noises are a constant, your Galaxy Watch would let you know and urge you to make changes. The idea is to help users better preserve their hearing for the long term.

This capability was announced for the revamped app, which includes a lot of new health features for current and upcoming Galaxy devices. For example, the Galaxy Watch 9 and Watch Ultra 2 feature this new Hearing Health feature right out of the box. Samsung reiterates that users can keep tabs on their Hearing Health from the Health app, and now these new features are on the way for the Galaxy Buds to take things further.

Android Central's Take

Preserving your hearing is incredibly important. It's one of those things that if you lose it, it's hard to get back. This is even more important, given that we love earbuds. It's easy to pop those in and start listening while working, reading, or walking. But we've got to be conscious about our noise level. You never want those earbuds too loud. That's something we all learned when we were kids, right?

• Spotify is introducing AI Persona tags in mid-September
• The platform aims to improve user transparency by differentiating real artists from AI-generated ones
• Spotify only reviews an artist's profile and images, and not the music itself

Spotify has fallen short on the AI transparency front compared to some of the other best music streaming services, with users pining for a fix — and now the platform is taking its biggest step yet towards combatting AI slop.

The streaming giant announced today (August 11) the arrival of new AI Persona tags, which are designed to differentiate human artists from ones that are AI-generated. Spotify says these tags will roll out to mobile in mid-September, and will appear in an artist’s profile banner, ‘About’ section, in Search, and in song rows in playlists.

Once they become available, users can be safe in the knowledge that the artists they’re listening to haven’t been generated by AI. Spotify added that artists with AI Persona tags will be excluded from all personalized recommendations by default, ensuring that your music-discovery regime remains uninfected by slop.

Though AI Persona tags won’t roll out for another month or so, Spotify says artists can already disclose if their profile is AI-generated. If an artist declares this, a tag reading ‘AI Persona’ will appear next to their name. ‘We hope artists will be transparent, so we are giving them the opportunity to disclose,’ the service shared in its announcement — but it’s not putting all its trust into self-disclosure.

Instead, Spotify says it will take matters into its own hands if need be, and will conduct reviews of profiles where it thinks an artist’s images have been created using generative AI to imitate a lifelike persona. If Spotify detects that an artist profile might be AI-generated, it will display a tag that reads ‘Likely AI Persona’, and the artist will be notified and given the option to self-disclose or appeal.

It’s taken Spotify a long time to catch up to the likes of Deezer when it comes to improving its transparency on AI-generated music. Deezer was the first major audio streaming service to roll out tags that explicitly say if a track has been AI-generated, and recently its Head of Research told us why we need AI filters more than ever.

Spotify’s own AI Persona tags mark a big shift for the platform, and will certainly improve the user experience by giving listeners more peace of mind. However, Spotify’s feature comes with an important caveat.

It reviews the profile only, not the music

AI Persona tags are just one of the ways Spotify has been working towards improving transparency for users. Verified by Spotify was launched a few months back — this is a certification feature that shows if an artist is legitimate, but it’s not as watertight as we’d hoped it would be.

Additionally, Spotify’s SongDNA gives listeners a comprehensive overview of the creatives behind their favorite songs, while AI Credits give artists the opportunity to share where and how they’ve used AI in their music production. It’s not as upfront as Deezer’s methods, but the measures are in place nonetheless, and AI Persona tags are the cherry on top.

That said, AI Persona tags target an artist’s public image, not how the music was made, which could present some issues, as it still leaves room for AI-generated music to slip its way onto the platform.

If Spotify detects that an artist is human-presenting, how are we to know that artist won’t upload AI-generated music to their profile? There’s nothing stopping that artist from publishing slop, because Spotify reviews their name, imagery, and public identity, not the music they upload.

It’s a tricky one, because while Spotify has measures in place that evaluate music and artist image respectively, it doesn’t have a comprehensive tool that reviews both components simultaneously, which again isn’t as upfront as Deezer.

