The Apple AirPod Pro 3 offers small but meaningful improvements over its predecessors that makes it better than ever for cyclists and commuters. The improvement in the Adaptive Transparency mode is a highlight, while the ability to track heart rate is an exciting new addition.
The latest iteration of Apple’s in-ear headphones may look broadly similar to the previous generation, but a handful of subtle but well-judged updates makes them a more capable and comfortable option for riding, commuting, and everyday use. The fit has been improved, the battery lasts longer and they’ve finally got a built-in heart rate monitor.
Sound
The first place to start is the updated Adaptive Transparency mode, which remains the standout feature. It’s the best system I’ve used for letting in ambient sound without overwhelming your audio. You can hear traffic and other riders clearly. I don’t like listening to music on the road, but podcasts remain sharp and balanced. Apple’s tweaked processing now also softens sudden noises automatically, meaning things like horns or passing vans don’t make you jump out of your skin. There is still a bit of wind noise, but this is less than I experienced with the last iteration.
Sound quality has improved slightly from the already excellent AirPods Pro 2 and I found that the Adaptive EQ sound-processing feature now reacts a little quicker, so if a motorbike pulls up alongside you, it will reduce the external noise to prevent it drowning out whatever you’re listening to.
Battery life has had the biggest upgrade. You now get up to 6.5 hours per charge, which means that even if you want to go on a particularly long ride you can almost always go without the charging case. I’ve been able to use them for a morning ride, a few hours of work calls and an evening ride without getting the low-battery chime. The switch to USB-C charging is welcome too as it means one fewer cable to carry.
Fit and features
Fit and comfort are both improved. The ear tips have a slightly firmer feel, meaning they stay in place better on rougher roads or under a helmet strap. They’re still IPX5 rated, so fine in light rain or during sweaty turbo sessions – though you wouldn’t want to dunk them. It is however worth noting that I put the previous versions through the wash more than once and they’re still working today, so I have no reason to believe that the latest versions wouldn’t perform similarly.
One of the most interesting upgrades for cyclists is the in-ear heart-rate sensor. In my not especially scientific testing, I found that when I connected my chest strap to my Garmin and my Airpods to my phone, the readings broadly matched. You can get the heart rate monitor to send its data to your phone – which means you can upload to third party apps – but you can’t connect it to a bike computer.
One thing that I have found particularly useful now that my son has entered the ‘hide stuff from daddy for fun’ phase is that Apple has also added improved Find My tracking for the case with precise location detection. This means that I can get directions on my phone to wherever it is.
For casual listening, the AirPods Pro 3 are still some of the best all-rounders available. Whether it’s calls, podcasts, or music, the sound is clean and balanced, as long as you’re using them on a Mac, iPhone, or iPad. The microphones have been upgraded too, making call clarity a bit better in wind. Despite this, I still generally felt like I needed to stop to ensure I was understood.
Finally, one of the more unexpected additions is the real-time translation feature, which works through Siri and the built-in microphones. It’s not something you’d think of as a cycling-related upgrade, but I found it handy when I was riding in France just for things like ordering a coffee on a cafe stop. You can ask Siri to translate phrases on the go – for instance when ordering coffee or checking directions – and it will speak the translated version instantly into your ear. It’s fast, seems accurate, and feels like science fiction for a tech nerd like me.
Value
The Apple AirPods Pro 3 have an RRP of £219, which is actually pretty good given it’s £30 less than the AirPods Pro 2 at launch.
You could compare them to the Powerbeats Fit which come in at £199. They have similar sound quality and transparency modes, but lack the heart rate monitors on the Airpods.
There are also the Bose Ultra Open Earbuds which are more expensive at £299.99 but have an innovative design and arguably better sound quality.
Conclusion
Overall, I was very impressed with the latest iteration of the Airpod Pro. Apple has taken what was already a winning formula and added to it with some impressive new features and improvements. The HR monitor is a big plus, but you could also argue that the improved Adaptive Transparency mode and better fit are equally big upgrades compared to the previous model.
Verdict
A very good set of earbuds with exceptional transparency, a comfortable fit and a built-in HRM
All the deals displayed on our review pages are pulled from a constantly updating database feed of the best affiliate deals available. The criteria for deciding on what are the best deals is who is offering the lowest, delivered price. In most cases we will be showing the very best deal available online, but sometimes you may be able to find an item cheaper. If you can please feel free to post a link in the comments box below. To find out more about affiliate links on road.cc click here.
road.cc test report
Make and model: Apple AirPod Pro 3
Size tested: n/a
Tell us what the product is for and who it’s aimed at. What do the manufacturers say about it? How does that compare to your own feelings about it?
Apple says: “Introducing the world’s best in-ear Active Noise Cancellation for the most immersive listening experience ever. Designed with an upgraded acoustic seal, AirPods Pro 3 automatically adapt to your environment and preferences. And new ultra-low-noise microphones remove even more unwanted sound. So you only hear what you want – in an unheard-of audio experience.”
Tell us some more about the technical aspects of the product?
Custom high – excursion Apple driver
Custom high dynamic range amplifier
Active Noise Cancellation
Adaptive Audio
Transparency mode
Conversation Awareness
Voice Isolation
Personalised Volume
Loud Sound Reduction
Personalised Spatial Audio with dynamic head tracking
Adaptive EQ
Studio-quality audio recording
Vent system for pressure equalisation
Hearing Health
Hearing Test
Hearing Aid
Hearing Protection
Live Translation
Live Translation for communicating across 8 languages
I have kicked/dropped/put through the wash the previous version more times than I can count and these appear to have the same high quality construction.
Very good – the effectiveness of the transparency feature makes them ideal for cycling and when you add in how well they stay in the ear and the heart rate monitor, they are probably the best in-ear headphones on the market today
As mentioned, I put the previous version through the wash more than once and they’re still as good as the day I got them, I have no reason to think these are any different.
