Connect with us

Technologies

Google Pixel Buds 2A Review: A Sound Choice for Pixel Users

The $129 Pixel Buds 2A don’t seem to vary much from Google’s flagship Pixel Buds Pro 2, but there are some key differences. Are they a good deal?

Our Experts

Written by  David Carnoy
Headshot of David Carnoy
David Carnoy Executive Editor / Reviews
Executive Editor David Carnoy has been a leading member of CNET’s Reviews team since 2000. He covers the gamut of gadgets and is a notable reviewer of mobile accessories and portable audio products, including headphones and speakers. He’s also an e-reader and e-publishing expert as well as the author of the novels Knife Music, The Big Exit and Lucidity. All the titles are available as Kindle, iBooks, Kobo e-books and audiobooks.
Expertise Headphones, Bluetooth speakers, mobile accessories, Apple, Sony, Bose, e-readers, Amazon, glasses, ski gear, iPhone cases, gaming accessories, sports tech, portable audio, interviews, audiophile gear, PC speakers Credentials

  • Maggie Award for Best Regularly Featured Web Column/Consumer
Why You Can Trust CNET
16171819202122232425+

Years of Experience

14151617181920212223

Hands-on Product Reviewers

6,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,000

Sq. Feet of Lab Space

CNET’s expert staff reviews and rates dozens of new products and services each month, building on more than a quarter century of expertise.

7.9/ 10
SCORE

Google Pixel Buds 2A

Pros

  • Lightweight design with comfortable, secure fit
  • $100 less (list price) than Pixel Buds Pro 2, they feature the same strong sound quality and look the same in your ears
  • Smaller charging case with solid build quality and a replaceable battery
  • Decent noise canceling

Cons

  • Not everybody will get a tight seal with the included ear tips
  • Missing some features found in the Pixel Buds Pro 2 and performance is a step behind
  • Though mostly appealing, they don’t necessarily rise above the competition in this price range

Like Samsung’s “fan-edition” FE products, Google’s A series models are more budget-friendly, leaving off a few features and a premium design element or two while not delivering quite the performance. 

Case in point: Google’s Pixel Buds 2A ($129, ÂŁ129, AU$239), which are essentially a “light” version of Google’s excellent flagship Pixel Buds Pro 2 ($229). They look pretty similar to their step-up sibling and serve up very similar sound quality, but they look and feel a tad cheaper and don’t offer the same noise-canceling or voice-calling performance. 

Many people may find the trade-offs are worth the savings, but I can’t tell you that the Pixel Buds 2A, while appealing earbuds overall, truly rise above the competition in this price range. 

Read more: Best Wireless Earbuds of 2025

Google says the Pixel Buds 2A’s design was “inspired” by the Pixel Buds Pro 2’s design, and at first glance, I had a tough time figuring out what’s different about them. 

While the Pixel Buds 2A are also powered by Google’s Tensor A1 chip, they’re missing a microphone in each bud (they have two mics per bud while the Buds Pro 2 have three). The Buds 2A also leave out wireless charging, a voice accelerometer, head tracking for spatial audio and a ringtone speaker in the case for Find My Device. They do add the ability to replace the battery in their charging case — and that new charging case is smaller than the Pixel Buds Pro 2’s case.

Though the Buds 2A weigh exactly the same as the Buds Pro 2 (4.7 grams) and also have 11mm drivers, their battery life is rated for an hour less — seven hours instead of eight with noise canceling on. They also feature Silent Seal 1.5 for noise canceling instead of Silent Seal 2.0, which presumably means their noise canceling isn’t quite as good. 

Here’s a full list of the differences between the two earbuds that I found.

