Squarp Instruments Hapax Polychronic Performance Sequencer

[thetechnobear]

where are you based? within the EU there wouldn’t be any ‘custom clearance’

from my experience, you get custom status when the courier has the package, and is starting to pass it through their hubs… i.e. already in their hands.

@darenager

@thetechnobear nice video - I saw you moving a whole lane of steps left/right in the video, can a single step be moved like that too? I’m thinking yes but just checking, as that is a feature I use a lot on Pyramid.

yup, you can select steps or blocks of steps - I show this on my next video (if I didn’t already ?)

Does it have legato slide/glide/portamento over CV?

cv and midi get transformed into ‘events’ , and then are treated the same, then converted to cv/midi for output. so basically cv/midi feels the same. (obviously cv has higher resolution)

you can therefore automate record and automate cv. (again in this evenings video)
one nice feature, when on the automation screen, you can see the notes on the pads too, so its easy to line thing up.

there is no slide fx, but might be something for the future?

as for automation linked to a step… perhaps when we get per note expression for mpe, this could be part of it.

I’d appreciate a timing integrity comparison with OT, Pyramid is pretty much on par with OT wrt midi sync jitter when synced to a known good midi clock (like OT, SBX-1 etc) but not quite as good from its internal clock (although still good enough) if you get the chance I’d be interested to know the results for Hapax.

yeah, I find these hard to actually measure…
I think the fact that Hapax is internally 192 ppqn, means they really focused heavily on improving timing.
(every beta release was showning ppqn values for debugging, only turned that off for the release!)

Really quite tempted by Hapax, although Pyramid still has the edge on some things at present, it will be interesting to see how both develop going forward, although I suspect Pyramid probably won’t get much in the way of features added now - even though it sure would be nice, I don’t expect or need it.

In fairness, Squarp had repeatedly stated , that they’d pretty much squeezed all they could out of the pyramid hardware (cpu/ram) … and to add more, would jeopardise stability which they were (quite rightly) unwilling to do…
its a mature product that does what it does really well. the Hapax does not take anything away from the Pyramid big great!
Similarly on the UI front on the Pyramid , its been pushed quite far… things like patterns are not as easy as they might be, simply because they were a (major) addition after release.

I know everyone wants more… but frankly, most user requests on the Squarp forum I see for the Pyramid, would harm the UI … make it more confusing for the majority of other users. (*)
it’s simply reached a point where complexity and usability are (imho) at a tipping point.

anyway, thats probably where Hapax was born…
writing new firmware, building new hardware that could accommodate all the requests they have seen over years.

---

(*) of course, the user making the request does not see it this way, its just ‘one small thing’.
but with hundreds of ‘one small thing’ requests, who’s to say which should make it?

my answer is the devs/designer … they are responsible for the products focus!.
of course this is a personal opinion , and also from being a developer… and knowing I dont want to risk the integrity of my product, by adding thousands of options that are going to be used by a small percentage of my users.

[darenager]

I agree about the FRs, often they are made by people without any consideration for how they can be implemented without breaking something and fitting into the workflow without being hacky. I’m against that and never ask for such features. Most of my FRs end up getting implemented, eventually

Pyramid does everything I need pretty much except legato glides over CV (which is a pretty standard yet often absent on modern gear, Deluge is the same) I have other gear that can do it though so it isn’t a deal breaker for me.

To do the midi timing test, I just do a very simple (which of course only gives an ideal scenario result, but still useful) quarter note sequence on each device, triggering a rimshot or similar fast transient short sound, pan the audio of each device opposite, record audio into computer and look at the waveform to see if there are any offsets between L+R.

Some examples

[HBIII]

Mine as well (I am in the US), glad I am not the only one

[thetechnobear]

yeah, I know how to do that… but Hapax doesn’t output an audio signal…
so if I send the midi to somewhere to get sound I potentially introduce latency and jitter on the device that gets the trigger…
I guess I could use CV, but then that could be different from midi latency.
or perhaps Im misunderstanding ?

I guess, I could do this with OT, Pyramid, Hermod, Hapax and send to the sound generator, and then assume (and it is an assumption) that hopefully that generator has consistent latency/jitter.

(I would not trust a computer for midi, only audio, far too much jitter in usb midi for this kind of comparison!)

also is it midi latency you want to measure of clock stability which are quite different.

this is probably a topic better done on the Squarp forum , so we can work out the best way to get a reasonable result … as frankly, otherwise some are going to give me grief over the approach for testing (pointing out limitations I already know ;)) … and frankly, I don’t want spend hours doing this …
(ive done this before, and its never really reveals anything that useful to me , but I understand is important for others )

also , perhaps Squarp might have a view on what they expect and results etc.

btw: (again probably better at squarp forum )

is that pyramid internal vs pyramid slaved to sbx, if so Im ‘suspicious’ of it… looks wrong way around. I think the way the pyramid works, it would not benefit from a better stable clock input… it anything it’d always be slightly worst, as it tries to track the clock and adjust its internal clock.
and that ‘jump’ looks very much like the internal clock being adjust to the tempo of the incoming clock… perhaps after a missed/delayed clock pulse - hence the big jump, and then it stabilising again.

but again, something I could potentially look at.

one thing way back, I did do tests with hermod / pyramid trying to determine which was better as master, and also if CV or midi made a difference… they were pretty equal for midi, but “surprisingly” pyramid cv out -> hermod cv in, was noticeable worst than midi!

