I agree it’s subjective. Also agree that the Hapax is missing a lot of stuff, and agree that the stuff you listed would be fantastic to have (except the generative, I would never use it personally).
However, they are definitely steadily (albeit slowly) improving what’s there. It hasn’t been abandoned, more is to come.
This is my main point, what could a mk2 hardware bring?
I’d be quite annoyed if they released a mk2 of the hardware - if mk1’s couldn’t get the same firmware features they added to mk2 etc. If the firmware was identical, I wouldn’t care about having colour screens or whatever.
Sure. However I have zero interest in the Oxi though, the workflow/concepts seem convoluted to me and the Hapax seems to handle many things much more logically and efficiently (in my opinion).
Completely fair. But my point here was not to argue workflows. I only mentioned the Oxi One to give an example of what I thought a “substantial” update looked like compared to updates I felt did not rise to the occasion. While I have no issues with the Oxi workflow, I have had no problem with saying the Hapax workflow is superior (both on this forum and other forums).
I will admit that my argument here is weak. Which is why I keep saying that this is only speculation and not an assertion. One of the top requests for the Hapax has been 16 lanes for drum tracks. Perhaps they consider adding 8 more tracks to the hardware (in part) to accommodate this request. Perhaps there are other advantages to adding 8 physical tracks that I have not considered. I don’t think this is likely and, as I have already mentioned in a prior post, I would be against this.
The other reason I could see them releasing a new hardware version is to update the processor. I don’t claim to have any deep expertise in this area, but the fact that one of the more substantial updates in the past year involved CPU efficiency could mean that they were running up against some limits. When the Oxi One mk2 was released, Manuel said that it was done not just to add 4 tracks, but they were at the limit of what other new features it was possible to add going forward. Not that I have any insight on this, but I wonder if Hapax could be in the same place.
By their own admission, updating CPU efficiency was a major milestone for them. So I don’t think this feature cannot be seen as a small thing. But I wonder just how much they were able to accomplish. Let’s say they were able to do enough to add most of the feature requests that have been on the forums for the past 2 years. Will they still have enough headroom after this for future updates? Again this is something Manuel mentioned for his mk2: he didn’t just want to be able to add current feature requests, he was looking to the future and wanted to have space for future features.
I’m not looking at this from the perspective of a Hapax user and asking if it meets my personal needs. I’m trying to look at this from the perspective of someone trying to sell a product in a marketplace with emerging competitors. The Oxi team just released a hardware update that they say has headroom for the future, and the Reliq has the potential to disrupt my reputation as the top sequencer. Even if I don’t care for groove templates or generative sequencer, clearly there are a lot of customers out there who do. And if I want to stay in business, I have to listen to what they’re asking for. So it’s not just about satisfying a few features requests for now, but having the headroom to stay competitive going forward. For Manu, this meant updating the processor to make the Oxi One “future proof”. I wonder if the Squarp team has has surveyed the market and made the same calculus or if they’re fine with what they have. Like I said, this all speculation. I’m not demanding they go one way or the other.
It’s more about whether the sequencer has enough to be considered ‘complete’. I don’t want or expect future updates forever, that would be unreasonable (and most likely unneccessary).
I guess everyone has a different idea about what’s important. But for me, proper adjustable quantizing (as an appliable algo, perhaps as you say, with the addition of groove templates), is an absolute must-have for a sequencer, and certainly should have been added by now.
I think they’re more likely to profit from getting certain features in place, than revising the hardware CPU. I’m hoping that a new CPU wouldn’t be needed for the addition of those features.
If they did release a mk2 so soon after releasing the Hapax, they’d be losing at least one customer in me, as I would think ‘surely they should have put a sufficient CPU in from the bloody start’. After all it’s just MIDI processing, not amazingly CPU intensive.
The Pyramid mk1, mk2, and mk3 are all identical in function, and run the same firmware. So Squarp have a good track of not shitting on the customer. Even the recent Rample vs Rample Turbo, the only difference is the DACs and the speed of the card. The functionality is the same.
Call me a cynical, suspicious bastard, but I think some companies (obviously not in every case) do it on purpose, where a mk2 comes only a few years after a mk1 and the mk1 is left behind. It seems like a bit of a cash-grab… whilst I also understand companies (and people) have to survive, and pay the bills etc, that kind of tactic does leave a bit of bad taste in the mouth.
Yeah, besides myself I’ve seen probably two other people speculate that they’re working on new hardware, so definitely a view that’s in the minority.
I want to make sure to represent the views of those I interact with fairly and not to strawman anyone’s position, so please correct me if anything I say is wrong. I’ve had these kinds of exchanges many times, and it seems Hapax users fall into two camps. The first are those who mostly like the Hapax as it currently is and feel it only needs a few updates to remain relevant to their personal worfklow. Then there are those (admittedly, I am in this camp) who want to see the Hapax integrate new features from the Oxi One, particularly advanced generative sequencing.
