Nothing Headphone (a) vs Headphone (1): a tale of two cans

When Nothing launched the Headphone (1) back in July 2025 alongside the Phone 3, the internet had two predictable reactions: first, “those look insane,” and second, “are they actually any good?” The KEF collaboration, the chunky see-through earcups styled like cassette tapes, and a price tag of around £299 / $299 globally made it a pretty audacious debut into the over-ear space.

Fast forward to March 2026, and Nothing has done something even bolder. Rather than simply releasing a spec bump at the same price, the company launched the Headphone (a) — a new over-ear pair that comes in at $199 / £149 globally. The “a” branding is the same logic as the Phone (2a) line: more accessible, but not necessarily compromised. And if early reviews are anything to go by, it might actually be the smarter buy.

Related /

So let’s break this whole thing down properly.

A quick history lesson

Nothing’s audio journey has been almost entirely earbuds-focused until recently — the Ear (1), Ear (stick), Ear (2), and the CMF Buds lineup were all well-received efforts at making wireless earbuds look and sound interesting. But over-ear headphones were a completely different beast, and for the Headphone (1), Nothing reached out to KEF — a respected British audio brand known for premium loudspeakers — to tune the drivers.

The Headphone (1) launched with bold expectations. Transparent squircle earcups, 40mm dynamic drivers with a nickel-coated PU diaphragm, adaptive ANC up to 42dB, 80 hours of battery life (ANC off), and a “Sound by KEF” logo on the left earcup. It was unusual-looking, premium-leaning, and got solid (if not universally glowing) reviews.

The Headphone (a) arrives as the sequel. Nothing’s naming is consistent here — the “a” series always aims to democratize the flagship experience without dumbing it down entirely. And by almost every measurable metric, the Headphone (a) doesn’t feel like a step down.

Design: familiar, but softened

At first glance, both headphones share the same DNA. They’re clearly related — both feature Nothing’s signature dot-grid patterning, the iconic roller and paddle control system, and an over-ear design with synthetic earcups.

But there are meaningful differences once you put them side by side.

The Headphone (1) has an angular, bold look — the raised section on the earcups is distinctly cassette-tape-shaped, and the use of aluminum gives it a premium heft. It weighs in at 329 grams. Those transparent accents are very much in the “you either love it or hate it” category — bold enough that wearing them in public feels like a statement.

The Headphone (a) tones all of that down. The curves are gentler, the earcup design is rounder, and aluminum has been replaced by polycarbonate — which, in plain English, means plastic. It’s lighter as a result at 310 grams, though TechRadar‘s reviewer Matt Bolton notes that it’s “still heavier than most of the competition” and requires a firmer clamping force to compensate.

Color options are different, too. The Headphone (1) launched in just black and white. The Headphone (a) adds pink and yellow to the palette, though the TechRadar review isn’t flattering about those options, describing the yellow version as looking “like a fried egg” — the yellow mound surrounded by white not quite working as intended. The black and white variants, though, are described as “undeniably Nothing, but more mainstream.“

One notable regression: the Headphone (a) does not come with a hard case. Instead, you get what TechRadar calls “a swimbag” — a soft plastic drawstring pouch. The Headphone (1) included a proper semi-rigid carrying case. For frequent travellers or gym-goers, that’s a real consideration.

Sound: the part that actually matters

Here’s where things get genuinely interesting.

The Headphone (1) had respectable audio credentials — the KEF collaboration meant carefully tuned 40mm drivers with a nickel-coated PU diaphragm, a dark sound signature with good bass depth, and decent timbre. But independent reviewers noted that the midrange was weak, with frequencies between 200Hz and 500Hz running about 3–4dB below what they should be, and treble consistently underemphasised. SoundGuys found the headphones sounded “good, just not great out of the box” and required EQ tweaking to really shine.

The Headphone (a) goes in a different direction. Instead of KEF, Nothing uses its own in-house tuning, and the diaphragm here is titanium-coated PEN+PU rather than nickel-coated PU. TechRadar‘s Bolton called the upgrade immediately noticeable: “The Nothing Headphone (a) immediately feels like a big expansive highway in comparison — it’s an open, wide and free-flowing soundstage that allows songs to spread out and to feel more energetic, emotive and satisfying.“

That’s a significant statement when you consider the Headphone (1) had an official audio brand behind it and cost considerably more.

The Headphone (a) does have its own quirks. Bolton noted that his unit shipped with a “More Bass” EQ preset activated by default, which worked beautifully for electronic and pop music but caused real instruments to sound excessive. A quick toggle to “Balanced” in the Nothing X app fixed it — and the app’s flexibility in letting you map custom EQ changes to a physical button made this trivially easy to manage.

The one caveat is detail retrieval. The Headphone (a) doesn’t match pricier competition like the Sennheiser Accentum Plus for fine instrument separation or the textural nuance of acoustic recordings. But for the $199 price point, TechRadar says it’s arguably “the best cans in their category.“

ANC and call quality: Headphone (1) technically wins, but barely

Both headphones offer adaptive ANC, but the numbers tell slightly different stories.

The Headphone (1) supports adaptive ANC up to 42dB of noise reduction, backed by a six-microphone array — three mics per earcup — paired with Environmental Noise Cancellation (ENC) architecture for clearer voice calls. CNET‘s review noted the ANC “surpassed expectations,” handling busy New York streets effectively and comparing favourably (if not equally) to Sony’s WH-1000XM6.

The Headphone (a) dials this back slightly to 40dB of adaptive ANC, using a four-microphone setup with a 3-mic algorithm for calls. In real-world terms, TechRadar found the ANC “strong, though not mind-blowing,” sufficient for commuting and public transport without issue. The 2dB difference in rated ANC depth and the reduction from 6 to 4 mics is measurable on paper, but in daily use, most people won’t notice the gap.

