In order to sufficiently inaugurate my newly minted Headamp Pico, I figured what better than a battle with my primary standby of most of the last year, the Apogee MiniDAC? And to make things even better, a popular portable headphone amp, the Ray Samuels Hornet, has emerged from a generous friend, to give the Pico a more similar headphone amp competitor.
For clarity's sake, I compared the three components, in the following configurations, with the last item in any given chain acting as the headphone amp:
1) USB -> Pico
2) USB -> Pico -> Hornet (Pico set to low gain, volume pot maxed out)
3) USB -> Apogee
4) USB -> Apogee -> Pico (Apogee 1/8" fixed-level output)
5) USB -> Apogee -> Hornet ("...")
Obviously, this presents several possible relevant comparisons: 1 vs. 3 (USB DAC/amp combos); 1 vs. 2 (micro-comparison of portable amps); 3 vs. 4 vs. 5 (headphone amps only); and 1/2 vs. 4/5 (DAC comparison). I used all of these comparisons to arrive at conclusions on the sound quality of all three.
The Pico in question had a good week of solid runtime before the comparison began. The Hornet in question is an original (non-M) and has had many hundreds of hours of use over the last couple years, according to its’ owner.
All listening was done using Foobar2000 v0.8.3, with ASIO output to both DACs, playing a wide variety of FLAC files. Most listening was done with Audio-Technica L3000's, and the remainder with Shure E500's (SE530's). Hiss or noise was absent from all three units at my normal listening levels.
DAC Performance:
The DAC sections of the Apogee and Pico are relatively similar from a design standpoint, as they both upsample, use high-end DAC chips, and have opamp-based output stages. The Pico differs itself by directly converting the incoming USB data to the I2S format, whereas the Apogee's chipset sends out an intermediate SPDIF signal. In theory, this means that the Pico will have significantly less, if not zero, jitter on the incoming data stream as it enters the upsampling chip.
Given the Pico's diminutive nature, both in size and price, one might think it would be a feat for it to play on the same level of sound quality as the MiniDAC; however I feel the Pico outperforms it in several key areas.
The Pico presents detail in a tighter, more self-contained manner, which many might call "more refined." Quite simply, individual instruments or sounds are easier to separate from others in a given piece, and hence images are more well defined within the soundstage. Sometimes I feel that this gives the Pico a more analytical sound, as it is easier to mentally pick apart the sound into the sum of its' parts.
That is not to say the Pico is less involving to listen to, if anything, the opposite is true. The oft-used, but nebulous, "PRat" comes into play here. The truth is that the Pico provides a more involving, groovy, insert-corny-adjective-here listening experience. This is undoubtedly due to bass which is presented in a tighter, punchier way than from the Apogee, whose bass sounds slightly muddy or blurred by comparison. Whether the direct I2S conversion and jitter-related theoretical advantages are responsible for this difference, I suppose only the electrical gremlins know for sure.
When the MiniDAC is powered by its' standard switching power supply, it has a bit of grain or grit to the high end, reminiscent of the Benchmark DAC1 I once owned. By comparison, the Pico is perhaps the smoothest sounding of sub-$2K DACs that I have heard. However, when powered by the Sigma-11 discrete linear power supply, the MiniDAC is substantially smoother sounding in the highs, and much closer to the Pico in this regard.
Taking a step back, and looking at the big picture, the MiniDAC and Pico provide two moderately differing perspectives on the music they play. The Pico is generally a more enegetic, involving, and close-feeling sound, whereas the Apogee sounds a bit more diffuse, relaxed, and "speaker-like" if you will. I know some might draw the seemingly inevitable Sennheiser vs. Grado analogy here, which while somewhat apt, is also a bit fraught with peril, as the differences at play here are much more subtle than those found when comparing an SR225 to an HD600 (which is typically the case when comparing DACs).
Amp Performance:
Upon entering the Hornet into the thus-far DAC based battle, it was clear that a new sound flavor had entered the arena. The difference between the three as headphone amps is a bit more significant and immediately noticeable than the difference between the two DACs.
The Hornet is most immediately different in its’ presentation, which includes more prominence in the upper midrange and mid to upper bass. The midrange difference generally brings vocals, especially female vocals to the forefront, which can be either a blessing or a curse. For gentle, delicate sounding music, this vocal emphasis can bring out a singer otherwise buried under over mixed instruments. However, recordings with a preexisting vocal emphasis can become overbearing. This is particularly the case with more aggressive music. When a vocalist hits just the right note within the midrange peak of the Hornet, it can be quite grating.
The Hornet’s bass emphasis gives it the most noticeable bass of the group, however it is not as clean or snappy sounding as the Pico’s bass. The Hornet does has a better defined bass than the MiniDAC, whose headphone amp takes the slight muddiness of the DAC section and bumps it up a notch. Bass lines which can be blurred through the MiniDAC headphone amp come out more discernable from the Hornet, and precisely from the Pico. Upon first listen, the MiniDAC sounds bassier than the Pico, until one realizes it is due to the near omnipresence of bass by comparison to the Pico’s more accurately fluctuations tracking the music.
