There have been made several mentions of the Parrot Zik bluetooth headphones, but in the 19 pages of this thread so far, I've not seen any
comparisons of the Ziks to anything. I've been an enthusiastic user of the Parrot Zik original version since August 2012, when it first hit the market (after winning at the January 2012 Consumer Electronics Show), and I just purchased the Parrot Zik 2.0, which came out last November (2014). I also purchased the Jaybird Bluebuds X IEMs, which
have been compared to others several times on this thread. So here goes...
COMPARING THE PARROT ZIK, THE PARROT ZIK 2.0, AND THE JAYBIRD BLUEBUDS X
Introduction:
About a year ago, I developed a set of 10 features, associated with 4 recordings, and used them in comparative listening tests of 3 headphones at a time. I performed 10 such 3-way compares, each with its own post detailing the work, and summarized in the table here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/723136/battle-of-the-bassys-beats-pro-yamaha-pro-500-and-beats-studio-2013-compared#post_10634722. I used these same tests about a week ago to compare my Sennheiser HD 800s (through my Sennheiser HDVD 800 DAC/amp), my Grado PS1000s (through my Grado HPA-1 amp), and my Grado RS1is (through my Grado RA1 amp) here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/530965/grado-fan-club/23295#post_11340487
Test Method:
I used four songs, all encoded in Apple Lossless Format at CD quality (I actually bought the CDs and ripped them... no internet download involved) and played by my Apple iPod Touch 5th Gen via its bluetooth.
- "You're Going To Miss Me When I'm Gone," by Band of Heathens, from their album One Foot In The Ether (used for fidelity of drum sound, positional resolution of two vocalists, and ability to discern pitch of string bass passages);
- "Spanish Harlem," by Rebecca Pidgeon, on The Ultimate Demonstration Disc of Chesky records (used to assess female vocals, transparency, the attack of finger on bass string, and high resolution discrimination of differences in shaker shakes);
- "Symphony No. 3 in C Minor Op. 78 (Organ Symphony) - IV" by Camille Saint Saens played by Lorin Maazel and the Pittsburgh Sympony Orchestra (used to assess the "ripping" sound of well-rendered lower brass and organ reed pipes, and the ability to hear a very small entrance amidst a bombastic chord of orchestra and organ at full tilt);
- "Throwback" by B.o.B. on Underground Luxury (used to assess ability of a bass tone, specifically lowest C on piano at about 32 Hz, to pick me up by the throat and shake me!)
The 10 tests were as follows:
- Transparency: What is between me and the music? A felt cloth? A "Sennheiser veil?" A frosted window? Dirty window? Clear Saran wrap? or nothing? At its best, makes me forget I am listening on headphones and am in room with musicians.
- Width of sound stage: How far to the left and to the right, (yes, AND up and down in best cases) does it seem the musical sources are arranged?
- Positional resolution: Can I distinguish a difference in position of two singers in Song 1?
- Bass visceral: Does the bass in third verse of Song 4 actually shake me? Or do I just hear it?
- Drum "twang": At start of Song 1, do the bass and tom tom drumhead have a tone and a pitch, rather than just a thump?
- Bass pitch perception: For the complicated bass runs in Song 1, do I hear a pitch with sufficient accuracy to sing or transcribe the part?
- Bass finger pluck: Do I hear the actual impact of fingers on the bass string just before hearing its sound on Song 2?
- Shaker variation: In Song 2, verse 3, do the various shaker shakes sound a bit different from each other, as they should?
- "Ripping" of organ / brass: In Song 3, is there the sensation of hearing each vibration of the French horn and low organ reed tones (sort of the tonal counterpart to hearing a "pitch" from a drumhead in Test 5);
- Discern added chord: About 1:38 into Song 3, after the full orchestra and organ hold a chord at the top of a passage, can I hear a small number of orchestra instruments join in, as sort of an echo, in the second measure of that chord?
These tests generally emphasize what I find most pleasing in a headphone, namely high-frequency-related features including transparency, upper harmonics of sounds from drum-head, brass, organ pipe, and string bass, and high-resolution effects such as fine detail of each shaker sound and the finger on the bass string.
For each of the 10 tests, I ranked each headphone against the other two, operating two at a time and repeating comparisons on each test and each pair until I could either rank order the three headphones as first place, second place, or third place, or determined that I could not rank two (a tie) or sometimes, all three (a three-way tie). I assigned 3 points for first place, 2 points for second place, and 1 point for third place. If two headphones tied for first place, I awarded each 2.5 points and gave the lowest-performing headphone 1 point, and if two headphones timed for second place, I award the top scorer 3 points and the two ties 1.5 points each, thereby preserving the fact that each total across headphones was kept at 6 points (1 + 2 + 3 = 2.5 + 2.5 + 1 = 1.5 + 1.5 + 3 = 6). Likewise, if all tied, I awarded all 2 points (3 x 2 = 6).
