The SOUNDPEATS UU2 combine a comfortable open-ear design, strong bass, LDAC, Bluetooth 6.0, multipoint connectivity, and up to 42 hours of battery life in an affordable package.

I recently just started a new workout regimen, and while I love my AirPods Pro, they tend to work their way out of my ears when I’m active. There’s nothing quite as distracting as having to stop in the middle of a workout to push an earbud back into place, especially when I’m trying to stay focused on what I’m doing.

That got me looking at open-ear earbuds, particularly the clip-on style that doesn’t rely on an ear tip staying securely inside the ear canal. The SOUNDPEATSU@ UU2 caught my attention because they take that approach while still offering features I typically look for in a pair of wireless earbuds, including Bluetooth 6.0, LDAC support, multipoint connectivity, and a claimed 10 hours of battery life.

I’ve also been curious about how well this style of earbud actually performs in everyday use. Leaving the ear canal open sounds appealing for workouts and other situations where I want to remain aware of my surroundings, but that design also raises some questions. How do they sound? Is there enough bass? How secure are they during exercise? And how much sound actually reaches the people around you?

I’ve spent some time with the SOUNDPEATS UU2 to find out whether these clip-on earbuds can deliver the stability and convenience I’m looking for without sacrificing the audio experience that has kept me coming back to the AirPods Pro.

About the SOUNDPEATS UU2

The SOUNDPEATS UU2 are open-ear clip-on earbuds designed to sit around the ear rather than inside the ear canal. This allows users to listen to music while still hearing some of the sounds around them.

The UU2 feature 12mm dual-magnet dynamic drivers with DynamicEQ technology, Bluetooth 6.0, and support for SBC, AAC, and LDAC codecs. They also offer multipoint connectivity, physical button controls, IPX5 water resistance, and up to 10 hours of playback on a single charge. The included charging case extends total battery life to up to 42 hours.

With their lightweight clip-on design and open-ear construction, the UU2 offer an alternative to traditional in-ear earbuds. The rest of this review focuses on how that design performs in everyday use, including comfort, audio quality, fit, controls, and connectivity.

Specs

Core Specs

• Bluetooth: v6.0
• Bluetooth Profiles: HSP / HFP / A2DP / AVRCP
• Chipset: BT8912F
• Bluetooth Codecs: SBC / AAC / LDAC

Battery

• Earbud Battery: 50mAh × 2
• Charging Case Battery: 500mAh
• Earbud Charging Time: 45 minutes
• Case Charging Time: 1 hour 36 minutes
• Fast Charging: 10 minutes provides up to 2 hours of playback
• Total Playtime: Up to 42 hours
• Charging Port: USB-C

What’s in the Box

• SOUNDPEATS UU2 (POP Clip2) earbuds
• Charging case
• USB-C charging cable
• User manual
• App quick-start card
• SOUNDPEATS sticker sheet

Package & Design

• Single Earbud Weight: Approximately 5g
• Charging Case + Earbuds: 47.7g
• Controls: Physical buttons
• Water Resistance: IPX5

Pricing & Availability

The list price for the earbuds is $49.99 on soundpeats.com and Amazon.

User Experience

Getting started with the SOUNDPEATS UU2 is straightforward. Inside the box, you’ll find the earbuds, their charging case, a short USB-C charging cable, and a user guide. There’s also an app quick-start card and a SOUNDPEATS sticker sheet. The earbuds arrive stored in the charging case, so there isn’t much to do before getting started beyond charging them and connecting them to a device.

The first thing I noticed after taking the UU2 out of the case was just how different they feel compared with traditional earbuds. Rather than placing anything inside the ear canal, the UU2 use a clip that sits behind the ear with the speaker positioned just outside it. That design takes a little getting used to, but it also ended up being one of my favorite aspects of using them.

Comfort & Fit

The SOUNDPEATS UU2 took a little getting used to at first. Since the clip sits behind the ear, it feels noticeably different from traditional earbuds. Initially, I was very aware of the clip being there, but after wearing them for a while, that feeling became much less noticeable.

