User Experience

Seen above is the right earbud installed on an artificial ear mold that is similar enough to my own average-sized ears. These somehow happen to be the first of the extending pole design I have reviewed or even had hands on, and the main thing to note is that the earbuds are effectively a line pivoting around the central insertion point. That line extends outward and down and can be angled with a good amount of flexibility for them to be directed towards your mouth to pick up speech with the microphone at the bottom. There is minimal support from the concha for the ear buds, with the retention mostly depending on how good a fit you get. This is why I was recommending making sure you have good tips and seal. These are otherwise quite light, and the small size makes them easy to bear in the ears. It just so happens that these earbuds are easier to dislodge and potentially lose than other in-ear TWS earbuds I have tested. These are also IP45 rated, making these feasible for use outdoors and in the gym.

Battery life is a key metric for TWS earbuds, and these promise up to five hours of use when fully charged, which tends to be the best-case scenario with low volume in low performance mode and AAC/SBC codecs. I hit closer to 4 hours regularly at ~70% volume on my phone with aptX, which is not very good in 2021. The included charging case provides for another 15 hours across charge cycles, which I again found to be on the lower side of the promised 20 hours, and this is before we get to ANC for closer to 10–12 hours total, and under 3 hours on a single charge. Charging also takes longer than usual despite the smaller battery capacities, since the marketed Type-C fast charging is still just the bog-standard 500 mA over 5 V, aka USB 2.0 speeds. Wireless charging is even slower, and I don't like the idea of charging for 2–2.5 hours for ~4 hours of playing time practically. This ends up being quite an underwhelming set for this metric, even compared to other budget-friendly TWS sets.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware and Microphones

You just know not much is going on with the audio drivers when the company's FAQs answer the question "How does the Apollo Air+ sound?" with "Equipped with Qualcomm® QCC3046 chip, Qualcomm® aptX™ and Qualcomm® aptX™ adaptive technologies, Apollo Air+ can provide you with studio quality audio." That is, until you read the specifications and realize these earbuds each house a for TWS earbuds relatively larger 10 mm dynamic driver with a supposedly graphene-coated diaphragm. Even finding this information took multiple steps, so the focus obviously lies elsewhere.


We saw before that the Apollo Air+ goes with the Qualcomm QCC3046, with Bluetooth 5.2 and aptX adaptive support on the handful of phones that support it. From that technical point of view, it ends up rather future-proof, and the rest of the feature set is quite impressive with hybrid noise cancellation in ambient mode and active noise cancellation, as well as a total of six microphones for both, as well as communication. Microphone quality for phone calls is quite decent—one of the better implementations in a TWS set, which the positioning no doubt contributes to a lot. Tronsmart seems to have prioritized the technological aspects with these, and we will now see how it actually sounds.

Frequency Measurement and Listening

I will mention that I have a general preference for a warm neutral signature emphasizing a slightly elevated bass and smooth treble range with detailed mids and good tonal separation. I also generally prefer instrumental music over vocals, with favored genres including jazz and classical music.


Our current testing methodology begins with a calibrated IEC711 audio coupler/artificial ear that ear buds can feed into to where you have decent isolation. The audio coupler feeds into a USB sound card, which in turn goes to a laptop that has ARTA and REW running and these TWS earphones connected to the laptop through Bluetooth 5.0 (aptX). I begin with an impulse measurement to test for signal fidelity, calibrate the sound card and channel output, account for floor noise, and finally test the frequency response of each channel separately. Octave smoothing is at the 1/6th setting, which nets a good balance of detail and noise not being identified as useful data. Also, the default tuning was used for testing, and no app-based settings were chosen unless specifically mentioned. Each sample of interest is tested thrice with separate mounts to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the three individual measurements for statistical accuracy. The raw data is then exported from REW and plotted in OriginPro for an easier comparison. This time I did go ahead and test the set with the artificial ears as well, since it was reliable enough to report here.


The IEC711 is such that you can't really compare these results with most other test setups, just within our own library of measurements. The raw dB numbers are also quite contingent on the set volume, gain levels, and sensitivity of the system. What is more useful information is how the left and right channels work across the rated frequency response in the Tronsmart Apollo Air+, or at least the useful part of it. The left earbud was separately tested from the right one, and colored differently for contrast. I did my best to ensure an identical fit for both inside the IEC711 orifice, so note how the two channels are fairly consistent most of the way, and within +/-2 dB throughout. This was also the case with the artificial ear, although the bump in the 4–5 kHz peak was weird, and noticeable, too. I will also mention that there was no discernible break-in period or effect. Keep in mind that with TWS earphones, the fit is quite important, as is the connectivity and signal strength from the source.

This is obviously a V-shaped tuning for more appeal to the masses. But the tuning is quite poorly done even so. The bass is extremely elevated without any dynamics to back it and comes off as if pushing up the volume on a set of speakers connected to a TV with the source volume at ~10–15%. This results in more distortion than I'd like and continues in the mids, where female vocals are slightly shouty, there is poor imaging, and the only consolation is decent tonal separation, which can help with phone calls. Listening to a band is fine enough, but then things get too bright as you go up the frequency range. It's shouty, so much so that it passes the diffuse field target at the in-ear resonance compensation. Basic instrument fundamentals and second-order harmonics clash, and things then fall off a cliff past 10 kHz, which might be for the best since things are just not done well here. Unfortunately, given the issues with tuning, ANC mode didn't help much despite lowering the bass response. The pressure differential is quite strong, making you want to pop your ears more than listen to these. Ambient mode is well executed, however, so I will give Tronsmart that external stimuli is coming through clearly pronounced, especially vocals.


I realize I may be coming off harsh here, which is because I am judging it in all aspects. The sound tuning and technicalities are just not there compared to even the similarly priced TWS competition. Take the Cambridge Audio Melomania 1+ we recently covered, for example. It has deficiencies as well, which were covered separately, but sounds so much better. The average end user without access to different products may admittedly not feel as disappointed, especially considering the mainstream tuning, but I want to make sure people are aware that there are other, better-sounding options for a similar price. Something like the Lypertek PurePlay Z2 2.0 is also similar, if not better, technologically, but has better tuning.