In the comparison chart that is below, I also color-coded each headphone for each test by blue ("first prize" = 3 points), red (second prize = 2 points), or yellow (3rd prize = 1 point). Ties for first place are shown as light purple (red + blue, 2.5 points); ties for second place are orange (red + yellow, 1.5 points).
Headphones Tested:
Since both Parrot Ziks can have equalization, reverberation, and sound stage width controlled through an iPhone app, I performed
twot three-way comparisons, one with both Ziks in their un-assisted, native state (equalization, reverb, and soundstage enhancement Off), and one with both Ziks in a configuration I preferred that enhanced transparency and subbass (approx. 8 dB subbass peak at 60 Hz, boost of highs starting at about 7 Khz up to 15 kHz by a slope moving up to 6 dB; reverberation set to second-to-lowest "Living Room" setting, and sound stage width set to 120 degrees). Noise cancellation was off at all times. The Bluebuds were unchanged between the two three-way comparisons.
All headphones were fairly new, at least to me. The Parrot Zik (1.0) was a Factory Refurbished unit that I bought two weeks ago to replace my 2-1/2-year-old Parrot Ziks, which had flown off my head and onto a hard floor during physical activity; the Parrot Zik 2.0 were purchased new from amazon.com and arrived three days ago; the Bluebuds arrived four days ago and were purchased new-in-sealed-box from a fellow head-fier.
Here are the headphones, where I show the extra case available for each of the Ziks (properly color coordinated, of course... they look great in their case!):
Parrot Zik (original,"1.0" version) in matching hard case with its iPhone app running.
Parrot Zik 2.0 with its case; iPhone app screen set to its parametric equalizer (but not the setting used in comparison)
Jaybirds Bluebuds X IEMs with included carrying case.
Ideally, I would have liked to include some Apt-X-capable headphones, such as the Plantronics Backbeat Pro. However, as I use iPhone as my bluetooth source, and since the iPhone does not use Apt-X, I have not obtained any Apt-X bluetooth headphones (.....yet....!)
Results:
With all app enhancements turned off, the Parrot Ziks (1.0) were strongest in their bass features, including the ability to produce bass of palpable strength yet distinct pitch. The Parrot Zik 2.0, in contrast, excelled at treble features such as transparency, high resolution of slightly different sounds or in the face of complexity. The Bluebuds were very good at essentially everything (lots of red in their column, indicating second place showing in most areas.) Experience over 12 such 3-way compares is that IEMs in general perform better across these features than on-ear or over-ear headphones... here is an example that compares the HiFiMAN HE-500 (over ear), the Grado PS-500(on ear), and the Shure SE 535 (IEM)
http://www.head-fi.org/t/722423/the-500s-side-by-side-testing-the-hifiman-he-500-grado-ps500-and-shure-se535-comparatively#post_10620725 .
(click on chart to improve legibility)
Comparison of 3 headphones on 10 features, audio app enhancements OFF. Zik 1.0 excels at bass, Zik 2.0 at treble, and Bluebuds at everything, earning the highest total score.
Turning on the application to perform the audio enhancement on the Ziks as described above moved the Zik 2.0 close to the Bluebuds in overall score by enhancing its bass features. Zik 1.0 lost some of its treble capability with the app turned on.
Comparison of 3 headphones across 10 features with the Zik audio enhancement app turned ON as described in text above. The Parrot Zik 2.0 total performance was brought closer to that of the Bluebuds, while the Parrot Zik 1.0 lost some of its bass resolution.
It is most illuminating to look at each feature to compare the three headphones; however it is most tempting to add up all the scores to see which headphone came out "the best."
Differences of fewer than three points are insignificant. The fact that the Bluebuds scored 21.5 in either test is just happenstance -- though the Bluebuds were unchanged in either test, the scores are based on rank orderings. But it is still interesting.
Had I chosen a different mix of 10 tests, for example put in more tests of bass power at the expense of several treble-related tests, the totals would change. If soundstage is important to you, it should contribute more than one out of 10 criteria. So each total is just an equal weighting of the particular features that I chose as important to me, and have no significance beyond that.
I had performed a similar test about a year ago that included the Parrot Ziks with two other wireless Bluetooth headphones, the Beats Studio 2013 and the Sennheiser PXC 310 BT. In that test, the Beats Studio 2013 excelled. However, I no longer have them, so I cannot compare them, say, to the Parrot Zik 2.0. Here is the link:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/715959/comparing-wireless-noise-canceling-headphones-parrot-zik-beats-studio-2013-wireless-sennheiser-pxc-310-bt-quasi-objective-tests#post_10487062