How the Google Pixel Buds 2A are different from the Pixel Buds Pro 2

  • Two microphones per bud instead of three
  • No wireless charging (there is a ringtone speaker in the case for Find Hub)
  • No voice accelerometer to help detect when you’re talking
  • No Conversation Detection feature that automatically lowers volume when you speak and activates transparency mode so you can have a conversation 
  • No motion-detecting accelerometer and gyroscope (no head tracking for spatial audio)
  • Silent Seal 1.5 for noise canceling instead of Silent Seal 2.0
  • Up to seven hours of battery life instead of eight (with noise canceling on)
  • The charging case is about 20% smaller, weighing 47.6 grams (with earbuds inside) instead of 65 grams
  • Made out of 41% recycled materials instead of 24%

Similar fit and same eartips as the Pixel Buds Pro 2

The two models fit similarly, with a stability wing on each bud and a twist-to-fit design. The buds are lightweight and compact, and should fit most ears well. But I did have some trouble getting a tight seal with the Buds Pro 2’s included eartips (I ended up using my own tips), and the same thing happened with the Buds 2A. 

The shape of the included eartips is a little too conical for my ears, and the lack of a good seal affected both sound quality and noise-canceling performance.

Since I review a lot of earbuds, I have dozens of eartips sitting around, and I was able to find a set that got me a tight seal. I should point out that the post or nozzle on the buds is pretty wide, so only a limited number of eartips from my collection fit on the buds. But once I got the right tips on, the buds stayed in my ears securely, and I was able to run with them without a problem. They’re IP54 splash-proof and dust-resistant.

Pixel Buds 2A’s sound is a strong point

To my ears, the sound quality of the Pixel Buds 2A and Pixel Buds Pro 2 seems very similar, which should be the case since they both have the same 11mm drivers, the same redesigned acoustic chamber for improved treble performance and the same Tensor A1 chip.

I’ve been using Spotify’s new “lossless” audio streaming quality for playback and was generally impressed with the sound quality. The sound is relatively open and well-balanced, with the bass and treble accentuated only slightly, while the mids are only a touch recessed. (You can tweak the profile with a five-band equalizer in the Pixel Buds app.) The buds sound pretty dynamic, with good energy in the bass and some sizzle in the treble.

I thought the Pixel Buds 2A could sound slightly more refined and accurate, but they’re not boring to listen to, and their sound should appeal to most people. Also, I mostly avoided any listening fatigue over longer listening sessions.

That said, when I compared their sound to that of Samsung’s Galaxy Buds 3 FE, which retail for $150, I slightly preferred the sound of the latter. Their sound is slightly cleaner, smoother and more even-keeled — and slightly mellower overall. The Galaxy Buds 3 FE have a single 11mm dynamic driver, while the step-up Galaxy Buds 3 Pro have a 10.5mm dynamic driver paired with a 6.5mm planar magnetic. Samsung’s done a good job tuning the Buds 3 FE.

While some people faulted the Pixel Buds Pro 2 for not supporting so-called high-resolution audio codecs like Sony’s LDAC and Qualcomm’s aptX Adaptive or Lossless (LDAC is more widely supported by Android phones), and the Pixel Buds 2A don’t support those codecs either, I don’t think it’s a big deal. We’re not exactly dealing with high-end equipment here that might allow you to hear a difference. Some people may feel differently, but I think the AAC codec is just fine.    

Noise canceling is good, but not top-notch

As I said earlier, if you don’t get a tight seal, noise-canceling performance will be affected. We have a major HVAC unit running in our offices, pumping out air conditioning, and the Pixel Buds Pro 2 were able to almost completely muffle the unit’s sound. The Pixel Buds 2A also did a good job muffling the low rumble of the unit, but I definitely noticed that the Pixel Buds 2A didn’t reduce as much of the noise. The same was true outdoors on the streets of New York, with a wider range of frequencies. 

There wasn’t a huge difference between the Buds 2A and Bud Pro 2, but the Buds Pro 2 were a little more effective at muffling the sound around me. I used the same eartips with both buds. 

Particularly in the streets of New York, the noise-muffling capabilities of the Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds (2nd Gen) and Apple AirPods Pro 3 were a level up from both the Buds 2 Pro and Buds 2A in their noise canceling.