As far as AI-generated content in Spotify goes, I’ve been one of the lucky ones who hasn’t encountered this issue. Because my love for physical media and radio impacts what I listen to on Spotify, I suspect that my algorithm has been trained enough to push AI slop out of my recommendations.

I do think that on top of my streaming habits, Spotify’s anti-AI music measures have helped to keep the fence up and block out unwanted songs to a certain extent — I just wish its approach to tagging was a bit more robust.

• New Beats headphones teased during 2026 World Cup...
• ... and Beats has been silent for following two months
• Reddit fans think they'll come some time after iOS 27, in September

It's been two months since the sporting event of the summer began: the 2026 World Cup kicked off on June 11. That means it's also been two months since Beats started teasing its new headphones, putting them onto footballers like Lamine Yamal and Lee Kang-in to drum up some publicity.

"Publicity for what?" you may well be asking, and it's a fair question. Since then, we've heard neither hide nor hair about these cans, even though we infiltrated Beats impressive HQ to see what was going on, last month.

However, if you were hoping for an imminent release, Redditors have some bad news.

In a post on the r/beatsbydre subreddit, which is currently awash with question regarding these headphones, one forum mod has a theory about when they'll come. User jforsander points out that every previous pair of Beats headphones had iOS support added months prior to their release.

Of course, this new pair of headphones hasn't, suggesting that they're still a long time away from an official launch. In fact, the user thinks that we won't even see this software support until September, because that's when iOS 27 will come.

It follows that the headphones will be released a few months later; perhaps even up to six months later. Gulp. Unfortunately, that tracks with what we heard when we visited Beats HQ — or rather, what we didn't hear. Clearly, Beats is in no rush to strike while the iron's hot.

Will we have to wait that long?

It's worth taking this missive with a slight pinch of salt. If there's no existing software support for the Beats headphones, how were those footballers using them? Surely they weren't just decoration — not at such an important sporting event, where the right pre-match playlist would surely be of paramount importance?

The cynics among you might rightly point out that the players weren't ever photographed listening to the headphones, just wearing them around their necks or attached to their bags. And it's also possible that Apple found a temporary solution for their headphones, rather than a full software rollout.

But it still stands to reason that Beats would give them a way to sporting stars who could actually listen to the headphones, and so it's possible that software support exists and online sleuths… missed it?

Something that the Reddit poster points out is that Apple might simply have become better at hiding its updated software support for new Beats devices (Apple, of course, owns Beats). They call it unlikely, but feasible.

If we are waiting past September to hear any more about these new headphones, all the money spent on soccer players might have been wasted; the buzz garnered by the move is already dying down (that is, in most places beyond the r/beatsbydre subreddit). Hopefully Beats will shift into action sooner than that.

• Brand called Saccater lists 'aéra' IEMs on Kickstarter...
• ... and very quickly jumps past funding targets
• Designed to protect your hearing (and they look good too)

About one third of adults in the UK, and a similar number in the US, have some kind of hearing loss (according to RNID and Hearing Health Foundation respectively).

It stands to reason that those little music-playing speakers we place into our ear canals, really rather close to our ear drums (with their ever increasing driver sizes and/or driver counts nestled into the headshells) don't exactly help. But one company is offering something of an alternative.

On Kickstarter, a brand called Saccater has unveiled some new in-ear monitors called aéra. These are audiophile-friendly buds with 9.6mm planar magnetic drivers, silver-plated copper wire and dual-sided concentric coils, but with some added extra considerations to protect your hearing.

That fits with Saccater's other Kickstarter projects; a series of earplugs designed for various everyday tasks. The aéra have already been fully funded on Kickstarter, with HK$210,000 (about $26,000, £19,000, AU$38,000) already pledged out of the modest HK$30,000 (roughly $4,000, £3,000, AU$6,000) goal. Each pair of buds cost HK$860 (about $110, £74, AU$150), and are due to ship in October 2026.

That means the Saccater aéra have hit their goal nearly seven times over, proving there's a big appetite for hearing-friendly earbuds.

