Shadow Hills Equinox & Inward Connections Mix 690 summing boxes

[ArsenalSound]

Has anyone directly compared the Inward Connections Mix 690 and Shadow Hills Equinox summing boxes? I know the Equinox has a lot of extra features which make it great, but all I'm wondering about is the sound of two the boxes. The Equinox is appealing to me because you can switch between 3 trannies (sounds kind of funny). Love the flavor options. However, I thought the Inward has the 690 op amp on every channel. Does that make an extra difference imparting more sonic flavor to your mix?

I've heard the Vintage King summing shootout and thought the Inward was the overall winner for my taste (too bad Vintage King didn't include the Equinox). I thought the Inward Connections box was big, clear, punchy and detailed. I don't understand why it doesn't get much love on gearslutz. Is it because it's not a big name like the other contenders, or maybe b/c ya'll think it sucked!?! I dunno. But all you Inward Connection users please come out from under the rocks and speak out : )

thanks!

[Analogue Vanity]

I would also like to know if there is much difference in sound between using a passive summing box with a GAMA pre to gain it back up vs. an equinox. for that matter, what significance do the passive electronics have on the total sound of any summing system. Provided reasonable quality control of a passive unit like the rolls, are .01 tolerance resistors and thick gold traces really that crucial to the sound of a no holds barred type box like the SH or Inward Connections? Has anyone done a direct comparison between passive and world class preamp vs active summing box?

[ArsenalSound]

guess this one's a sleeper..

[DQA123]

i use the inward connections mix690 as my two buss for my console becuase it's a broadcast board that just had 8 busses, no two bus. anyway, i had a chandler mini mixer at first but that was way too colored/dark for what i needed. the mix690 is wide and open, very little coloration. it's just very, very solid. perfect for what i was looking for and so far i couldn't be happier.

[Squawk]

I've got an Equinox as well as a Folcrom/API setup here, but I've been reconfiguring the studio and am waiting on a few more things before I can get everything hooked up again to test. I could a/b this with the Gamas on the Equinox for make up gain with the Folcrom.

[Kenny M]

I thought the Inward Connections box was the best sounding one on the VK test. I also tried the Equinox for a couple of mixes with good results, but didn't really like the input scheme which required a lot more outputs from your DAW. This made for a much more expensive solution and since I'm still not convinced that OTB is much more than a marginal quality difference I've opted to go with the Folcrom for the time being.

I just got a pair of the Shadow Hills pre's and will test it out on some mixes with the Folcrom in the next couple of weeks and report back after the new stuff gets wired in.

[undermind]

Originally Posted by Kenny M

I thought the Inward Connections box was the best soundinbut didn't really like the input scheme which required a lot more outputs from your DAW.

Can you expand on this? I'm not aware of the input scheme. Or even the Equinox's either.

[Kenny M]

Originally Posted by undermind

Can you expand on this? I'm not aware of the input scheme. Or even the Equinox's either.

While the Equinox actualy has more inputs (32) than other summing boxes, they are all configured as stereo inputs. To bring unpanned mono sources (kick, snare, bass, lead vocal, etc.) into the mix, you need to route each source to a separate stereo out from your DAW, hence twice the number of needed outputs from your DAW. In most other summing box systems you have the capability of taking a single output and inputing it into the summer with a single mono input that gets sent to both the right and left buss. The Equinox inputs are all either left or right, but not both. I understand that they have a box that enables you to input mono sources into the Equinox, but more boxes = more money. Add up the costs for the Equinox, 16 more outs from my PTHD system or the extra Shadow Hills accessory unit and it's a pretty expensive solution for something that at this point I'm not sure is actually needed.

Since the Equinox I believe uses passive summing, I hope to get the same results from the two SH mic pre's and a Folcrom. With the Folcrom's ability to take a single input and route it to both busses, combined with the flexibility to use different mic pre's for the output gain, I think this will be a more affordable and flexible setup.

Without going into the ITB/ OTB debate I'm not convinced yet that one methodology is vastly improved over the other. It's very hard in my opinion to A/B these mixes because I generally feel that the best mix was accomplished with the method I initially performed my mix with. I don't seem to find an improvement going either way when I transfer a mix performed with one method to the other. If I mixed it ITB it sounds better to me ITB as does a mix I mix OTB always sounds better OTB. The only thing I do notice is that I seem to hear a little more openness in the low and low-mid areas while mixing OTB so maybe it takes a little less work OTB. Jury's still out for me.

[undermind]

Originally Posted by Kenny M

While the Equinox actualy has more inputs (32) than other summing boxes, they are all configured as stereo inputs. To bring unpanned mono sources (kick, snare, bass, lead vocal, etc.) into the mix, you need to route each source to a separate stereo out from your DAW, hence twice the number of needed outputs from your DAW. In most other summing box systems you have the capability of taking a single output and inputing it into the summer with a single mono input that gets sent to both the right and left buss. The Equinox inputs are all either left or right, but not both. I understand that they have a box that enables you to input mono sources into the Equinox, but more boxes = more money. Add up the costs for the Equinox, 16 more outs from my PTHD system or the extra Shadow Hills accessory unit and it's a pretty expensive solution for something that at this point I'm not sure is actually needed.