The AirPods Pro 3’s transparency mode is also a tad more natural-sounding and the current gold standard for transparency. But Pixel Buds 2A’s transparency mode is respectable. 

Voice-calling performance falls a little short

Apparently, having one less microphone and no voice accelerometer to help detect when you’re talking does have an impact on voice-calling performance. From my torture tests in the noisy streets of New York, it doesn’t appear to be as good as what you get with the Pixel Buds Pro 2, though it should be noted that to get optimal voice-calling performance, you need to use one of the newer Pixel phones to take advantage of the Super Wideband and Clear Calling features.

Callers did tell me that traffic noise was basically eliminated, but they could hear people’s voices in the background, and my voice warbled occasionally. They could also hear some wind noise, even though the microphones have a mesh covering them that’s supposed to help cut down wind noise.  

Final thoughts on the Google Pixel Buds 2A

Aside from my inability to get a tight seal from the included earbuds, I don’t have any major gripes with the Pixel Buds 2A. I liked how they sounded and felt in my ears once I got some tips that fit. While they look and feel a tad cheaper than the Pixel Buds Pro 2 and are missing some of those buds’ features, they look very similar and have a smaller charging case with a replaceable battery and slightly larger stability wings that should help you get a secure fit. They also have Google’s hands-free Gemini voice assistant, stereo spatial audio and multipoint Bluetooth pairing.

How good a value they end up being will largely depend on their street price. The Pixel Buds Pro 2 list for $229 but generally sell for around $190 and are currently $169 for Prime Day. They seem to have followed the street pricing of Apple’s AirPods Pro 2, since they were essentially Google’s answer to the AirPods Pro 2 when they shipped in September 2024. (It’s unclear when the newer AirPods Pro 3’s price will dip below $200.)

Given the past pricing history of Google earbuds, including the previous Pixel Buds A-Series, which didn’t have active noise canceling and were listed for $100 but typically sold for around $80 or less, one would look to buy the Pixel Buds 2A at closer to $100. 

While they don’t clearly rise above the competition in this price range, and I slightly prefer Samsung’s Galaxy Buds 3 FE, they’re mostly appealing earbuds for Android users — and Pixel users in particular — that will be even more enticing when they’re $20 to $30 less.         

Google Pixel Buds 2A key specs

  • IP54 dust-resistant and splash proof (case is IPX4 splash proof)
  • Weight: 4.7 grams per bud
  • Bluetooth 5.4
  • Google Tensor A1
  • Custom-designed 11mm dynamic speaker driver
  • Active noise cancellation with Silent Seal 1.5
  • Transparency mode
  • Active in-ear pressure relief
  • Bluetooth Super Wideband
  • Battery life: Up to 7 hours with noise canceling on, with an additional 20 hours in the case 
  • Battery in charging case is replaceable
  • Clear Calling
  • Wind-blocking mesh covers
  • Two microphones per bud
  • Hands-free Gemini voice assistant
  • Capacitive touch (tap) sensors for music, calls and voice-assistant controls
  • IR proximity sensor for in-ear detection to play and pause automatically
  • Hall Effect sensor for case open and close detection
  • Ringtone speaker in the case for Find Hub
  • USB-C charging
  • Colors: iris (purple) and hazel (black)
  • Price: $129, ÂŁ129, AU$239

Technologies

Amodei’s AI Slowdown Could Reshape Anthropic’s Planned IPO

As Anthropic meets with prospective investors ahead of its potentially historic market debut, CEO Dario Amodei is pushing for a slowdown in AI.

Anthropic’s path to an IPO just became significantly more complex.

While the company behind Claude is meeting with potential investors ahead of its potentially landmark debut, co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei is advocating for a strategy that appears to contradict these ambitious plans: slowing down.

Anthropic, which was valued at $965 billion earlier this year, has confidentially filed its IPO prospectus and is widely expected to list its shares as soon as next month. At the same time, concerns about the power of advanced AI models have been growing, spilling into the mainstream as more researchers warn of potential threats of human extinction.

