'ZDNET Recommends': What exactly does it mean?
ZDNET's recommendations are based on many hours of testing, research, and comparison shopping. We gather data from the best available sources, including vendor and retailer listings as well as other relevant and independent reviews sites. And we pore over customer reviews to find out what matters to real people who already own and use the products and services we’re assessing.
When you click through from our site to a retailer and buy a product or service, we may earn affiliate commissions. This helps support our work, but does not affect what we cover or how, and it does not affect the price you pay. Neither ZDNET nor the author are compensated for these independent reviews. Indeed, we follow strict guidelines that ensure our editorial content is never influenced by advertisers.
ZDNET's editorial team writes on behalf of you, our reader. Our goal is to deliver the most accurate information and the most knowledgeable advice possible in order to help you make smarter buying decisions on tech gear and a wide array of products and services. Our editors thoroughly review and fact-check every article to ensure that our content meets the highest standards. If we have made an error or published misleading information, we will correct or clarify the article. If you see inaccuracies in our content, please report the mistake via this form.
I tried this Shokz alternative for my runs, and the price-to-performance ratio surprised me
Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.
With the arrival of nicer weather, it's time to get back outside. If you're like me then you enjoy music, podcasts, and audiobooks while out and about. One of the best ways to improve safety while listening to audio is with a bone conduction headset like the H2O Audio Tri Run.
Also: I finally found bone conduction headphones that stay on while swimming (and they sound great)
H2O Audio has several bone conduction headsets, with the new Tri Run being its most affordable for $100. This low price is compelling for bone conduction technology and after biking with it over the past few weeks, I'm convinced it's an excellent option for anyone new to the format.
Fit and usability
There are a few key aspects I look for in bone conduction headsets for exercise: the most important being fit, battery life, and ease of control with physical buttons.
While audio quality and phone call support is important, bone conduction headsets are not typically able to provide a robust audio and call experience due to the technology being used to transmit the sound. The headset sounds clear and loud, but it just won't have the clarity and bass of a typical in or over the ear design.
The H2O Audio Tri Run is very comfortable, with the lightweight headset completely covered in soft-touch silicone material and a flexible wire that fits around the back of a wide range of head sizes. The ear loops fit over your ears and can be worn for hours without discomfort. There are no earbud tips to fit to your ear, and the around-the-head design provides a stable platform for even the most intense exercises.
Also: Best bone conduction headphones: We've tested the best models for your next swim, hike, or run
For charging, it comes with a proprietary four-pin magnetic cable, but unfortunately uses a USB-A connector on one end. The Tri Run lasts for about six hours, which is good for a lightweight headset. The automated voiceover on the headset keeps you updated on the charge level.
Audio controls
Controlling audio playback is important to me as I prefer to switch songs, adjust volume, and pause on the device itself while running and biking. Thankfully, there are three distinct buttons on the bottom of the right side behind your ear with the middle button serving as the power/play/pause/answer button.
The forward and aft buttons serve to control volume and skip tracks. I was able to easily reach up to manipulate these buttons while working out. Some headsets in the past had tiny buttons or too many buttons so it was a bit frustrating to control the audio content, but thankfully all is well here with the Tri Run.
I run and bike outside all year long so in Washington State that means a lot of time outside in the rain. The Tri Run offers IPX8 water resistance so there was never any concern with rain or sweat while wearing the headset.
However, despite being waterproof, the headset is useless while swimming as Bluetooth doesn't transmit audio underwater.
ZDNET's buying advice
Some races limit headsets worn by runners to bone conduction only so that the runners remain aware of their surroundings. The H2O Audio Tri Run is a great option for a first pair of bone conduction headphones with that reasonable $100 price. After using them for running or biking, you may then want to explore more expensive options with more features and longer battery life.
Facts Only
ZDNET provides product recommendations based on testing, research, and customer reviews.
ZDNET may earn affiliate commissions from retailer links but claims this does not influence editorial content.
The H2O Audio Tri Run is a bone conduction headset priced at $100.
The headset is designed for exercise, featuring a lightweight, silicone-covered frame with ear loops.
Battery life is approximately six hours, with charging via a proprietary four-pin magnetic cable and USB-A connector.
Controls include three physical buttons for power, playback, and volume.
The headset has IPX8 water resistance, suitable for rain and sweat but not underwater use.
Audio quality is clear but lacks the bass and clarity of traditional headphones.
The review highlights comfort and stability during intense workouts.
Some races restrict runners to bone conduction headsets for safety.
The Tri Run is positioned as a budget-friendly entry into bone conduction technology.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the H2O Audio Tri Run offers a compelling entry point into bone conduction headphones, balancing affordability with functional design for outdoor exercisers. ZDNET’s review is transparent about its methodology, acknowledging affiliate revenue while asserting editorial independence—a commendable practice in tech journalism. However, the piece leans heavily on the product’s utility for safety-conscious runners, a framing that could subtly reinforce the idea that traditional headphones are inherently unsafe, despite no evidence presented to support that claim. This aligns with a broader pattern in tech media where "safety" is often invoked to justify product adoption without rigorous scrutiny of the underlying assumptions.
The paradigm here is one of consumer empowerment through informed choice, but it also reflects the tech industry’s tendency to market niche products as essential. The unstated assumption is that situational awareness during exercise is a universal priority, which may not hold true for all users. Historically, this echoes the way fitness tech has evolved—from simple pedometers to advanced wearables—each iteration framed as a necessity rather than an option.
For human agency, the implications are mixed. On one hand, the review equips readers with practical insights to make better purchasing decisions. On the other, it risks normalizing the idea that certain technologies are mandatory for "safe" exercise, potentially pressuring consumers into unnecessary upgrades. The second-order consequence could be a market shift where bone conduction headphones become a de facto standard for runners, limiting choice for those who prefer other audio solutions.
Bridge questions: How might the emphasis on safety in product reviews shape consumer behavior beyond individual preference? What evidence would be needed to conclusively determine whether bone conduction headphones are safer than traditional ones in real-world scenarios? Are there alternative designs or technologies that could achieve similar safety benefits without the trade-offs in audio quality?
Counterstrike scan: If this were part of a coordinated campaign, the playbook might involve framing bone conduction headphones as a safety imperative to drive adoption, leveraging affiliate revenue while maintaining plausible deniability through "independent" reviews. However, the actual content does not exhibit structural alignment with such a pattern. The review is forthright about limitations and avoids hyperbolic claims, suggesting genuine editorial integrity.
Patterns detected: none