They sit very comfortably in the ear for several hours and stay securely put, even over rough roads.
These have an RRP less than their predecessor, whilst being objectively better, which during a time of high inflation is particularly impressive.
Tell us how the product performed overall when used for its designed purpose
Very well: high sound quality, impressive transparency, and they stay in the ear very effectively.
Tell us what you particularly liked about the product
The transparency feature, which was impressive before, is even better now.
Tell us what you particularly disliked about the product
Whilst great on the Apple ecosystem, they’re less useful outside it.
How does the price compare to that of similar products in the market, including ones recently tested on road.cc?
You could compare them to the Powerbeats Fit which come in at £199. They have similar sound quality and transparency modes, but lack the heart rate monitors on the Airpods. There are also the Bose Ultra Open Earbuds which are more expensive at £299.99 but have an innovative design and arguably better sound quality.
Did you enjoy using the product? Yes
Would you consider buying the product? Yes
Would you recommend the product to a friend? Yes
Use this box to explain your overall score
I consistently used the previous version for several years because of how good they were on the bike. These are even better in basically every area that the Airpods 2s previously excelled – transparency, fit, and sound quality.
About the tester
Age: 35 Height: 6 ft Weight:
I usually ride: CAAD13 My best bike is: Cannondale Supersix Evo
I’ve been riding for: 10-20 years I ride: Every day I would class myself as: Expert
I regularly do the following types of riding: commuting, club rides, sportives, general fitness riding, fixed/singlespeed,
16 thoughts on “Apple AirPod Pro 3”
It would be pretty dumb to
It would be pretty dumb to wear any ear buds or headphones while riding a bike.
Whenever I see comments like
Whenever I see comments like this, it seems like an implicit insult to deaf cyclists.
Boopop wrote:
Every single time this question arises this point comes up and it doesn’t get any less silly. Deaf cyclists do not voluntarily opt to block out an important sensory input to their safety. I know two people with hearing impairment who cycle and both of them say that their deafness has made cycling in traffic trickier for them, and one of them has said to me that he can’t believe, given his experience of riding with deafness and riding without (he is relatively elderly and started losing his hearing about a decade ago), that anyone would voluntarily sacrifice their hearing when cycling. It’s clearly not in any way an insult to deaf cyclists to say it’s stupid voluntarily to cut off your hearing when cycling; it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t cycle if you can’t hear traffic, just that if you can hear traffic you should consider whether it’s advisable deliberately to block it out.
Claiming that any sort of
Claiming that any sort of headphones “cut off your hearing” shows a lack of understanding of the headphone market too. My Shokz don’t “cut off” my hearing. 83,000 miles cycled and I’ve never had a crash as a result of wearing headphones.
Boopop wrote:
Bone conducting headphones are, of course, a different matter; these headphones are in-ear and capable of totally cutting off external noise. No “lack of understanding” involved and it’s still very, very silly to claim that saying wearing headphones that do this is detrimental to rider safety is “an implicit insult to deaf cyclists”.
But bone conducting
But bone conducting headphones are still headphones, and the original comment suggested it’s dumb to wear any headphones while cycling.
I stand by what I said originally. Anyone who claims it’s dumb to wear headphones while cycling is implying it’s at least ill-advised to cycle if deaf.
Boopop wrote:
They’re just not. They’re saying it’s ill-advised for someone who isn’t deaf voluntarily to relinquish their hearing when cycling. See my example below, if I say it’s not sensible for people with good vision to cross the road with their eyes shut am I saying I don’t think blind people should go out in public? Obviously not, and I’m not “implicitly insulting” them either. If you want to wear headphones when cycling then go ahead, it’s not illegal, but don’t try to defend it by claiming that people who say it’s ill-advised are insulting deaf cyclists because that’s just silly.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think what’s silly is insulting people who choose to wear headphones, all types of headphones, while cycling. This feels like it’s cycle helmet debate adjacent, with similar levels of endless back and forth. For the most part I don’t care what risk based decisions someone else makes when they choose to cycle, I’m just glad they picked a bicycle rather than a car.
How about we just don’t insult people who make their own risk assessment on what’s acceptable while cycling, and instead focus on what causes actual harm on the roads?
Boopop wrote:
Golly, now saying wearing headphones when cycling is ill-advised is not just insulting deaf people but also other cyclists. I haven’t insulted anyone, I’m just giving my opinion and doing so in a rather more measured manner than yourself. As you appear incapable of considering an opinion contradictory to your own without dragging in manufactured claims that people who disagree with you are insulting the disabled, I’m out, cheerio.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I was referring to the commenter at the start of this thread, not you. Happy New Year.
No it doesn’t. Thats just you
No it doesn’t. Thats just you trying to be holier than thou. Its common sense to do a whole host of things that certain people can’t do due to a disability or for whatever other reason. That doesn’t mean that for those without those issues its not still common sense.
Ascribing perfectly reasonable comments to malice by ascribing meaning to them that was not remotely hinted at just makes you look a fool. Argue against what people have said, not what you decide their subtext was.
“Every time I hear people
“Every time I hear people saying it’s silly to cross the road with your eyes closed it seems like an implicit insult to blind people.”
Just imagine how much worse
Just imagine how much worse it would be if you encased yourself in a steel and glass box, and then played music.
With a lot of soundproofing
With a lot of soundproofing built in…
I think it isnt a great idea
Whenever I get angry with a pedestrian on a shared path, and am stuck behind them shouting my head off to no avail, they always have earbuds in. It should be illegal to wear them if you are coming into contact with anyone else.
It’s the ones who complain
It’s the ones who complain they didn’t hear my warning that shit me.