In this context, Amodei wrote an essay over the weekend urging the AI industry to slow the pace of model development, proposing a three-step plan to temper how quickly model capabilities improve without “sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States’ lead in AI.”

This is the latest challenge facing public market investors who are trying to determine what they’re willing to pay for a piece of a five-year-old company that’s already among the most valuable in the world and could seek a $2 trillion valuation in its IPO. Although Anthropic may have to accept a hit to revenue growth, some experts say an intentional slowdown could help Anthropic position itself as a responsible actor, avoid future liability and address the public backlash towards AI that’s been building across the country.

“I don’t know that investors are necessarily going to see it as a negative,” Gil Luria, an equity analyst at D.A. Davidson, said in an interview. “Unless the companies are genuine and say, ‘OK, we’re not going to IPO, we’re not going to use any more compute, we’re not going to train any more models.’ That’s not what they’re saying.”

Continue Reading

Technologies

Iran Claims It Shot Down U.S. Advanced Drone Above Strait of Hormuz Amid Escalating Middle East Tensions

Iran says it shot down an advanced U.S. MQ‑1 drone over the Strait of Hormuz as tensions rise. The claim comes amid stalled diplomacy, renewed threats over oil control, and rising crude prices.

Iranian military announced it has destroyed an advanced American drone over the Strait of Hormuz, marking the latest exchange as Tehran and Washington trade warnings and strikes with no sign of de‑escalation. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Monday that its “new advanced aerospace defence system” intercepted and destroyed an advanced MQ‑1 drone in the Hormuz strait, without providing further details on the drone’s mission. The MQ‑1 is built by American defense contractor General Atomics and has historically been operated mainly by the U.S. Air Force and the CIA.

The incident follows a series of Iranian operations against U.S. unmanned naval systems in the Gulf, as the conflict, now in its seventh month, shows few signs of abating and diplomatic efforts over the strategic waterway remain stalled. On Sunday, President Donald Trump said the United States could continue its campaign against Iran and seize control of its oil, comparing the situation to the deal Washington reached with Venezuela earlier this year.

“We’ll ultimately get out (of the war), unless we decide to stay and keep the oil like Venezuela,” Trump said of the Iran conflict at the Irish Open golf championship in Ireland. He added that U.S. revenue from the Venezuela arrangement, which gave Washington access to roughly a fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves, has “paid for the war many times.”

Under the August agreement, Venezuela ceded majority U.S. control of more than 65 billion barrels of oil reserves — more than double America’s own reserves — in exchange for $209 billion for Venezuela’s state treasury. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the deal would also bring close to $100 billion in private investment to reinvigorate the Venezuelan economy.

On Sunday, Trump said he expects the seven‑month Iran war to end this year, possibly after the November midterm elections, and insisted that gasoline prices would “drop like a rock” once it does. He said he would only make the “right deal,” adding that Tehran has been “calling constantly” for peace talks, a claim Iran has previously dismissed.

Stalled Hormuz talks

A meeting in Oman between Gulf countries and Iran to discuss possible agreements on the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway for global oil and gas flows, has been postponed, Omani foreign minister Badr Albusaidi said on X on Sunday, citing the need for “consensus.” Officials from Iran and Gulf nations had been expected to meet on Monday and sign an agreement establishing an Iran‑Oman shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, though no direct talks between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing.

The Strait of Hormuz has been subjected to an Iranian and later U.S. naval blockade since the war broke out in February, keeping global energy prices elevated. A June accord between Washington and Tehran faltered over disagreements about the artery, and a recent offensive by Yemen’s Houthi rebels has given the Tehran‑aligned group leverage over a second critical waterway, the Bab el‑Mandeb.

Ships deemed non‑compliant are regularly targeted by Iranian strikes, while the U.S. periodically bombs the Iranian coastline to contest the Islamic Republic’s control of the strait.

Oil prices rose past $100 a barrel again for the first time since May and climbed further on Monday after Saudi Arabia shut a key East‑West energy pipeline following damage from Iraqi drones. U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures were up 2.3% to $102.39 per barrel. Brent crude, the international benchmark, traded 2.4% higher to $107.11 a barrel.