Hear, hear(ing health)

You're probably wondering, what does 'hearing-friendly' actually mean in IEMs such as these — because they look just like the IEMs I know and love?

One of the key considerations is weight and design; according to Saccater, you perceive sound worse when your ear is uncomfortable, often prompting people turn turn up the volume higher than they need to. So the aéra use a "zero-pressure fit" and are incredibly light, at just 4g per bud.

Whether or not they actually protect your hearing health, then, they'll be pretty comfortable to wear.

The earbuds also come with a hearing manual to guide you through best practice to avoid damaging your ears, as well as the brand's other earplugs in the box, so you don't use the aéra just to block out noise. This latter is, according to Saccater, another way people unintentionally damage their hearing.

Despite the focus on hearing health, the aéra seem suitable for audiophiles too. They support 24 bit / 96kHz playback, a 20Hz-20kHz frequency response, and come with a range of ear tips to choose between.

They also look pretty simple and beautiful, ditching the shiny or textured designs of most modern IEMs for something understated.

Now, all of these specs and pledges are from Saccater itself, so it's hard to know just how effective the aéra will be. But the early success of the buds goes to show that hearing health is something we're all waking up to.

So, you need a pair of ANC earbuds. Recommendations usually start with the pairs that match your smartphone: AirPods, Pixel Buds, Galaxy Buds, OnePlus Buds, or Moto Buds. If you opt for a pair of ANC earbuds from a trusted audio brand instead, you're likely choosing between Sony and Bose. I've used both the Sony WF-1000XM6 earbuds and the Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds (Gen 2) for months, and they're the best of the best when it comes to active noise-cancellation power.

But there can only be one best. So, I decided to take the flagship Sony and Bose earbuds to three noisy places to see how each one cancels out unwanted sound. This isn't a lab test or a benchmark — it's a real-world showdown that reflects how the Sony WF-1000XM6 earbuds and the Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds (Gen 2) perform in everyday scenarios. While it was close, there was one pair of ANC earbuds I consistently preferred for its ANC power.

How the specs compare

The Bose QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2) use eight onboard microphones — four per earbud — to cancel out sound. Bose is using new AI-powered algorithms for active noise cancellation, but we don't know the specifics. The Sony WF-1000XM6 also has eight microphones split evenly between the two earbuds. Sony uses a custom QN3e processor for noise cancelation, and it's said to be 3x faster than its predecessor.

For this test, I took the Bose and Sony earbuds to loud places and tested their ANC performance. I placed the earbuds in my ears and listened for active noise cancellation without any music playing. Then, I raised the volume to a modest 50% and started playing music to see how environmental noise is perceived at a comfortable listening level.

This test is purely gauging the earbuds' ANC chops. It ignores sound quality, battery life, call quality, and other features, but every detail is covered in our full reviews of the Sony WF-1000XM6 and the Bose QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2).

I wore Sony and Bose earbuds in a noisy coffee shop

The first place I took the Sony and Bose earbuds to was my local coffee shop. I'm regularly working from a cafe, and it's a great environment. Good vibes, superb lattes, and free Wi-Fi. The one problem every digital nomad has run into is the noise. Loud espresso machines, constant chatter, and noisy foot traffic can quickly lead to distractions. The obvious solution to this issue is a pair of ANC earbuds, and that's why I brought the WF-1000XM6 and the QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2) along with me.

Active noise cancellation works best with consistent noise, which is why environments like a coffee shop can trip up ANC earbuds. Sudden bursts of loud conversation or intermittent machinery can pierce the ANC barrier. When I wore the QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2) without music playing, most background noise and the radio music turned to silence. However, I could still hear laughter, the espresso machine screeching, and chairs sliding around.

I then switched to the WF-1000XM6, but Sony's earbuds struggled to cancel out the mid-frequency environmental noise. Without music playing through my earbuds, I could still hear the music from the overhead radio speakers and make out nearby conversations. Interestingly, the high-pitched sounds that broke through Bose's ANC bubble were suppressed by the Sony earbuds.