Once I got used to the design, I found the UU2 to be very comfortable. One of my favorite things about the open-ear design is that there isn’t a traditional earbud wedged into my ear canal. Instead, it feels almost like I have two small speakers sitting just outside my ears.

The earbuds have stayed securely in place during normal movement, and so far, I haven’t noticed any significant movement or shifting. They also work well with my glasses, and I haven’t experienced any pressure or irritation around my ears.

Putting them on and taking them off takes a little practice because of the clip design, but once I figured out the proper motion, it became easy to do. Overall, I have been very impressed with how comfortable the UU2 are, particularly for longer listening sessions.

Audio Quality

I was pleasantly surprised by the sound quality of the UU2. They sound great, and the bass response is particularly impressive for an open-ear design. I expected some compromise in the low end because the earbuds don’t create a seal inside the ear canal, but the bass is actually very strong.

Vocals are clear, and the mids and highs are well balanced. I’ve also been impressed with how the UU2 handle different volume levels. Whether I’m listening at a lower volume or turning things up, the audio remains clear and I haven’t noticed any significant distortion at higher volumes.

For an open-ear pair of earbuds, the overall listening experience has been better than I expected. They provide plenty of volume and bass without losing the clarity that I want when listening to music.

Everyday Use

The physical buttons are one area where I think the UU2 could be improved. The buttons themselves work well, but their location makes them a little awkward to press. It isn’t something that prevents me from using the earbuds, but it does take some getting used to.

The controls themselves are intuitive, and I especially like that they can be customized through the SOUNDPEATS app. Being able to change what the different button presses do gives me more control over how I use the earbuds and lets me configure them around my preferences.

Connection speeds have also been good. The UU2 connect to my devices within a few seconds, so I haven’t had to wait around for them to establish a connection.

One of the biggest advantages of an open-ear design is being able to remain aware of what’s happening around me while listening. With the UU2, I can still hear ambient sounds such as my keyboard while I’m typing or my dog barking. However, the music remains the dominant sound, so I wouldn’t describe them as providing complete awareness of my surroundings.

I also haven’t had anyone complain about sound leakage while I’ve been using them. That said, because the speakers sit outside the ear rather than creating a seal, I can see how someone nearby could hear the earbuds if the volume were turned up high enough.

Conclusion

The SOUNDPEATS UU2 have turned out to be a pleasant surprise. I went into this review primarily looking for a solution to a very specific problem: keeping earbuds securely in place while working out. What I found was a pair of earbuds that not only stay in place, but are also comfortable enough that I can see myself using them well beyond my workouts.

At $49.99, the SOUNDPEATS UU2 offer an impressive combination of comfort, sound quality, battery life, and features. For someone looking for an alternative to traditional in-ear earbuds, particularly for workouts or extended listening, the UU2 are easy to recommend.

For more information, visit soundpeats.com

Perhaps the most evocative windows into the minds of our ancient ancestors are the images they painted on the walls of caves – renderings known simply as rock art or cave paintings.

Rock art, which is found across the world, offers snapshots of human history, preserving representations of cultural traditions, symbolic communication and social identity. Common subjects include animals, hunting scenes and hand stencils – thought to have been made by blowing pigment over the artist’s hand.

Scientists have wrestled with basic questions about the origins of rock art such as: what was used to produce it, when was it made, and who made it?

Now, a recent study of cave art from Spain and Portugal has shown that ancient human DNA can be recovered directly from the cave walls. We may therefore be edging closer to answering “who made it?”

Using this technique to link a specific painting to an ancient artist may be a step too far. But there are still important things it can tell us about the past.

Previously, researchers had made considerable progress in answering the “what” and “when” questions. Scientists can analyse what pigments are preserved in rock art using techniques such as X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, which allows them to identify materials such as red ochre and charcoal.

