Need to know
- Our experts tested more than 60 headphones from popular brands including Sennheiser, Sony, Apple, Bose and more
- We assess key factors such as sound quality, noise-cancelling listening, comfort, durability, battery life and more
- Become a CHOICE member to access our full reviews
Poor-quality headphones can make even Led Zeppelin sound more like your kid brother's garage band.
Whether you're enjoying your carefully curated playlists, catching up on podcasts or watching YouTube videos on the go, a decent pair of headphones can be a lifesaver.
But if you pick a poor pair, you can say goodbye to the sound of silence – and they can even affect the quality of the audio you're listening to.
This is why it's worth doing your research, especially given how expensive some brands can be.
Fortunately, we've done the hard work of testing them so you don't have to. Our audio experts have reviewed the most popular products on the market from Apple, Sennheiser, Skullcandy, Sony, Beats, Bang & Olufsen, JBL, Jabra and more.
"Our sound tests always reveal some surprising results," says CHOICE audio expert Peter Zaluzny.
"We've seen $500 products that rate worse than cheaper pairs half their price – sometimes from the very same brand. Paying more doesn't guarantee a better quality product, so it pays to shop carefully."
We've recently remastered our headphone testing, so our review covers all headphone types, from petite in-ear models through to noise-cancelling over-ear cans with all the features.
You can filter by type (in-ear, over-ear), price, brand, noise cancellation options and more to find the perfect pair for you.
We don't want you to end up with a dud buy, so here are the products that scored lowest in our lab tests. Consider becoming a CHOICE member to see the best performers.
Noise-cancelling headphones to avoid
"A good pair of noise-cancelling headphones can provide a great listening experience while you're on the go, as they're designed to filter out environmental noise," says Peter.
"But just because some headphones have this feature doesn't necessarily mean they sound good.
"In fact, poorly implemented noise-cancelling technology can actually make your music sound worse, which is why we test audio quality with it turned on and off."
These six noise-cancelling headphone models might look rock'n'roll, but they're less Rolling Stones and more elevator music. Here's why we don't recommend them.
1. Sennheiser HD 450BT
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 66%
- Sound quality score: 62%
- Price: $319
- Type: Over ear
These Sennheisers actually rated lower for sound quality than some headphones that don't even have noise-cancelling capabilities. Awkward.
And they were roundly outclassed by a $200 pair of headphones that our experts recommend. Extra awkward.
So what do these over-ear headphones have to commend them on? Their noise-cancelling abilities are pretty good (our experts scored them 73%) and they score well for durability, but that's about it, really.
They're good at cancelling out noise, but not particularly good at making it
On every other metric, our expert testers rated them as just OK. Essentially, they're good at cancelling noise, but not particularly good at making it.
Instead of spending this kind of money on a pair of headphones, you could take out a CHOICE membership, pick up the $200 headphones recommended by our experts, and still come out ahead. Plus, you'd also gain access to more than 200 reviews.
Sounds a lot better than these headphones do.
See the full Sennheiser HD 450BT review.
2. Marshall Monitor II ANC
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 67%
- Sound quality score: 70%
- Price: $499
- Type: Over ear
Yes, you read that right: 500 bucks for one of the lowest scoring headphones in our review. Yikes.
For around this price – or even less – you could take your pick of multiple high-performing headphones recommended by our experts.
These Marshalls are actually very good at noise cancelling, and they deliver good sound quality, but they're just a bit underwhelming otherwise. (Unless you're planning to wear them with your sunnies, in which case you'll be very pleased: they scored 92% for comfort with glasses.)
For around this price – or even less – you could take your pick of multiple high-performing headphones recommended by our experts
Our experts say they're not easy to use, and not especially comfortable.
For the money, you could buy the aforementioned $200 recommended headphones plus a pair of top-scoring ear buds and still be better off.
If that's music to your ears, head to our expert headphone reviews to find your perfect pair.
Or if for some reason you're still interested in these, read the full Marshall Monitor II ANC review.
Samsung Galaxy Buds Live.