Starting to play music through each pair of earbuds at 50% volume made their flaws virtually indistinguishable. With music playing, the Sony WF-1000XM6 blocked out nearly all audible background noise. The same was mostly true of the QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2), except for lighter tracks with strong vocals and minimal production.

In this test, I preferred the ANC power of the Bose earbuds. I really didn't like that the Sony earbuds did little to block out the chatter and background music in the coffee shop, which can be distracting.

I wore Sony and Bose earbuds under a rumbling AC unit

Your air conditioning unit might be producing the loudest sound in your home. I live in the Arizona desert, so my AC is running almost nonstop this time of year. Using a sound measurement tool, I recorded my AC's noise level to be 60 decibels. That's quite loud, so I sat right underneath my air conditioner and put the Bose and Sony earbuds in my ears. These low-frequency hums and rumbles coming from your AC unit pose a challenge for even the best ANC earbuds.

Both earbuds nearly canceled out the AC unit's loud noise, but the QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2) did a better job. While the Sony WF-1000XM6 made the noise less irritating, it was still there. The Bose earbuds, by comparison, made the AC unit sound silent — even without music playing. After choosing a song and setting the volume at 50%, neither pair of earbuds had a problem blocking out the annoying rumble of my air conditioner.

In this test, the win goes to the Bose QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2). Based on the results of the first two tests, it seems like the Sony WF-1000XM6 isn't quite as good at negating low- and mid-frequency sounds.

I wore Sony and Bose earbuds throughout a crowded shopping mall

For the final test, I took the Bose and Sony earbuds to the loudest place I could think of: a crowded shopping mall on a Friday night. I walked through a supermarket, a food court, and the concourse to get a feel for how each pair of earbuds responded to the noisy environments. Unlike the first two tests, which relied heavily on low- and mid-frequency background noise, the most challenging sounds to cancel out here were in the high-frequency range.

Sony's WF-1000XM6 earbuds actually did a better job blocking out the conversations and chatter around me in the wall, and I have a hunch as to why. There was so much talking going on that all the voices blended together into a kind of white noise the Sony buds easily canceled out. This could be why the WF-1000XM6 stopped voices in their tracks here, but didn't perform as well in the less-crowded coffee shop.

In the food court, the Sony earbuds' ability to block out higher-end sounds shined. The sizzle of frying pans and the clanking of utensils were mitigated by the WF-1000XM6, whereas they were much easier to hear through the Bose earbuds. Even at 50% volume, I could still hear some of those high-pitched noises while wearing the QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2).

The two pairs of earbuds didn't stand a chance at canceling out the infrequent PA announcements in the food court, but this isn't surprising. Overall, the Sony earbuds won in the mall. The chatter all blending together, paired with the high-pitched nuisance sounds, gave the WF-1000XM6 the perfect environment to put its ANC strengths on display.

Verdict

Looking back on my week of ANC testing both the Bose and Sony earbuds, the winner on paper seems clear. More often than not, the Bose earbuds canceled out noise better than the Sony earbuds. Still, I'm not ready to write off the Sony WF-1000XM6 earbuds. I actually enjoyed wearing them for active noise cancellation more than the QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2), because the Sony earbuds are decidedly more comfortable.

They're smaller, and don't make as tight of a seal in your ear as the Bose earbuds. Perceived ANC power has as much to do with passive sound isolation as it does active algorithmic cancellation. The very reason the QuietComfort Ultra earbuds (Gen 2) performed well might also be the reason I wanted to pull them out of my ears during longer listening sessions. While I found the Bose earbuds canceled out more noise on most tests, I'd reach for the Sony earbuds for their comfort anyway.