[pzoot]

Those time signature screenshots give me PTSD from trying to wrap my head around that when I had a pyramid. I actually think the elasticity % is much more straightforward. Just divide the number of beats you want by the number of beats in the main time signature and set it. If you’re in 4 and you want triplets it’s either 75% for slower or 150% for faster. Then set # of steps accordingly. Do I have that right?

[darenager]

@thetechnobear hidden to avoid cluttering thread.

Off topic

To clarify a few points:

No computer used other than just for recording the audio into audacity.
The audio signal is just used as a convenient marker to see the offsets, yes midi sound source, yes midi response delay is taken into consideration and a known “good responder” is used, to ensure as best as practical consistency. Some midi gear has nano second response to incoming note, others have milliseconds. So I use a Roland SH-01a which has a fairly consistent midi response delay of 0.35ms.

The usefulness of the test is purely to determine any obvious timing jitter problems when midi syncing gear together where precision is needed. Of course under load the results will be potentially worse, but they definitely won’t be any better. However in my findings I notice that most gear that performs well in this jitter test also performs well in a musical context too, which is all I care about. Elektron gear, Pyramid, Deluge all work well together, Roland gear acceptable, MPC One no good (sync out or in).

Why I did the test was because I had everything synced up and was noticing clearly audible push/pull when all playing together, in my case the culprits turned out to be the MPC and to a lesser extent the 707, I noticed that some devices were worse when synced to some gear than others, easily heard when changing configuration around.

Yes the Pyramid SBX test surprised me too, opposite of expected, but I put it down to possibly the Pyramid having either some kind of averaging or due to its internal clock not being used freeing up processor cycles. SBX is very precise.

Where devices were run from internal clock, the recording was placed against a grid of where the markers should be with zero jitter, and the offsets noted.

Yep it is by no means perfect, but it is helpful for troubleshooting, I don’t get too hung up on anything I can’t hear, but these tests helped me to optimise how I set up when syncing gear, and what gear to avoid using in such a setup. If it can’t be heard it does not matter, for me the threshold is a couple of ms when I can notice 2 devices smearing against eachother, in isolation it is not audible, but it can be a problem when wanting to edit audio with precision.

With Pyramid I tend to spread midi over the 3 outputs and rarely more than 4 devices on each port, I have always found the timing and jitter to be pretty solid, certainly for the stuff I make, mostly house/techno etc.

See also this thread:

Appreciate the integrity

[Geneoart]

I would use up each project for one song and just jump from project to project. This is a different concept from the Elektron way. 8x16 is a lot patterns for one song. Keep in mind each pattern is 32 bars long that’s 8x longer than what you get from an Elektron sequencer. Two patterns can equal one whole bank in say a Digitakt for instance.

[chapelierfou]

Thanks.
I don’t use Elektron sequencers for this reason (or any hardware sequencer).

[Geneoart]

I absolutely love the Elektron sequencer but I’ll definitely give the Hapax try.

[jamesstiff]

@thetechnobear

I’ve watched it developments, and got a really nice feeling for the Hapax, and yes I love it !
In this video, I go through what it can do and how Ive been using it.

Many thanks for the very thorough walkthrough. It really helped with my purchase decision and I placed an order for the second batch. I really hope you’re on commission!

Now, if anyone wants to buy a Polyend Tracker…

[thetechnobear]

In this video, Im exploring how you can connect Hapax to modular gear,
what possibilities does it open up?

- YouTube

[RhythmDroid]

@jamesstiff

Many thanks for the very thorough walkthrough. It really helped with my purchase decision and I placed an order for the second batch. I really hope you’re on commission!

I’m right behind ya James. My mouse is hovering over the PAY NOW button in PayPal.

May I ask, after you placed your order, did you receive any indication that you may cancel your order for full refund? I don’t ask because I’m afraid I’ll get cold feet (cause that ain’t gonna happen). If someone decides to sell theirs in the meantime, before batch 2, I plan to pounce on it.

[jamesstiff]

@RhythmDroid

May I ask, after you placed your order, did you receive any indication that you may cancel your order for full refund?

That’s a good question. I didn’t receive anything specific to order cancellation, just payment status email updates. I imagine that Squarp’s general terms of sale apply to backorders but if in doubt, it’s probably worth enquiring.

[RhythmDroid]

[DanJamesAUS]

Getting to Know the Squarp Hapax Polychronic Sequencer

[thetechnobear]

small things, but this made my day
I love Jeremy’s videos so much , to get a shout out was fantastic to wake up to

[Unifono]

Now that I finally started using the polend tracker as midi sequencer this thing comes along. Might replace the tracker. Oxi one also looks great… got time to compare them now until june it seems

[Papa]

Yeah the oxi one has way less features tho. Which can be good depend what you need

[HBIII]

I also think one benifit of the hapax is that it comes from a company with an experienced team that has been making sequencers for years and not an indigogo startup. I have had so many bad experiences being an unwitting beta tester with short-lived startups I would never do it again. With squarp I know I am getting a full featured product right from the start with years of support in the future.

[HiGrade1]

@Unifono

Might replace the tracker.

same.