Consumer Reports says Samsung's Galaxy Buds beat Apple's AirPods Pro in sound quality test

[midian182]

A hot potato: Samsung or Apple? It’s a question that consumers have argued over for years—and it’s not just about their phones. The companies make other competing products, including wireless earphones. And according to Consumer Reports, the Korean company’s offering is better.

Apple unveiled its $249 AirPods Pro, which come with noise-canceling technology, back in October. They’ve gained many excellent reviews, with critics praising the audio quality and the transparency mode, which allows users to listen to music while being able to simultaneously hear the outside environment.

Consumer Reports also had plenty of good things to say about Apple’s earphones, calling the sound “really good,” and a significant improvement over the first- and second-generation AirPods. It also mentioned the “superb audio blocking performance.”

While the battery lasts about the same as the previous generation AirPods, it’s noted that users are getting more features without sacrificing battery life.

The AirPods Pro got a score of 75, which is above the much cheaper ($130) Amazon Echo Buds. But when it comes to sound quality, Consumer Reports believes Samsung’s Galaxy Buds are better.

"The Echo Buds, Amazon's new noise-canceling true wireless headphones, didn't score quite as well in our tests, but they're solid performers and far cheaper at $130," writes CR. "And while the AirPods Pro sound far better than Apple's earlier models, they still don't meet the audio quality of our top pick for true wireless sound, the Samsung Galaxy Buds, which also sell for around $130."

There are still plenty of things to like about the AirPods Pro, especially for those tied into Apple’s ecosystem of products, but audiophiles looking for the best truly wireless earbuds might want to opt for Samsung’s Galaxy Buds instead.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/82812-consumer-reports-samsung-galaxy-buds-beat-apple-airpods.html

 

[Uncle Al]

I've been a subscriber to Consumer Reports for over 30 years and to date I cannot think of a single time they have steered me wrong. It's no big secret that Apple overcharges their customers, relying more on customer loyalty than a sound fiscal policy. Over the years their followers have revolted a few times, forcing them to pull in their oars and be more competitive but it's been awhile making me almost wonder if people have forgotten how to vote with their pocketbooks in order to get the attention of the big boys .....

 

[madboyv1]

I have the previous version of the Galaxy Buds , the 2018 refresh of the IconX. They're in my ears right now actually, and I am a huge fan of them. I've tried a friends Airpods Pro, and they're nice, feel like they fit a teeny tiny bit more snuggly in my ear, and are a teeny tiny bit lighter... but not twice the price expensive (got my IconX for $120).

 

[Slappy McPhee]

I've been a subscriber to Consumer Reports for over 30 years and to date I cannot think of a single time they have steered me wrong. It's no big secret that Apple overcharges their customers, relying more on customer loyalty than a sound fiscal policy. Over the years their followers have revolted a few times, forcing them to pull in their oars and be more competitive but it's been awhile making me almost wonder if people have forgotten how to vote with their pocketbooks in order to get the attention of the big boys .....

They may not have steered you wrong, but they are bought and paid for by various companies. Their assessments are quite biased and always lean a certain direction.

As for the content of the article these two companies have been trading blows for around a decade now with no end in sight of them copycatting and one upping the other year after year. Today's wasteful society helps to fuel this. Also the fact that all of this wireless crap charging the airwaves and causing more physiological harm to us and animals being completely ignored by the masses just shows how much we do not deserve to be the top of the food chain on this marble.

 

[sac39507]

When they have quad drivers and become thx certified, let me know

 

[Soulburn74]

Are wireless in ear headphones that beat apple's really that news worthy? Just about every reputable company that makes wireless in ear headphones, are better sounding than apples.........

 

[tkabou]

Now, $130 for a pair of wireless buds is considered "cheap" (@ Amazon's offering).. When not too long ago, Apple's first iteration of their AirPods was $145 and considered insane pricing...

 

[john Madsen]

They may not have steered you wrong, but they are bought and paid for by various companies. Their assessments are quite biased and always lean a certain direction.

As for the content of the article these two companies have been trading blows for around a decade now with no end in sight of them copycatting and one upping the other year after year. Today's wasteful society helps to fuel this. Also the fact that all of this wireless crap charging the airwaves and causing more physiological harm to us and animals being completely ignored by the masses just shows how much we do not deserve to be the top of the food chain on this marble.

Consumer reports bought and paid for. I doubt that. They don't have advertising, they are subscription funded. Unless you have some valid information about your claim, I'm calling BS! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/consumer-reports/ Looks like they are least biased and factual reporting is high. "History

Consumer Reports is an American magazine published since 1936 by Consumers Reports Inc, a nonprofit organization dedicated to unbiased product testing, consumer-oriented research, public education, and advocacy. Consumer Reports publishes reviews and comparisons of consumer products and services based on reporting and results from its in-house testing laboratory and survey research center.

Funded by / Ownership

Consumer Reports is owned by Consumer Reports Inc. The magazine accepts no advertising, pays for all the products it tests, and as a nonprofit organization has no shareholders. Revenue is generated through subscription fees and donations."

 

[onestepforward]

It's no big secret that Apple overcharges their customers,

Oh geez, here we go again.

 

[Slappy McPhee]

Consumer reports bought and paid for. I doubt that. They don't have advertising, they are subscription funded. Unless you have some valid information about your claim, I'm calling BS! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/consumer-reports/ Looks like they are least biased and factual reporting is high. "History

Consumer Reports is an American magazine published since 1936 by Consumers Reports Inc, a nonprofit organization dedicated to unbiased product testing, consumer-oriented research, public education, and advocacy. Consumer Reports publishes reviews and comparisons of consumer products and services based on reporting and results from its in-house testing laboratory and survey research center.

Funded by / Ownership

Consumer Reports is owned by Consumer Reports Inc. The magazine accepts no advertising, pays for all the products it tests, and as a nonprofit organization has no shareholders. Revenue is generated through subscription fees and donations."

If you actually do real research they make many picks especially in the automotive industry consistently even though there is data to prove their picks and impressions are many times far from the truth. They skew toward the biggest brands being "the best" consistently as well even though many of those brands are selling products that are identical to some of the cheapest products being churned out from low quality Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese factories. It makes no difference to me if you are either blinded by brand recognition or have your head buried in the sand.

 

[Inforasurprise]

I wouldn't compare two categories of headphones with noise cancelling headphone and another without. Sure there may be a sound quality difference but the noise cancelling is what sets them apart and the reason why you're paying the premium.