What you need to know

• CMF announced the Clip Pro, a set of OWS (open-wearable stereo) earbuds, that will launch on August 4 at 9 am EDT (6 am PDT).
• Interested consumers can sign up at nothing.tech in preparation for the launch event.
• CMF is no stranger to audio devices, as it's developed the Headphone Pro and the Buds 2 Plus in recent history.

The teasers continue for CMF's next product, but now there's a date we can attach to it.

This morning (July 31), CMF by Nothing shared the details of its next product launch: the Clip Pro. The company states the Clip Pro will be its first "OWS" earbuds. These are open-wearable stereo earbuds for the "open" market. Devices like this will sit outside of your ear canal. Traditionally, devices will have a silicone tip that you slide in, but these, since they're outside, might feel more comfortable while you're outside or exercising.

CMF states the Clip Pro will launch on August 4 at 9 AM EDT (6 am PDT). We can expect these buds to clip onto our ears, funneling high-quality sound into our ears. CMF is still keeping the full design under wraps; however, its announcement teaser shows off a bit of its body.

The company says anyone who wants to be kept up-to-date about the launch can sign up.

No stranger to audio

CMF had a bit of interesting news last year when Nothing spun it off as an independent entity. Headquartered in India, a joint venture with Optiemus saw a $100 million investment and the creation of 1,800 jobs. As always, CMF will continue to focus on budget devices under $200. The company's Clip Pro will likely sit under that line, too. Also, CMF is used to developing audio devices, though OWS will be its first.

The company announced the Headphones Pro a few days after its spin-off was announced. These are over-ear headphones for $99 with a roller for ANC/volume, an Energy Slider to control bass and treble, and a shortcut button. CMF highlighted the Headphone Pro's strong battery with 100 hours of life with ANC disabled. What's more, it claims users can get four hours of audio after five minutes of charging.

If you're looking for a more "traditional" earbud, there's the CMF Buds 2 Plus.

Android Central's Take

Open earbuds sound interesting, but never interesting enough for me to grab a pair. I' sure it's probably easier on your ears. There's always been that thing growing up about not leaving earbuds in for too long. So, I can see comfortability with open buds, as well as better ear health. Nothing's launches are always good to keep an eye on, and CMF is no different.

As part of its back-to-school sale, Best Buy has launched a $150 discount on the Sony WH-1000XM5 wireless headphones, marking a certified good deal for those who don't mind going last-gen.

Despite being older than the top-rated Sony WH-1000XM6, the WH-1000XM5 headphones include nearly identical hardware, albeit at a substantially lower price and with regular price drops like this. They feature a powerful sound profile with advanced active noise cancellation (ANC), impressively long battery life with fast charging, as well as a range of other features like multi-point connection. The current deal is available for all four of the device's colors, which include Black, Blue, Silver, and Smoky Pink.

• See our TOP 20+ deals from Best Buy's Back to School sale

✅Recommended if: you're looking for a powerful pair of wireless noise-cancelling headphones with comfortable ear cups and a battery life that can handle long periods of listening; you're looking for headphones for around $250 but you still want to get a high-quality pair with access to high-res listening codecs; you're looking for headphones with high-quality microphones for video conferencing, phone calls, and easy-to-use voice commands.

❌Skip this deal if: you need headphones with a dust and water resistance rating for concern-free outdoor excursions in a variety of weather conditions; you're not looking for industry-leading audio quality and you'd prefer to go with something even more affordable than these, even at this discounted rate; you'd prefer a smaller overall design that's easy to stow for optimal portability.

The Sony WH-1000XM6 may be our top pick for the best headphones on the market today, but they're not that different from their predecessor. The Sony XM5 offer super comfortable speaker cups, up to 30 hours of battery life, and fast charging that can replenish up to 3 hours' worth of battery life in just 3 minutes. Built with eight different mics, these sport a powerful ANC suite, and crystal-clear audio for phone and video calls.

While they aren't known for being very collapsible or easy to stow, the WH-1000XM5 headphones do still come with a carrying case that can at least protect them when transported in a backpack or other bag.