What the Headphone (a) does is nail the audio feedback when switching modes. TechRadar specifically praised the sound design for mode transitions — switching to transparency mode plays an exhaled breath, and engaging ANC plays the sound of something slamming shut. “There’s no ambiguity here, and no annoying voice,” Bolton noted. It’s a small thing, but it shows the level of care in the product.

Battery life: Headphone (a) wins, and it isn’t close

This is probably the most jaw-dropping spec comparison between the two.

Mode	Headphone (1)	Headphone (a)
ANC Off (AAC)	80 hours	135 hours
ANC On (AAC)	35 hours	75 hours
ANC Off (LDAC)	54 hours	90 hours
ANC On (LDAC)	30 hours	62 hours
Fast Charge (5 min, ANC off)	5 hours	8 hours

The Headphone (a) carries a slightly larger 1,060mAh battery compared to the Headphone (1)’s 1,040mAh — but the improvement in battery life is far beyond what a 20mAh difference explains. The efficiency gains come from a combination of the newer Bluetooth 5.4 chip (vs. 5.3 in the Headphone (1)), software optimisations, and likely improved power management overall.

The bottom line: 75 hours of ANC-on listening. Five days of heavy daily use without reaching for a charger. TechRadar confirmed these figures held up in real-world testing, with the battery dropping only 20% after roughly 13 hours of use.

If you travel a lot and hate cable anxiety, the Headphone (a) is the easy choice here.

Connectivity and features

Both headphones support AAC, SBC, and LDAC codecs, USB-C audio, and a 3.5mm jack — so wired and hi-res wireless listening are both covered. Both also support dual-device connectivity (multipoint pairing), Google Fast Pair, and the Nothing X companion app for customisation.

Where the Headphone (a) edges ahead on the spec sheet: Bluetooth 5.4 versus 5.3 in the Headphone (1). This means improved connection stability, lower power consumption, and theoretically better latency. The Headphone (a) also claims IP52 water resistance, as does the Headphone (1).

A notable new feature on the Headphone (a): a dedicated button that can be mapped to a camera shutter, making it useful as a remote trigger when taking photos or videos on your phone. This wasn’t available on the Headphone (1).

One feature the Headphone (a) lacks that the Headphone (1) had: auto-pause/wear detection. The Headphone (1) had an ear-detection sensor that could pause music when you removed the headphones (though it needed to be activated in the app). The Headphone (a) doesn’t have this at all. It’s not a dealbreaker, but for commuters and office workers, it’s a missed convenience.

The app situation is identical — both use the Nothing X app, which supports 8-band EQ, spatial audio modes (Concert and Cinema on the Headphone (a)), custom button mapping, ANC settings, and low-latency game mode. Nothing OS users get everything integrated natively.

Price and value

Let’s talk numbers.

Globally, it was priced at £299 / €299 / $299.

The Nothing Headphone (a) launched globally on March 13, 2026, at $199 / £149. That’s roughly half the UK launch price of the Headphone (1).

When you put those prices next to each feature and spec comparison above — more battery life, upgraded Bluetooth, arguably better sound tuning, titanium-coated drivers, wider soundstage — the Headphone (a) starts to look like one of the stronger value propositions in the mid-range headphones space right now.

The only things the Headphone (1) genuinely holds over the Headphone (a) are: slightly stronger ANC (42dB vs. 40dB), more microphones for calls (6 vs. 4), KEF audio tuning, a hard carrying case, auto-pause wear detection, and the premium aluminum build. Whether those justify paying more — especially since the Headphone (1) was never universally praised for its sound — is a fair question.

So, which one should you actually buy?

Here’s the honest breakdown:

Buy the Nothing Headphone (a) if:

You want outstanding battery life (seriously, 75 hours ANC-on is exceptional)
You’re budget-conscious and want a genuinely great pair of headphones under $200
You prioritize a wide, energetic soundstage over analytical, clinical detail
You’re an everyday commuter or traveller who needs reliable ANC without chasing perfection
You want the latest Bluetooth 5.4 with better efficiency

Buy the Nothing Headphone (1) if (especially if buying at the discounted current price):

You care deeply about the KEF collaboration and want that specific tuning
You want a harder carrying case for transport
You value wear-detection auto-pause in your daily workflow
You want marginally stronger ANC and a larger microphone array for frequent calls
The premium aluminum build and bolder aesthetic matter to you

Don’t buy either if:

You want best-in-class ANC — the Sony WH-1000XM6 is in another league
You need exceptional instrument separation and a reference-grade neutral sound — look at Sennheiser’s Accentum Plus
Weight is a primary concern — both are on the heavier side for over-ears

The bigger picture

There’s a pattern emerging with Nothing’s product strategy that’s genuinely compelling: the “a” series consistently delivers more than you’d expect from a budget lineup. The Phone (2a) did it in smartphones. The Headphone (a) appears to be doing the same in audio.

TechRadar summarised it well — calling the Headphone (a) “the dream tech version 2.0 launch” that “fixes the sound problems” of the original while cutting the price significantly. That’s not a common thing to say about a budget follow-up. Usually, manufacturers strip features and call it “accessible.” Nothing, instead, appears to have genuinely iterated.

The loss of KEF branding might sting for audiophile purists who bought into the premium positioning of the Headphone (1). But based on reviewer consensus, the real-world sound improvement in the Headphone (a) — wider soundstage, better balance, more dynamic presentation — suggests that the brand name on the earcup matters a lot less than the tuning choices made inside the driver chamber.

For most people buying headphones in 2026, the Headphone (a) at its price point is simply a better argument. Nothing built a better product and charged less for it. In the headphone market, that’s rarer than it should be.