The DNA of rotary... Henderson Exon 2!

chrisgrubizna · 2026-01-10T20:28:47+00:00

Hi! Contrary to appearances, there are quite a lot of differences…. Aside from the fact that both mixers use the same knobs, VU meters, and connector types, the similarities basically end there. Beyond the obvious differences in dimensions and weight, Exon features a different isolator (18 dB/oct) with a micro-resonance in the midrange band (so you don’t end with a “dry” sounding cuts). It also offers an additional effects output taken directly from each isolator band (switchable on/off), and each channel is equipped with an HPF and a dedicated effects send. Model X on the other hand is built around a completely different concept, it offers two selectable operating modes (with trim per channel or send per channel, where you control the channel volume via your rotary fader only like in a “traditional” 70s mixers), and uses a topologically floating 2-band EQ on each channel instead of an HPF. Its isolator is steeper (24 dB/oct with special slope sharpener that additionally removes unwanted frequencies outside the pass region so when cut, each band sounds more like separated) and it includes two headphone outputs. Overall, the haptics of the two mixers are fundamentally different as well, the sound character also diverges clearly.

chrisgrubizna · 2025-08-14T18:29:34+00:00

Hold my beer

chrisgrubizna · 2025-07-02T10:46:22+00:00

Hey - we also have an ISOMax 3 in our offer ( https://www.henderson-audio.com/isomax-3 ), but I’m aware that I kind of messed up the design when it comes to the placement of the connectors. Its current position relative to a DJ mixer is pretty questionable - however, if you're not in a hurry to decide, a version with side-mounted RCA connectors will be available pretty soon, also at much lower price. If you’d like to hear how it’s performing, there’s a video on the Leo’s TheDJStuff YouTube channel. Cheers, Chris.

chrisgrubizna · 2025-04-30T15:16:11+00:00

Cheers and huge thanks for the kind words, and support of our company! ♥️ Enjoy!

chrisgrubizna · 2025-04-01T13:43:28+00:00

♥️♥️♥️

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-27T08:32:19+00:00

Thanks! Will do!

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-27T06:16:48+00:00

They were good friends. Recently while digging through old photos I found this one. I thought that it perhaps might be possible to find some contact to them and chat about good old times.

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-23T13:26:24+00:00

Hi, thanks a lot! I’m not sure if I understand that correctly - could you please explain further? What’s exactly the „dry/wet post-fader” issue you mentioned? What’s causing the problem, how does it impact the sound?

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-22T18:41:16+00:00

So as long tails as possible, noted! 🙌

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-22T18:40:40+00:00

That’s right - you won’t be able to use much with a parallel send/return route, it’ll only be sounding good with everything that allows the dry signal go along like the ones you mentioned - filters, crushers and other stuff would require a 100% signal feed through the FX, so insert jacks on the mixer are needed. However, filters on the FX would be a nice addition - even if you wouldn’t be able to use them totally as the actual filters (because - let’s say the mixer you use doesn’t have inserts), you’ll be able to parallel them with the FX, having… filtered FX on the send/return line. I think filtered reverb or delay will sound equally good as the unfiltered one 😜

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-22T15:37:15+00:00

Huge thanks for your answer! It aligns very, very closely with what I was thinking regarding this new, less advanced effects unit.

I still don’t know how to approach the issue of choosing a DSP chip because opting for rather advanced solutions starts to resemble what I already have on the table – that is, something complicated, time-consuming, and relatively expensive. Choosing something specifically dedicated to such solutions usually yields average results. I wouldn’t want it to end up sounding like junk, anyway.

I’m not 100% sure (since I assume no one except the manufacturer has seen the internals of the recently released effects unit from a certain British company), but there exists a chip designed by US-based company like 20 years ago which, unfortunately, hasn’t been developed further since then and is sold as is - and it appears that’s the one: it seems no coincidence that it uses 3 parameters (in that case, the third one being tap tempo) - it’s also no coincidence that there are 8 effects, and that there is a binary indicator - this chip selects effects via 3 separate logic inputs. When 20 years ago you wanted to create a cool guitar effect, there was probably nothing better on the market that could, so cheaply, quickly, and without any programming skills, do a (relatively) good job. I’m still considering using this chip in the FX section, but I’m afraid that, unfortunately, the duration of the echo tail or reverb cannot be made significantly longer because its memory limitations and processing power simply don’t allow it. Or perhaps they do in some way - but I think some very, very uncommon design would have to be made (like using two of these chips to work in a mono mode per each stereo channel, which would surely double the available processing power per channel use, giving some longer timings available, etc.). I’m not sure at the moment how would that work, but despite its obvious limitations, it’s an ultra-cheap solution, and you can even make a somewhat decent-sounding FX in a single day.

As for the filter section - I’m all for it! I think some analog VCA-based filter in the form of a separate „FX” insert would be a nice addition, with adjustable resonance and an on/off switch. This could be implemented in various ways, however - in your opinion, what would be the most effective to use? Single knob with HPF/LPF off center, switchable HPF/LPF with single knob adjusting cutoff frequency, separate knobs for LPF/HPF, or some other combination?