Xiaomi Sound Play review

It turns out that major mobile manufacturer Xiaomi also makes Bluetooth speakers, and its latest model, the Xiaomi Sound Play, is aiming to deliver “immersive, powerful sound” as well as a “stylish and versatile” design.

But that’s not all. The tech giant is doing all of this while keeping its speaker nice and cheap. It comes in at just £49.90 (about $67 / AU$95) — which is refreshingly affordable for an 18W model with features such as smart lighting, Auracast, and IP68 waterproofing.

So can the Xiaomi Sound Play compete with some of the very best Bluetooth speakers around? The answer is a little more complicated than a simple yes or no.

Let’s start by looking at the areas in which the Sound Play excels, and there are a fair few of these. I alluded to some a moment ago — its waterproofing and LED lights, for example. That IP68 rating means that the speaker is fully dustproof, but can also survive a dunking under a meter and a half of water for as long as 30 minutes, so you really can take it anywhere without fear of damage.

The lighting — a key selling point of this speaker — is pretty neat too. Lights sit on the base of the speaker and beneath a panel on the top side, which resembles an infinity mirror. And the rings of lighting really help to make your listening sessions more immersive, especially in lower-lit conditions. You can customize the color and pattern of the lights too, and one setting also syncs up to bass output. That level of customizability is spectacular to see on a speaker in this price category.

More generally, I’m quite a big fan of how the Sound Play looks. It comes in four very stylish colors — the Purple variant I tried is quite the looker, as is the Green version. It is reminiscent of the JBL Flip 7 in terms of look and feel, with a neat fabric exterior and psuedo-cylindrical build. The inclusion of the infinity mirror light and handy rubber strap also make it a real stand-out, looks wise.

Another welcome inclusion is a built-in mic, for speakerphone duties. This is something you don't often see these days and it does add value, on paper. However, I made a phone call and although my voice sounded clear on the other end, I noticed a high-pitched chime whenever the other person wasn’t speaking. It wasn’t a dealbreaker (my discussion was still easy to navigate), but it's my job to notice these things.

Other highlights include a JBL Grip-rivalling 14-hour battery life — which is excellent for a speaker of this size — as well as Bluetooth 6.0 connectivity, and true wireless stereo playback for anyone with multiple Sound Play models at their disposal.

Something that the Sound Play omits, however, is companion app support. For me, this is a bigger miss — an app could’ve opened up EQ adjustment, remote light alteration, and precise battery life tracking. The speaker’s nominal price doesn’t quite excuse this either. There are a number of budget-friendly rivals from the likes of Earfun, Edifier, and Tribit that do come with app support.

By now you must be wondering how Xiaomi’s speaker sounds. In honesty, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. It’s a steady performer in some areas, but in need of improvement in others.

In general, the Sound Play delivers fairly clear audio. In Yes I Know My Way by Pino Daniele, vocals had good presence in the mix, and even had a decent sense of separation from other instruments in the mid-range. OK, higher-pitched drums weren’t the most expressive or articulate, but they didn’t sound tinny at mid-volume, and bass was weighted relatively well too.

With more energetic tracks, such as Trip by Ruze, the cracks started to show. There was a slightly compressed quality to the track, and the pumping bass just didn’t come through with the command or depth of similarly sized rivals, including the JBL Grip, which I directly tested against the Sound Play.

During this comparison, the Grip just delivered a more fun performance, with enhanced directionality and low-end punch. But that’s not to say Xiaomi’s speaker was blown out of the water — it still held its own with commendable clarity in the mid-range and fairly agile bass.

In House tracks, bass drops didn’t always have the impact or dynamism I was listening out for, and vibrant drums could occasionally sound on the blunt side. But then again, the Xiaomi didn’t succumb to a boomy, super-muddy sound that a lot of its budget rivals do — it puts up a fairly controlled performance overall.

As a smaller speaker, the Sound Play can’t get super loud, and bass will thin out substantially at top volume levels. It also won’t deliver the most detailed or open sound ever — again, I found a few tracks sounded a little compressed and narrow, which isn’t helped by the lack of higher-res codecs like LDAC or aptX.