3. Samsung Galaxy Buds Live
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 61%
- Sound quality score: 65%
- Price: $249
- Type: In ear
These earbuds performed so poorly they should be called ear-duds. Buy these and you might have steam coming out of your ears rather than music.
Despite their shiny luxury look and hefty $249 price tag, these wireless buds ranked last in their category with a CHOICE Expert Rating of 61%.
Despite their shiny luxury look and hefty $249 price tag, these wireless buds ranked last in their category
They scored an ordinary 65% for sound quality, but the sound of silence was where they really struck a low note: our experts scored them just 41% – the lowest of all the noise-cancelling headphones we tested. (Cue sad trumpet noises.)
If you're craving amazing audio, these buds are not your friend.
See our full Samsung Galaxy Buds Live review.
4. Beats Studio buds
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 61%
- Sound quality score: 59%
- Price: $229
- Type: In ear
These Beats buds are slightly better at noise cancelling than the Samsungs, but deliver slightly worse sound quality – and a full 90 minutes less listening time.
$229 isn't at the upper end of the price range for noise-cancelling ear buds, but we tested plenty of cheaper models that performed better than these.
We tested plenty of cheaper models that performed better than these
If someone offers you a pair of these buds, make like Michael Jackson and Beat It.
See the full Beats Studio buds review.
5. JBL Tune 130NC
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 64%
- Sound quality score: 69%
- Price: $149
- Type: In ear
For $100 less than the shiny Samsungs, you'll get better sound quality and noise cancelling with these JBLs. It's still not great sound quality or noise cancelling, but your bank account will be $100 up, so at least that's something.
Where you do get bang for your buck with these ear buds is battery life: they'll keep going for a solid 8 hours on one charge, and if you don't have time for a full charge, a 15-minute charge will give you three hours of battery life. The case will charge them three times over – so that's a full 32 hours' listening time all up.
You won't be able to block out much background noise with the feeble attempts at noise cancelling that these buds are capable of
It just won't be 32 hours of quality listening, unfortunately: our experts rated them as only OK for sound quality. And you won't be able to block out much background noise with the feeble attempts at noise cancelling that these buds are capable of. (They scored just 46% for active noise cancellation.)
All in all, these JBLs aren't worth tuning in to.
See the full JBL Tune 130NC review.
6. Audio-Technica ATH-CKS50TW
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 64%
- Sound quality score: 64%
- Price: $249
- Type: In ear
With an active noise cancellation score of 68%, these Audio-Technica buds don't actually perform too badly – but they don't exactly perform well either.
With a serious name like this and a pretty serious price tag, you'd expect better performance. And you can get it for the same money or less elsewhere.
These buds don't actually perform too badly – but they don't exactly perform well either
The one edge that these have over the competition is their battery life: a huge 13 hours from one charge! Very few other ear buds come close to that, so if you're happy to trade quality for quantity these might be worth a look.
See the full Audio-Technica ATH-CKS50TW review.
Standard headphones to avoid
Don't need to shut the world out? We've got you covered. Scratch these 6 non-noise cancelling headphone models off your list before you hit the shops.
1. JBL Tune 225TWS
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 54%
- Sound quality score: 47%
- Price: $180
- Type: In ear
Repeat offender JBL is back with yet another pair of headphones that'll leave you disappointed. They're the lowest scoring buds of their kind that we tested.
Don't write the whole brand off though; they do produce some good headphones – but these aren't among them.
These are the lowest scoring buds of their kind that we tested
For your money, you'll get just 3 hours and 45 minutes of battery life, ordinary sound, and only OK microphone quality. They're comfortable to wear and easy to clean, but they don't have much else going for them.
You don't need to pay a lot for a good pair of earbuds: four of the top performing in-ear headphones in our test come in at well under $300 – and some of them are noise cancelling.
So if you have $200 to spend on a pair of earbuds, do your research before you buy to make sure you don't get stuck with ear-duds.
See the full JBL Tune 225TWS review.
2. Marshall Minor III
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 55%
- Sound quality score: 52%
- Price: $229
- Type: In ear
Minor by name, minor by score. Despite their good-looking exterior, these dud buds don't have much going on where it counts.