I point out generative sequencing in particular because that seems to be the area where some of the most “heated” exchanges I’ve had about the future of Hapax occur. Even if someone is not a fan of generative sequencing, I think the Squarp team is aware that this is the direction hardware sequencers are going in. So they will have to adapt to evolving expectations. Whether that means they will have to update the CPU is another question altogether. Over on the Reliq Discord, their devs said they will be adding an engine dedicated to generative sequencing that will be capable of building a variety of complex generators that aren’t currently common on any of the top hardware sequencers. So I think this could be a major battlefield on which hardware sequences will fight going forward. I admit to having mixed feelings about this.
My observation is that Squarp is definitely not this kind of company. They seem to be very thoughtful and deliberate when it comes to making decisions about the future. If they were to release a Hapax mk2, it wouldn’t be just for a cash grab. I think they would do it because they felt it was the best decision to secure Squarp’s future.
Wrong thread for this really, and I don’t want to upset anyone. Also, I totally respect everyone has their own way of making music.
But I’ll say, that for me, I don’t want or need any generative tools. I know exactly how the music should go. My head is the generative tool. I even program my arpreggios a note at a time. Old school. Hear it in my head then write it down, like composers of old had to.
I disagree here. I still think people who rely on or highly desire generative are in the minority.
Perhaps it’s true that society as a whole is getting lazier and wanting to push a button, or put in the minimum effort to achieve anything (and by the way I’m not necessarily equating the two things… I’d imagine that there are plenty of ‘generative lovers’ who still put a huge amount of effort into their music).
Not necessarily. It depends how they feel about the matter. I think Hapax offers enough unique strengths without having to copy exactly what Oxi or Reliq are doing!
Doesn’t upset me at all. If this exchange is the worst thing that’s happened to me, then I’ve had a great life.
Like you, I don’t see the interest in generative sequencing as an “either/or” thing. I suspect many people who use it as a kick start for inspiration and add their own variations as they go along. But I think there’s too much evidence of generatl interest in generative sequencing to say that it’s a minority position. At the end of his review of the Reliq, Bo Beats said he wanted to see them add more generative sequencing. The YouTuber Jeff Hopkins (not saying he has a ton of followers/viewers) is leading the charge on the Reliq Discord for more generative sequencing features. The Torso T-1 is a bestseller. There are eurorack modules like the Metropolix, the Melodicer, and the SI SIG+. (I even came across a Reddit thread where two Redditors said they wanted to see the Hapax copy the stochastic sequencing of the Melodicer and SIG). And this is where I always mention the Spektro NGEN. It sells out quickly nearly every time it’s available and had a substantial update just this past September. I don’t think these companies are making these devices because it’s a hobby to pursue in their spare time. They do it because they recognize there is a demand for this kind of sequencing.
Mylar Melodies YT video for the SI SIG+ is at 30,000+, and the views for his Metropolix video is at 71,000+. The only reason I held back from mentioning his video for the Metroplis, which has over 300k views, is because it’s 11 years old. And the comments for these devices are exceptionally positive. Several commenters are either already enthusiastic owners of these devices or are planning to buy them in the near future. Even if you wanted to dismiss Alex as just another YT influencer, if the interest in generative sequencing wasn’t there he wouldn’t be getting the feedback.
There is plenty of money to be made in generative sequencing and there are companies who have decided to capitalize on that demand.
When I talk about “evolving expectations”, I’m not suggesting that they follow what Oxi or Reliq is doing. But it would be myopic for a company of any kind (not just Squarp) to think that what people are currently asking for will match what they desire in the future. Even if they want to continue to carve their own unique path they are going to have to adapt to any future changes in market demands. That’s true whether you’re making hardware sequencers or building cars.
Here we agree. I don’t want any sequencer to be a complete clone of another.
I also apologize for getting carried away. I also want to personally apologize to the OP, @Jimbo. I did not mean to misdirect attention away from the Reliq, and I am genuinely excited in seeing what it brings next year.
Thank you, but I don’t get hung up on these types of things. It’s all sequencer related chit chat, and personally I feel it’s all relevant; well, to me anyway
I was reading through the documentation on the new drum tracks. Couldn’t see the info in the docs was wondering if you knew if each drum lane can be transposed up and down or if it’s fixed to a certain note.
If you were sequencing a digitakt for example you might want to set a different note for a kick drum per step.
Page 98 was what I was looking for and seems to confirm that you can set note information per drum lane not sure how that works per step but hoping it can be changed per step.
To anyone that has a reliq, am I correct in that you get one lfo per track and 8 modulations lanes?