Since the Equinox I believe uses passive summing, I hope to get the same results from the two SH mic pre's and a Folcrom. With the Folcrom's ability to take a single input and route it to both busses, combined with the flexibility to use different mic pre's for the output gain, I think this will be a more affordable and flexible setup.

Without going into the ITB/ OTB debate I'm not convinced yet that one methodology is vastly improved over the other. It's very hard in my opinion to A/B these mixes because I generally feel that the best mix was accomplished with the method I initially performed my mix with. I don't seem to find an improvement going either way when I transfer a mix performed with one method to the other. If I mixed it ITB it sounds better to me ITB as does a mix I mix OTB always sounds better OTB. The only thing I do notice is that I seem to hear a little more openness in the low and low-mid areas while mixing OTB so maybe it takes a little less work OTB. Jury's still out for me.

Good stuff. Thanks for clarifying on the Equinox input scheme.

So the Equinox sums passively? Very interesting. I'm VERY interested in hearing the results of your Folcrom + Shadow Hills pre combo. Of course you won't be comparing the results directly to an Equinox because I would assume you don't have the Equinox anymore..

[Grizzly]

Has anyone had any direct experiment with the IC Mix690 ?...

[pigpen]

The Equinox is certainly not passive summing.
It has the 3 transformer options on any mix you send through it.

I have not commented on here due to the fact I have never heard the Inward Connections, although it was on my short list with the Equinox and Innertube.

Best of luck, just thought I'd clarify that.

[Kenny M]

Originally Posted by pigpen

The Equinox is certainly not passive summing.
It has the 3 transformer options on any mix you send through it.

I have not commented on here due to the fact I have never heard the Inward Connections, although it was on my short list with the Equinox and Innertube.

Best of luck, just thought I'd clarify that.

I guess I should clarify on the Equinox. I believe the summing is passive. The transformers are in the make up gain amps after the summing circuitry.

[nobtwiddler]

Just as Kenny stated....

The summing buss is a 30-channel mixer utilizing copper buss bars and esoteric resistors, for simply the finest sounding passive monitor section ever made. Combined through our switchable custom output transformers, Nickel, Iron, and Steel. Effectively giving you the sound of three different consoles. The Mic Pres are the same as our stellar Gama.

From Shadow Hills website!

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Kenny M

To bring unpanned mono sources (kick, snare, bass, lead vocal, etc.) into the mix, you need to route each source to a separate stereo out from your DAW, hence twice the number of needed outputs from your DAW.

why not slap an xlr splitter on the output of your converter and feed it to two inputs on the equinox? or, if you're into a patchbay, have it normalled to two feeds?


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Analogue Vanity

...are .01 tolerance resistors and thick gold traces really that crucial to the sound of a no holds barred type box like the SH or Inward Connections?

yes yes yes, 1000 times yes. the choice of a single resistor in a circuit changes the tone; in a circuit with 5 resistors, the options --- and possible sonic palettes --- are mind numbing.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Analogue Vanity]

gregoire
thanks for the reply. I understand that there are sonic implications of each part decision made while designing a piece of equipment. I guess my next two questions are as follows:

what are the differences in part spec between SH and Folcrom units?

What is the sonic ramification of using a patch bay or y cable to spit signals into SH inputs

[Kenny M]

Originally Posted by u b k

why not slap an xlr splitter on the output of your converter and feed it to two inputs on the equinox? or, if you're into a patchbay, have it normalled to two feeds?


gregoire
del
ubk
.

I guess that would work as well although until I'm convinced that OTB is more than a marginal improvement, I'm prefering to keep the hurdles to a minimum. One output into one input seems to make more sense to me, especially if you're inserting other outboard hardware too.

My apologies to those waiting on my Folcrom/ Gama pre tests. Thought I was going to have some down time just before the holidays to get my new gear wired in and had a couple of projects come in. Can't complain about that. I'll post my thoughts after I get everything up and running and do a mix through it.

Happy hollidays everyone.

[pigpen]

Originally Posted by Kenny M

I guess I should clarify on the Equinox. I believe the summing is passive. The transformers are in the make up gain amps after the summing circuitry.

Coorect...I thought you were saying it performed as the Folcrom. (I should read more carefully.) My bad.

What nob said is correct! Great piece! thumbsup

[trustyjim]

Bump.

Curious to hear how Kenny's comparison went...

[Kenny M]

Originally Posted by trustyjim

Bump.

Curious to hear how Kenny's comparison went...

Uh.... my dog ate my homework

I've been slammed since the holidays with a TV music project which I just kept ITB due to having a change to deal with every 18 seconds or whenever the phone rang, whichever came first

Everythings wired in now so I'll have some time after the NAMM weekend to run some mixes through and compare. For what it's worth the Shadow Hills Pre's sound excellent and I used them on some drum overheads with great results. I was a little dismayed that there was no pad on the pre as I actualy had to run them a little hotter than I normally would, but they still stayed clean. Gotta get a few inline pads I guess.

I promiss I'll post some views after I give a listen with the Folcrom.

[trustyjim]

Sounds good! Keep us posted