All in all, I think the Sound Play sounds good enough for the price you pay. Sure, it’s not the most dynamic or revealing-sounding model on the market, but you get typically clear, decently balanced sound without having to shell out all too much cash.

So, looking at the Xiaomi Sound Play as a whole, would I consider it worth buying? Well that depends. If you’re on a tight budget, and you want a speaker for less than £50, then I think the Sound Play is an option worth considering. It doesn’t sound amazing, but it gets the job done, and I’m a big fan of its durable yet eye-catching design.

However, if you’ve got a little more money to play with, then I’d suggest picking up the JBL Flip 7. That model can produce truly seismic bass, incredibly clean audio, and has a top-class companion app to boot. The JBL Grip is another neat alternative, especially if you can grab it on sale.

Xiaomi Sound Play review: price & release date

• Priced at £49.90 (about $67 / AU$95)
• Launched in May 2026
• Scheduled to release in Australia in August 2026

The Xiaomi Sound Play was launched in May 2026, at the same time as its recently released 17T series. The speaker is available for £49.90 (about $67 / AU$95) in the UK, although Xiaomi told me that there are no plans for a US release, and the speaker won’t be available in Australia until August 2026. It can be purchased in one of four colors — Black, Green, Purple, or White — via Xiaomi’s digital store.

Xiaomi Sound Play review: specs

Should I buy the Xiaomi Sound Play?

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Xiaomi Sound Play review: also consider

How I tested the Xiaomi Sound Play

• I spent multiple days testing
• Mainly streamed tunes via Tidal
• Reviewed by someone who’s tested more than 50 Bluetooth speakers

I spent multiple days testing out the Xiaomi Sound Play, during which time I listened to countless tunes, exhausted its various features, and compared it against various rivals.

When listening to music I mainly streamed tracks over Tidal, but I dipped into Spotify from time to time as well. As always, I started out by sifting through the TechRadar reference playlist, which features songs from a wide variety of genres. I also listened to a ton of tunes from my personal library as well, though.

More generally, I’ve spent years reviewing audio gear here at TechRadar, and have tested a whole lot of Bluetooth speakers — more than 50 in fact. I’ve tried out everything from pocket-sized audio companions like the Bose SoundLink Micro Gen 2 through to luxurious large-sized alternatives like the Marshall Bromley 750, as well as Xiaomi Sound Play rivals like the JBL Grip, so I know exactly what it takes for a speaker to stand out in this highly competitive market.

• Read TechRadar’s reviews guarantee
• First reviewed: August 2026

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.

Spotify wants to introduce new ways for listeners to engage with the artists they love the most, all while expressing their own creativity.

The streamer’s audio mixing feature for playlists has sky-rocketed in popularity, introducing a new way for listeners to modify their playlists. Now Spotify is working on a new AI-powered fan-made covers and remix tool — and it’s seeking the help of Merlin.

Spotify’s upcoming remix tool will come as a subscription add-on, though we don’t know when it’s due to drop or how much it will be on top of the current $12.99/ £12.99/ AU$15.99 monthly Spotify Premium plan.

Despite knowing very little about it, we do know that the remix feature will garner significant attention across the board of users, artists, organizations, and analysts alike. So what’s the end-goal for Spotify, and what are people saying about its potential knock-on effects for musicians and listeners?

What is the agreement?

On August 4, Spotify and digital licensing partner Merlin announced a new agreement that would give artists on labels under the Merlin name the option to lend their music to Spotify’s remix feature. Merlin is the second organization to sign on to the deal, following Universal Music Group in May.

For Spotify, the goal is simple: to ‘give listeners a new way to engage with the music they love from participating artists and songwriters,’ as stated in the announcement. Spotify also says the tool ‘will create an additional revenue stream for participating artists’.