Aside from the bass issue, the MiniDAC’s headphone amp also continues the theme of further indulging the minor colorations of the DAC. The presentation becomes a bit more diffuse and relaxed, to the point where it sounds quite different from the Pico or Hornet, both of which are more upfront and energetic. Perhaps this is the spring from whence the Apogee’s reputation has arisen. The highs are noticeably rolled off by comparison to the Pico, and slightly by comparison to the Hornet. The MiniDAC’s soundstage is more spread out from left to right, but less pinpoint, giving the impression more of a venue than a set of headphones.
Conclusion:
The Headamp Pico quite intrigued me upon my first listen to a prototype, several Head-Fi meets ago. That intrigue has grown into true appreciation, as it is not very often that a product comes along which offers sound quality rivaling both studio-quality DAC units and well-respected headphone amps, in a tiny portable package with advanced li-on battery life, and incredible fit and finish to boot. At this point I feel it offers an unparalleled objective sound quality performance, for its’ use, as can be examined through RMAA tests floating around the ‘net.
But of course, sound quality is very much an objective field as well, and the Pico is quite pleasing to me in this regard as well. It offers the clearest window onto the music of this field, and the result is a sound that is exciting and involving, yet precise. It is the kind of sound that is hard to ignore, or to allow drifting off into the background, which suits my preferences very well. However, it is here that some might prefer the differing flavors offered by the other devices.
While I feel the Apogee Mini-DAC is not quite the performer the Pico is, whether as a DAC or a headphone amp, it does offer quite a different listening perspective, and one that is well-known for pairing well with brighter or more upfront sounding headphones. If one prefers this perspective, one more of observer than performer, or relaxing than rocking, the advantages of the Pico might be negated.
The Ray Samuels Hornet also offers an opposing view of sound presentation, and a more distinct flavor than the other two. When listening to the Hornet, one is hard pressed to forget he is listening to the Hornet, as its’ sound signature is a constant companion. It is up to the listener, and his associated equipment, to determine whether or not this is a boon. I would advise to pair the Hornet gear possessing accurate or tight bass (as it sounded better paired with the Pico DAC than the Apogee) and to avoid equipment which might further accentuate the upper midrange (like most recent Grados, or A-T W1000’s). The Hornet does produce a more textured bass and more extended treble than the MiniDAC’s headphone amp can muster. Thus while not the utmost objective performer, I feel the Hornet’s make-or-break point for most will be that of sound signature.
For clarity's sake, I compared the three components, in the following configurations, with the last item in any given chain acting as the headphone amp:
1) USB -> Pico
2) USB -> Pico -> Hornet (Pico set to low gain, volume pot maxed out)
3) USB -> Apogee
4) USB -> Apogee -> Pico (Apogee 1/8" fixed-level output)
5) USB -> Apogee -> Hornet ("...")
Obviously, this presents several possible relevant comparisons: 1 vs. 3 (USB DAC/amp combos); 1 vs. 2 (micro-comparison of portable amps); 3 vs. 4 vs. 5 (headphone amps only); and 1/2 vs. 4/5 (DAC comparison). I used all of these comparisons to arrive at conclusions on the sound quality of all three.
The Pico in question had a good week of solid runtime before the comparison began. The Hornet in question is an original (non-M) and has had many hundreds of hours of use over the last couple years, according to its’ owner.
All listening was done using Foobar2000 v0.8.3, with ASIO output to both DACs, playing a wide variety of FLAC files. Most listening was done with Audio-Technica L3000's, and the remainder with Shure E500's (SE530's). Hiss or noise was absent from all three units at my normal listening levels.
DAC Performance:
The DAC sections of the Apogee and Pico are relatively similar from a design standpoint, as they both upsample, use high-end DAC chips, and have opamp-based output stages. The Pico differs itself by directly converting the incoming USB data to the I2S format, whereas the Apogee's chipset sends out an intermediate SPDIF signal. In theory, this means that the Pico will have significantly less, if not zero, jitter on the incoming data stream as it enters the upsampling chip.
Given the Pico's diminutive nature, both in size and price, one might think it would be a feat for it to play on the same level of sound quality as the MiniDAC; however I feel the Pico outperforms it in several key areas.
The Pico presents detail in a tighter, more self-contained manner, which many might call "more refined." Quite simply, individual instruments or sounds are easier to separate from others in a given piece, and hence images are more well defined within the soundstage. Sometimes I feel that this gives the Pico a more analytical sound, as it is easier to mentally pick apart the sound into the sum of its' parts.
