Tapco mixer or M-Audio preamp for recording into PC?

[John Britt]

Finally, after well over a year of scratching my head, I've finally (knock on wood) got all the audio inputs on my Creative SB Audigy Platinum to work properly (I simply took everything apart and put it back together again, which seems to be the PC equivalent of whacking the top of your TV to improve the picture...)

Now I need a phantom-powered input device for my mics (and possibly guitars, etc).

My local shop is letting me try out a Tapco 6306 mixer for a couple of days. It seems OK for the price ($120), but it might be overkill. I found this MAudio Audio Buddy Dual Mic Preamp at zzounds.com for $40 less -- it has the basics that I need: phantom-powered XLRs, 1/4-in. inputs, gain control, 1/4-in. outputs. And it's smaller than the Tapco.

What I like about the Tapco, though, is: the EQ controls, headphone jack (though the Audigy has this, too), and RCA outputs (which I like because the Audigy's front 1/4-inch input has a frustrating volume knob that is easily knocked out of place -- one more thing to have to worry about...)

Any suggestions from the peanut gallery about these two products? Is there a possible thrid or fourth product I'm overlooking? The main use will probably be for recording voiceovers, but I'll probably record the odd song here and there (either for an ad, or just for fun).

I'm also considering purchasing Adobe's Audition (mostly because of latency problems with Audacity and Goldwave re: multitrack recording), so any money saved on the hardware end would be helpful....

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

The M-Audio and Tapco both are pretty good. The Tapco will have slightly more noise, the M-Audio has less. If you want to use the Audigy in the chain, you want as little noise as possible. You can do EQ and everything else in post...

[John Britt]

DSE --

A question about the Tapco 6306, if I may: I am running my new Rode NT1-A mic through the Tapco and it seems like I have to almost max out the Gain and line outputs to hit 0dB. Is this typical? The weird thing is that when I plug the mic straight into my Panny DVC80, I actually have to *drop* the volume levels to avoid the red. Is the DVC80 better at handling this mic than the Tapco, or is it just my perception?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Yes, this is normal. The Tapco has analog meters, the camera has digital meters.
If you log on to http://www.vasst.com/training_resources.htm (you'll need to register) you can find in the tutorials section, an article I wrote on the differences between metering the two.

[John Britt]

Ow. That article made my head hurt. I'm reading Jay's book as well, and I'm just not sure I'm keeping up...

Does Audition use a digital meter? That's what I was checking, and it seemed like I had to have everything nearly cranked to hit 0dB. Or do I even want to hit 0dB?

And now I'm starting to think that something's wrong with the NT1-A -- when I first got it, I did some test recordings through the DVC80 and it sounded rich and deep and clean. I didn't have a chance to use it again for a few days, and now that I'm using it again, I swear it sounds different. I'm even starting to question whether it sounds better than my cheap Midnight Blues mic. I think I must be going insane...

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Audition, like most computer apps, are digital meters. You can get software that emulates analog though.
here's a freebie...
http://www.pspaudioware.com/plugins/vmeter.html;

[John Britt]

Well, what I meant was that it seemed like I was pushing everything up on the Tapco and only hitting -6dBs max on the Audition meter. I'm not particularly partial to using either analog or digital meters, it just seemed strange that it was so hard to get near 0dbs. Or am I confused? Do I not need to hit digital 0dBs as an optimal level? Is -6dBs typical normal sound?

Sorry if I'm a bit out of it; I've been completing a project a night for the past few nights with very little time to focus on working with the Tapco, which I have to return tomorrow. I'll be able to get some rest after tomorrow...

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

-6 is just fine for an optimal recording level. It's always nice to have a little more gain, with processing, etc, it's nice but not critical to have those extra bits. It may also be that the Panny is calibrated to -12, many cameras are, even though that is not in line with ATSC spec. No harm done either way. Zero dB is the fear factor, the only harm you can do below that is have too little information, and you can always pull that back up, albeit with a little noise attached in most cases.

[John Britt]

DSE, if you are around... (or if anyone else has an opinion)

I've got about an hour to decide: since my music store can't get the AudioBuddy without a hassle (getting set up as a dealer, etc), the owner is willing to cut me a deal on the Tapco -- it would still be a little more than the AudioBuddy, but not much more.

How much cleaner is the AudioBuddy than the Tapco? You said both were "pretty good," but added that I'd want a cleaner sound if recording to computer (which I assume meant, "buy the AudioBuddy")

The Tapco has the benefit of now being a little cheaper than I was expecting and also being in hand. I can save about $10 on the AudioBuddy, but is it really worth it?

I hate having to make a snap decision (though I guess I could still get the Tapco after I take it back today)

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

John,
I'd say they're close enough to make it a moot point....Never have heard them side by side....

[John Britt]

Douglas -- you rock with the fast response! Thank you very much. From what I have read of yours, I know that your opinion is very valuable. I was concerned about the Tapco mainly because of a member of the dv.com forums thought very little of the 6306 (not in response to my questions, but simply in the threads I researched.) In addition, Jay Rose said that he'd used Tapco before, but that they really weren't considered "up to snuff" anymore.

Not to imply that you've given a rousing endorsement of the Tapco, but if it's comparible to the AudioBuddy, then I'd rather have the bird in hand, so to speak...

Thanks again