Scientists can also estimate the age of the art using techniques such as carbon-14 dating, carried out on minute quantities of organic material, to determine when rock art was created.

For example, in 2026, researchers reported that a stencil of a human hand had been found in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. The researchers used a laser to bore a microscopic hole and collect samples from a fine layer of calcium carbonate that had formed over the painting.

The research team then measured the degradation of radioactive uranium contained in these mineral deposits to assign a minimum age to the painting of 67,800 years – making it the world’s oldest known minimum date for cave art.

The age of this art fits within a period when modern humans (Homo sapiens) are thought to have migrated through the area. But the wider Indonesian archipelago was previously home to other human species, such as Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis (nicknamed “the Hobbits”), which complicates matters significantly.

While the stylistic and technical complexity of the art suggests authorship by Homo sapiens, we have no way to be certain who made it.

Identifying a human linked to a prehistoric item has an established methodology. For example, in 2023, researchers recovered ancient DNA from a deer-tooth pendant found in Denisova cave, southern Siberia.

Analysis of the genetic sequence showed that the pendant was probably worn by a 25,000-year-old woman belonging to an ancient population known as Ancient North Eurasians, who lived across Siberia in Palaeolithic times.

Such discoveries transform otherwise anonymous objects into evidence of real people, giving us an intriguing glimpse into the lives of our prehistoric ancestors.

New genetic reservoirs

In the latest cave art study, scientists systematically sampled both painted and unpainted surfaces of cave walls at 11 sites across Spain and Portugal. Remarkably, they recovered ancient human DNA directly from the walls, demonstrating for the first time that these surfaces can act as reservoirs for genetic information.

Some of these cave wall samples were shown, through both genetic analysis and the archaeological context, to be at least 4,000 years old.

In two of the samples from Covarón cave in northern Spain, human DNA was sufficiently preserved to be identified as belonging to ancient western hunter-gatherers. These were populations that lived across much of Europe during Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic times.

One of the samples from a pigmented part of a cave wall, in Escoural cave, Portugal, also yielded traces of ancient DNA, but it was not as well preserved as other samples.

Nevertheless, the research establishes a powerful new methodological framework and proof of concept. It raises the tantalising prospect of studying not only the images left behind, but also the communities of people who made them.

However, applying this technique successfully to identify the artist of specific ancient rock art is incredibly unlikely.

This research could, though, potentially resolve one of the most contentious debates in archaeology. This concerns a 66,700-year-old hand stencil discovered within Maltravieso cave in Extremadura, western Spain.

This controversial stencil appears to predate the arrival of modern humans in Europe. Some researchers have therefore argued that Neanderthals, not Homo sapiens, made the art.

Finding DNA from either species in this location, at similar times to the creation of the rock art, could offer a potential route for resolving the debate. But this too is much more difficult than it might seem.

Easy transfer

The presence of human DNA does not prove who created the rock art. DNA is easily transferred – actions as simple as breathing can transfer someone’s genetic material to a location or object. This is why DNA recovered from a knife cannot definitively conclude who committed a stabbing in a forensic case.

DNA establishes the association of someone with an item or location, not the actions they carried out during the deposition of their genetic material. Environmental activities such as rain can also transfer human DNA to these spaces, making it extremely difficult to identify a single person at a location.

Additional DNA can be deposited at very different times to when the painting was produced – by both modern and ancient humans. The potential for contamination is incredibly high, making it difficult to establish who may have been at a given location at a specific time.

Nonetheless, scientists can use this new research to explore important prehistoric questions such as the hominin species, population groups and sexes of those who entered specific cave systems, and their migration routes across landscapes.

In the general sense, we can also begin to connect prehistoric art with the people who created and lived with it.

Behind each rock-art hand stencil or hunting scene is evidence of a real person who, while separated from us by tens of thousands of years, felt the need to communicate their creativity – as we do today. Techniques such as this offer a vital opportunity to understand more thoroughly the human experience via our similarities with ancient people.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.