However, despite knowing the tool will be AI-powered, Spotify hasn’t gone into detail as to exactly how it will allow listeners to create their own remixes of their favorite songs. The discourse around AI-generated slop is still a hot topic, and Spotify is still bearing the brunt of harsh criticism, so its venture into launching AI-powered music add-ons has left everyone scratching their heads.

What are Spotify’s competitors saying?

As far as rival music streamers go, it’s safe to say the top dogs aren’t too interested in integrating AI throughout their respective UXs. While the likes of Apple Music and Tidal use algorithmic recommendations to fuel discovery, the number of generative AI tools is nowhere near as saturated as Spotify.

Listening to an artist’s music in the way it was released is the only concern for most companies, particularly for Dan Mackta, Managing Director at Qobuz, who gave us the following statement: “Qobuz isn’t looking at anything like this. The finished music that great artists release is good enough for us and our community”.

The desire to keep the traditional listening experience in place is quite prevalent on the one hand. Some users just want to kick back with an album or playlist, hit the play button, and let the music do its thing. But as music analyst and founder of MIDiA Research Mark Mulligan points out, the yearning for active participation is growing.

Mulligan detailed this in a comment shared with us: “A growing share of consumers want to do more than just listen. Audio modification is an opportunity both to tap into consumer creativity and fandom. Playing around with your favourite artist’s song is an ultimate expression of fandom”.

Additionally, he backed this up with his own findings from the recent MIDiA Q1 2026 consumer survey: “The potential of audio modification is significant. Consumer demand is clear, with 54% of consumers interested in some form of audio modification, from changing speed to swapping vocals, rising to 80% for 16–19-year-olds”.

Participatory music is a rising phenomenon, and software labels like A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya want to create experiences that go beyond just listening to a song. However, AI is out of the question, and the creativity is placed in the hands of the user, not generated by a machine.

What are artists/ organizations saying?

In light of Spotify’s announcement, it’s not just competitors that are having their say on the AI-powered remix tool. Additionally, artists and music organizations are questioning the long-term financial effects the feature could have.

Musician’s Union is a UK-based organization that represents artists in all areas of the music industry, and its General Secretary Naomi Pohl views Spotify’s partnership with two minds.

“The Merlin and Spotify announcement sounds positive as it suggests artists will have the choice to participate in licensing deals or not and, crucially, that they will share in any revenue generated by the use of their works. This is better than the blanket approach taken by some major labels,” she tells us, but she also raises concerns about how artists will be paid, adding the following:

“However, as with music streaming royalties, there is a question over how artists signed to independent labels will be paid by their label. Artists should in theory get 50% of any revenue their label receives, but in practice this may not happen in all cases as it will depend on the label’s interpretation of the artist’s contract. Many artists signed before AI deals were even conceived of. And, as with music streaming, session or backing musicians on tracks currently stand to receive no share of revenue”.

When it comes to royalties, Spotify has faced severe criticism due to its payment model. Because Spotify pools money generated from subscriptions, it means the most streamed artists over the year will receive a higher percentage of the profits made. So, even if you spend an entire year supporting and streaming an up-and-coming indie band, your subscription money is still going to artists like Taylor Swift.

Royalties aside, the other concern lies within the protection of music in its original form. PRS for Music, who handle the rights and royalties behind music, feel this strongly. “More generally, streaming services are embracing new technologies, including AI, to give fans new ways to engage with the music they love,” a PRS spokesperson told us.

But despite these emerging consumer tools, what could easily get lost is the care for the music itself. PRS fears this will become less of a priority, adding “Creators, and their work, must be central to the development of these new tools. They must be designed specifically to protect the integrity of the work above all else, and to ensure creators are fairly paid for the value they bring to each and every platform”.

At the end of the day, these platforms are there not only for fans to listen and engage with music, but they're there for artists to allow fans to hear music the way they intended. Though Spotify's AI-powered remix tool would be a creative addition to the service, how long will it be before everyone reverts to streaming AI-generated mashups instead of the real thing?

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