They don't sound great, they're not comfortable, their battery life is poor, they don't clean up well, and their microphone isn't great quality… so, they're lacking pretty much everything you'd want in a pair of earbuds.
Despite their good-looking exterior, these dud buds don't have much going on where it counts
There isn't much to commend these on, so our experts had to dig deep to find a good point: they have left and right inscriptions on each earphone so you know which ear to put them in.
But with such ordinary sound quality and comfort, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference if you did put them in the wrong ear.
See the full Marshall Minor III review.
3. JBL Tune 220TWS
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 56%
- Sound quality score: 58%
- Price: $180
- Type: In ear
Yes, another pair of JBLs. They're the same price as their poor-performing sibling above, and they don't deliver much more. At least they're consistent, right?
They're the same price as their poor-performing sibling above, and they don't deliver much more
A key difference is that they have even worse battery life: just 2.5 hours. You can charge them five times over in the case before it runs out of juice, but when you're having to recharge so frequently you'll probably spend about as much time charging them as using them.
Save yourself the time and hassle by checking our review to find the best ear buds for your money.
See the full JBL Tune 220TWS review.
4. Adidas RPT-02 SOL
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 62%
- Sound quality score: 63%
- Price: $399
- Type: On ear
Nearly $400 and no noise cancelling? Unfortunately so.
Adidas is best known for sporting wear, so it's unclear why they've branched out into audio. Based on our test results, perhaps they should've stuck to sneakers.
Ironically, these sporty on-ear headphones probably aren't a comfortable option to wear while you're out for a jog. Despite them supposedly being designed for sports, our experts rated them just 46% for comfort, which we assess by wearing the headphones while moving around.
Ironically, these sporty on-ear headphones probably aren't a comfortable option to wear while you're out for a jog
And if you like to wear shades while you run, they're even worse: just 33% for comfort while wearing glasses.
Run – don't walk – away from these headphones.
See the full Adidas RPT-02 SOL review.
5. JBL Tune 510 BT
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 67%
- Sound quality score: 64%
- Price: $79
- Type: On ear
These JBLs are a bargain compared to other on-ear headphones, which cost as much as $500+ for high-end brands.
But as the Adidas ones above demonstrate, paying more doesn't necessarily buy you better sound. In this case at least, you'll get what you pay for.
You might be ahead on money if you buy these over the Adidas pair, but you won't be much better off in terms of sound quality. Our experts rated them about the same, but the JBLs are more comfortable (especially with glasses) and more durable.
You might be ahead on money if you buy these, but you won't be much better off in terms of sound quality
They're still not great in terms of comfort – our experts rated them as just OK – but at least they're not quite as uncomfortable as their expensive Adidas cousin.
They are foldable and have a battery life of more than 40 hours, though, so if you're looking for a cheap, portable pair then they might do the job.
See the full JBL Tune 510 BT review.
6. Marshall Major IV
- CHOICE Expert Rating: 68%
- Sound quality score: 66%
- Price: $259
- Type: On ear
These Marshall headphones cost more than three times as much as the JBLs, but certainly don't deliver three times the performance.
They scored about the same on sound quality and comfort; the biggest difference is that the Marshalls have a much longer battery life (86 hours), and you can still use them even if the battery is dead (which isn't the case for many other wireless headphones) due to the detachable audio cable that allows them to function like an old-school pair of wired headphones.
These cost more than three times as much as the JBLs but don't deliver three times the performance
So even once you've burned through 86 hours of listening you can still keep listening. It's just that it won't be a great experience.
See the full Marshall Major IV review.
The difference between on-ear and over-ear headphones
On-ear headphones don't look especially different to the over-ear variety, but they don't completely surround your ears. Instead they rest on the outside of your ears, allowing more airflow around them.
This generally makes them smaller and therefore easier to store and transport, but they don't block as much ambient noise. They also press on your ears, so poorly made models can get uncomfortable pretty quickly.
Stock images: Getty, unless otherwise stated.