Continue Reading

Technologies

OpenAI boss Sam Altman spells out how and why the AI industry wants to slow down: ‘We could lose control’

OpenAI’s chief has made comments detailing how AI safety frameworks and a slowdown could work, as the industry unites behind concerns.

OpenAI chief Sam Altman has made his most detailed comments yet on how artificial intelligence safety frameworks could work, after he joined Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and Elon Musk in calling for an industry slowdown over the weekend.

Safety concerns over the technology have hit fever pitch since an Anthropic researcher quit last week, warning that those building it believed that it could “kill us all by the end of the decade” and prompting other employees at the lab and rival OpenAI to warn of catastrophic risks.

AI bosses have since shown a rare display of unity, with both Altman and Musk on Saturday backing an essay from Amodei that urged AI companies to slow how quickly they improve their most advanced models.

AI stocks were down Monday as investors digested the comments. U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed the CEOs’ warning on Sunday, saying a slowdown was not needed and would jeopardize America’s lead in AI over China.

Sam Altman sets out 2 ways AI could go ‘very badly’

“We welcome a federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI,” Altman said in a post on X just after midnight on Monday, adding that “no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness.”

Altman warned of two ways AI progress could go “very badly,” including losing “control of the future to AI” and too much power concentrating around a single person or company.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington are scrambling to address calls for safeguards.

This all comes as Anthropic and OpenAI gear up for what’s expected to be historic initial public offerings. Altman ruled out going public in 2026 in an interview with Fortune published Saturday.

Amodei’s three-step proposal

Many AI safety fears revolve around models developing the ability to improve their own performance, a technique known as recursive self-improvement, or RSI.

“Since roughly this summer, AI has been advancing drastically faster, driven primarily by AI’s growing ability to build the next generation of AI,” said Amodei in his essay. “Left unchecked, it could outrun our ability to understand and control these systems, and so must be pursued very carefully, if at all.”

Amodei proposed a three-step plan aimed at tempering the pace of development without “sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States’ lead in AI.”

The plan involves each frontier AI company giving “employee-like access” to external evaluators — which he said Anthropic was committing to now. Amodei also called for frontier AI labs to establish common safety standards, limit the rate of unchecked AI progress and attempt to coordinate efforts globally.

On Saturday, Altman said in a brief X post he agreed with Amodei that AI companies should “pace the frontier.” He added that “committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.”

“Consistent rules to manage frontier risk so that we can maximize the benefits are a good idea (and we are excited by ideas like independent auditors),” Altman said in his Monday post. But, he added, “When we talk about ‘pacing,’ we do not mean ‘stopping.’ Progress has been rapid and will continue to be.”

“Pacing will be well worth this cost; no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness, or let capabilities get ahead of alignment and monitoring,” he concluded.

“Where we will need the help of our government is for international coordination. But first we should do what we can ourselves.”

International cooperation

Coordinating AI safety measures and an industry slowdown with rival AI developers in China will likely pose big challenges.

The U.S. and China remain locked in a battle for AI supremacy, with tensions ratcheting up as Chinese models have become more advanced and their global adoption grows.

Amodei said Sunday that the “toughest dilemma” about his proposal is what happens if adversarial nations choose not to do the same.

“The more long-term thing would be working together to put a speed limit on the rate of AI progress,” Amodei told CBS News’ “Sunday Morning.”

“I think that’s going to be very difficult because the incentives to pull ahead and the military advantage that you get from that are so large. And honestly, I don’t know if it’s possible, but we should try.”

The Anthropic CEO’s essay has drawn criticism in China, with the state-owned Global Times writing on Monday that “Amodei’s proposals seek to portray China’s legitimate development in AI as a threat and further fuel confrontation between China and the US in the field.”

China’s Foreign Ministry said on Monday that the CEOs’ comments were “fearmongering.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media