That is not to say the Pico is less involving to listen to, if anything, the opposite is true. The oft-used, but nebulous, "PRat" comes into play here. The truth is that the Pico provides a more involving, groovy, insert-corny-adjective-here listening experience. This is undoubtedly due to bass which is presented in a tighter, punchier way than from the Apogee, whose bass sounds slightly muddy or blurred by comparison. Whether the direct I2S conversion and jitter-related theoretical advantages are responsible for this difference, I suppose only the electrical gremlins know for sure.
When the MiniDAC is powered by its' standard switching power supply, it has a bit of grain or grit to the high end, reminiscent of the Benchmark DAC1 I once owned. By comparison, the Pico is perhaps the smoothest sounding of sub-$2K DACs that I have heard. However, when powered by the Sigma-11 discrete linear power supply, the MiniDAC is substantially smoother sounding in the highs, and much closer to the Pico in this regard.
Taking a step back, and looking at the big picture, the MiniDAC and Pico provide two moderately differing perspectives on the music they play. The Pico is generally a more enegetic, involving, and close-feeling sound, whereas the Apogee sounds a bit more diffuse, relaxed, and "speaker-like" if you will. I know some might draw the seemingly inevitable Sennheiser vs. Grado analogy here, which while somewhat apt, is also a bit fraught with peril, as the differences at play here are much more subtle than those found when comparing an SR225 to an HD600 (which is typically the case when comparing DACs).
Amp Performance:
Upon entering the Hornet into the thus-far DAC based battle, it was clear that a new sound flavor had entered the arena. The difference between the three as headphone amps is a bit more significant and immediately noticeable than the difference between the two DACs.
The Hornet is most immediately different in its’ presentation, which includes more prominence in the upper midrange and mid to upper bass. The midrange difference generally brings vocals, especially female vocals to the forefront, which can be either a blessing or a curse. For gentle, delicate sounding music, this vocal emphasis can bring out a singer otherwise buried under over mixed instruments. However, recordings with a preexisting vocal emphasis can become overbearing. This is particularly the case with more aggressive music. When a vocalist hits just the right note within the midrange peak of the Hornet, it can be quite grating.
The Hornet’s bass emphasis gives it the most noticeable bass of the group, however it is not as clean or snappy sounding as the Pico’s bass. The Hornet does has a better defined bass than the MiniDAC, whose headphone amp takes the slight muddiness of the DAC section and bumps it up a notch. Bass lines which can be blurred through the MiniDAC headphone amp come out more discernable from the Hornet, and precisely from the Pico. Upon first listen, the MiniDAC sounds bassier than the Pico, until one realizes it is due to the near omnipresence of bass by comparison to the Pico’s more accurately fluctuations tracking the music.
Aside from the bass issue, the MiniDAC’s headphone amp also continues the theme of further indulging the minor colorations of the DAC. The presentation becomes a bit more diffuse and relaxed, to the point where it sounds quite different from the Pico or Hornet, both of which are more upfront and energetic. Perhaps this is the spring from whence the Apogee’s reputation has arisen. The highs are noticeably rolled off by comparison to the Pico, and slightly by comparison to the Hornet. The MiniDAC’s soundstage is more spread out from left to right, but less pinpoint, giving the impression more of a venue than a set of headphones.
Conclusion:
The Headamp Pico quite intrigued me upon my first listen to a prototype, several Head-Fi meets ago. That intrigue has grown into true appreciation, as it is not very often that a product comes along which offers sound quality rivaling both studio-quality DAC units and well-respected headphone amps, in a tiny portable package with advanced li-on battery life, and incredible fit and finish to boot. At this point I feel it offers an unparalleled objective sound quality performance, for its’ use, as can be examined through RMAA tests floating around the ‘net.
But of course, sound quality is very much an objective field as well, and the Pico is quite pleasing to me in this regard as well. It offers the clearest window onto the music of this field, and the result is a sound that is exciting and involving, yet precise. It is the kind of sound that is hard to ignore, or to allow drifting off into the background, which suits my preferences very well. However, it is here that some might prefer the differing flavors offered by the other devices.
While I feel the Apogee Mini-DAC is not quite the performer the Pico is, whether as a DAC or a headphone amp, it does offer quite a different listening perspective, and one that is well-known for pairing well with brighter or more upfront sounding headphones. If one prefers this perspective, one more of observer than performer, or relaxing than rocking, the advantages of the Pico might be negated.
The Ray Samuels Hornet also offers an opposing view of sound presentation, and a more distinct flavor than the other two. When listening to the Hornet, one is hard pressed to forget he is listening to the Hornet, as its’ sound signature is a constant companion. It is up to the listener, and his associated equipment, to determine whether or not this is a boon. I would advise to pair the Hornet gear possessing accurate or tight bass (as it sounded better paired with the Pico DAC than the Apogee) and to avoid equipment which might further accentuate the upper midrange (like most recent Grados, or A-T W1000’s). The Hornet does produce a more textured bass and more extended treble than the MiniDAC’s headphone amp can muster. Thus while not the utmost objective performer, I feel the Hornet’s make-or-break point for most will be that of sound signature.
