299°
JVC HAS180A Headphones £5 in store Tesco Walsall
JVC HAS180A Headphones £5 in store Tesco Walsall

JVC HAS180A Headphones £5 in store Tesco Walsall

Buy forBuy forBuy for£5
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
JVC Bass Boost headphones. Reduced from £20. Instore at Tesco Walsall. Bargain. Receipt photo in comments.

10 Comments

Original Poster

Ok. I don't know how to upload a photo into the comments, you're just going to have to trust me

I trust you. I got 2 pairs the other day lol

I got the JVC flats for my brother. He wanted cheap cans to watch his tablet on holiday. Tremendous bass for what was pennies compared to Sennheiser etc. If these are anywhere near (and you can get past any hifi snob factor) they'll be worth it. Nice bass and sound from most JVC products usually for small money.

I have these, bargain for £5

TheVeryMan

I got the JVC flats for my brother. He wanted cheap cans to watch his … I got the JVC flats for my brother. He wanted cheap cans to watch his tablet on holiday. Tremendous bass for what was pennies compared to Sennheiser etc. If these are anywhere near (and you can get past any hifi snob factor) they'll be worth it. Nice bass and sound from most JVC products usually for small money.




HiFI snob here (lol).

I have never been impressed by the sound quality of ANY JVC headphone, regardless of price; "muffled" is the best way of describing the sound; no top end and lacking in any subtle details.

Obviously, if you use them on a landfill mp3 player/tablet, you wont notice, as the audio hardware they use is pretty awful as well.

I am not a complete snob though, some of the best in-ear phones I have had were some Phillips jobs I paid £9.99 for a few years ago. If I can find a magnifying glass, I will read off the model number and post it. They blew away the £130 B&O Ear speakers I had been using.

Obviously in-ear phones are no good for middle aged men; it is not that our hearing isnt up to it, it is because so much hair starts growing inside the ears, we cannot get them to stay in.

Gentle_Giant23 m ago

HiFI snob here (lol).I have never been impressed by the sound quality of …HiFI snob here (lol).I have never been impressed by the sound quality of ANY JVC headphone, regardless of price; "muffled" is the best way of describing the sound; no top end and lacking in any subtle details.Obviously, if you use them on a landfill mp3 player/tablet, you wont notice, as the audio hardware they use is pretty awful as well.I am not a complete snob though, some of the best in-ear phones I have had were some Phillips jobs I paid £9.99 for a few years ago. If I can find a magnifying glass, I will read off the model number and post it. They blew away the £130 B&O Ear speakers I had been using.Obviously in-ear phones are no good for middle aged men; it is not that our hearing isnt up to it, it is because so much hair starts growing inside the ears, we cannot get them to stay in.

​LOL. As a middle aged man I see what you mean. Perhaps they should pack a pair of tweezers with the in-ear phones. Or one could just go to boots and get a set.

Gentle_Giant

HiFI snob here lol .I have never been impressed by the sound quality of … HiFI snob here lol .I have never been impressed by the sound quality of ANY JVC headphone, regardless of price; "muffled" is the best way of describing the sound; no top end and lacking in any subtle details.Obviously, if you use them on a landfill mp3 player/tablet, you wont notice, as the audio hardware they use is pretty awful as well.I am not a complete snob though, some of the best in-ear phones I have had were some Phillips jobs I paid £9.99 for a few years ago. If I can find a magnifying glass, I will read off the model number and post it. They blew away the £130 B&O Ear speakers I had been using.Obviously in-ear phones are no good for middle aged men; it is not that our hearing isnt up to it, it is because so much hair starts growing inside the ears, we cannot get them to stay in.



How nice to be replied to, even if I disagree. Usually if I've spent £130 on something it's from B&Q not B&O. The audience for this deal are looking to separate the worthwhile from the utter shizzle that abounds this price tag. The JVC flats I was slavering on about are pretty good and their neodymium drivers cut the mustard for the £7 I paid, however each to their own. Re muffled and no top end, I thought you were reviewing £300 - £400 Bose noise cancellers. Unbeatable for noise cancelling but total shizz for quality listening. Like I said different things for a different audience. Ta ta. (landfill.. Chortle)

TheVeryMan

How nice to be replied to, even if I disagree. Usually if I've spent £130 … How nice to be replied to, even if I disagree. Usually if I've spent £130 on something it's from B&Q not B&O. The audience for this deal are looking to separate the worthwhile from the utter shizzle that abounds this price tag. The JVC flats I was slavering on about are pretty good and their neodymium drivers cut the mustard for the £7 I paid, however each to their own. Re muffled and no top end, I thought you were reviewing £300 - £400 Bose noise cancellers. Unbeatable for noise cancelling but total shizz for quality listening. Like I said different things for a different audience. Ta ta. (landfill.. Chortle)



Seriously, I have twice bought JVC headphones in the £20-40 range - when I needed something urgently, ie my usual pair broke; they were both awful. The B&O pair I bought as a consolation gift for myself after a disastrous trip to Dubai; they look nice and sound ok - better than the JVC pairs, but not as good as the £9.99 Phillips, and not on the same planet as a £40 pair of SoundMagic earphones.
My swimming earphones sound better than the JVCs I've had.

Note BLUE only, Black ones are £15 needless to say the queue behind me at lunch wasn't impressed with me sending the assistant to check ! Disposable headphone search continues (None in Crawley).

Lots in Colchester highwoods (still priced at £15 but scan at £5)
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text