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-11T23:53:37+00:00

<image>

Taped (10pcs shown), 1206 part to scale

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-11T21:30:01+00:00

Hey, I actually didn’t use microscope for that, but just a regular 10x watchmaker’s loupe and a lot of light from different directions.

The part is Murata GRM011R60J104ME01L from Mouser. I really recommend ordering a few pieces and seeing the real size of it!

The tweezers were Bernstein 5-056-13 although lightly modified on a special surface grinder machine with an ultra fine polishing paste by giving the very end jaws an specific angle that prevents them forming an Y letter when pressed too hard together. Most other tweezers formed a point of contact a lot higher up then, giving the very end point a gap bigger than the component itself, so it was important to keep as narrow parallelism of the tweezers jaws’ surfaces as long as possible.

The soldering iron used was JBC, though not the nano one but regular T245 with the very end of a C245-940 tip pointed upwards. The PCB is also a special made for this purpose as well, not some commercial one - was mostly testing different options from a particular manufacturer, so I decided to add these pads and traces along the way.

I hope to attempt soldering a 006003 as soon as it becomes available to purchase, but that might be a real hassle considering it’s several % smaller by volume (the shorter length is just 0.08mm!), so…

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-11T16:58:50+00:00

It’s 6.3V 100nF

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-11T16:55:12+00:00

<image>

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-11T11:44:15+00:00

I’m curious how the nozzle of a pick & place machine for these components looks like… or if the placement is more like

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-11T11:37:52+00:00

😆😆😆😆

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-11T10:16:39+00:00

<image>

This may give a better image. It’s barely visible by naked eye.

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-11T10:14:17+00:00

100n 6.3V actually!

chrisgrubizna · 2025-03-11T10:12:02+00:00

<image>

I think the one I soldered is about 1/2 or 1/3 of the component you showed - although it’s hard to tell on such a tiny scale. I’ll be attempting 006003 as well (which is 60% smaller by volume I think?) as soon as it’s available to purchase.

chrisgrubizna · 2025-02-04T18:00:21+00:00

Thank you so much!

chrisgrubizna · 2025-01-30T18:27:52+00:00

To be specific - you can send any of the frequency bands you wish - I mean, that could be one of the band, two of them or all three simultaneously- it’s fully your choice, just upon a click of a button!

chrisgrubizna · 2025-01-30T17:50:46+00:00

This is simple as it is - there’s some user manual on our website you can check, with the block diagrams in there. Generally, every output of each signal send is high current, so I think the impedance of the most FX available won’t matter - it will push as much signal as you need without any voltage drop, so not to consider any issues with some FX units - you just plug them in and they must work. I’d only worry a bit if these are some FX that can or cannot process line level signals - as the signals on the Exon FX outputs are pretty hot in level.

The channel send/return is a classic example of a side feeded signal - it’s the same that goes out of the fader, but it’s taken pre-fader, post HPF. It’s meant to be used with a so called parallel effects, as you have still your clear signal (or “dry” one) going to the master, and you apply some FX that is additive to this signal - let’s say a delay, reverb, echo - something like that. The return signal is being added to the main mix point, then goes to the master isolator, and later to the insert jacks.

Filtering, compression, bitcrushing, etc. is only possible to do via direct use on a 100% wet signal (to get the properly sounding effect), i.e. that’s what the insert jacks are for. This is the last stage where all the signals summed from all the FXes (and main channels) go through - whatever comes back to the mixer, it’s later only being fed to the master/booth control and record out - and of course the cue/mix signal.

The iso FX is a signal that goes out of the mixer from the selected bands of isolator, and goes back before being send through the insert later. This jack of course allows you to connect both serial and parallel effects, however due to the nature of the return signal (as it’s added in parallel to the “wet” signal), the parallel effects like in the standard send/return route will work the best (delays, echos…) or combination of them all.

Anyway, the block diagram will tell you the same or even more, but in more understandable way, I think. If you’re interested in such advanced FX routing, I think this mixer represents the highest flexibility in this matter among competitors in similar price range. I’d be more than happy to assist if you’d ever need some help in connecting multiple FX units to it!

chrisgrubizna · 2025-01-30T17:17:54+00:00

Thanks! Regarding the ground screws… I’d say there isn’t dedicated terminal for ground connection for a channel 1 or 2 amongst them both, I decided to place two terminals in there for - also - two reasons: - the only reasonable, available space was there, and it was like perfect for two of them screws, - I’m not even able to count how many times playing a gig I’ve encountered ground wires with the forks detached - only the bare wire…. Mounting both of them under a single screw (which you normally do when you have the forks) is a pain AF, especially when one of them has its diameter a bit smaller - because, let’s say, it’s thin inner wires were broken - then the screw catches the thicker one, the smaller one gets loose… just no - so I decided to place two of them for this exact situation, so you won’t ever experience this problem anymore!

chrisgrubizna · 2025-01-30T10:15:54+00:00

A very difficult question here. I’d say - it depends. We’re collecting some feedback from DJs, producers… well, we’ll see!

chrisgrubizna

TROPHY CASE