This would be similar to the Sinfonion module, correct? At least the interface.
What is it with people whining about the Hapax not being their dream device? It does what it does, if you like it cool, if not, stop crying about it.
…
Just wanted to try this after it’s been such a popular way of dealing with criticism of devices in recent releases…after trying it I can say…it gives me nothing.
In fact I think it’s been a good discussion.
Personally I find the Hapax EXACTLY what I was hoping for in a sequencer. I didn’t need the note input mode as I would have run a keystep into it, but I’ll gladly take it as I love that arrangement by 4ths (first got familiar with it on the Push). Why do I love the Hapax and have one on order:
-
it lets me loop and clear midi notes in real time without stopping the sequencer (eg an MPC can’t do that, strangely enough)
-
it lets me add variations to the midi loop in real time, whether that’s flipping the loop, reversing playback or through one of the midi fx
-
it lets me shorten and lengthen loops on the fly while playback is running
-
it lets me run up to 32 tracks in parallel with direct access to each track, eight variations(patterns) per track and plenty of midi outs to make that sort of midi chain possible
-
it allows for polyphony and individual note & note length editing on the fly plus offers all the conditionals/probability functions I’m used to & use from my Elektron sequencers
-
it does all of this with a fairly well thought out UI that is mostly flat, tactile and has plenty of dedicated buttons for the key functional categories to be accessed directly
There is nothing hardware-based like the Hapax out there. The Oxi One to me is more of a competitor to the Arturia Keystep Pro (4 tracks, decent CV capabilities), the Polyend Play is a weird beast, more of a Deluge competitor…the Squarp Pyramid is a great midi sequencer but less immediate in the manipulation of midi clips / individual notes. The Cirklon I don’t know enough about, but it’s a step sequencer / has the UI of one. My Elektron boxes are great but the sequencers have limited polyphony and limited resolution.
I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw this and what it does, it’s basically my dream hardware sequencer for live improvisation and jamming, which I thought I would never see because it would be too many good things in one to reasonably expect in a single device.
I think the price is also totally fair, especially given Squarp’s excellent support and customer care reputation.
If live functionality / tactility is not needed, I can see how eg the Squarp Pyramid is maybe the better device. or if polyphony and high resolution is not really needed & one produces primarily music on the grid, the Elektron sequencers are probably just as good a device.
For improvised live performances, this thing is it in my book. I can’t wait for mine to arrive! 
6 Likes
Exactly my thoughts on the hapax
1 Like
Sorry to chime in, that’s a common misconception.
OXI One has 4 interchangeable sequencer slots (called like this because they are way closer to being a full sequencer each than a track), each slot can host 8 tracks (with Multitrack mode) making a total of up to 32 tracks running at the same time with 16 patterns per sequencer slot and projects loading on the next beat without stoping playback. It’s dual USB device meaning you have 32 independent MIDI channels available to run each track or any combination. Keystep Pro is… not really comparable, honestly.
Curiously each one of the reasons listed above can be done extensively in OXI One, except the DIN MIDI chain of course (without the add-on ‘Split’).
3 Likes
That’s good to know! That does elevate the Oxi One into Hapax territory, as the Oxi One is kind of the closest (and also most exciting) alternative to what I see as wonderful about the Hapax.
Thanks for the correction!
EDIT: @CarlosUnch I looked more closely at the manual, looks like in multitrack mode a sequencer can run up to 8 tracks but that would be 8 monophonic tracks, i.e. if I want to run let’s say a 4-note chord progression that would occupy 4 out of 8 tracks of a sequencer? Is this correct? If so that does give a definite edge to the Hapax in settings where polyphony and track count matter.
I do like the portability, battery, and general tiny form factor of the Oxi One — looking through the manual, it does a lot of things and some really unique things. Though I think the Hapax has the better, more user friendly UI. I can imagine the Oxi is a bit like the Deluge in the sense that practicing with it would make it intuitive to use due to muscle memory, the Hapax just looks cleaner and more accessible to me…or better put, it suits my way of thinking better.
I could see myself getting an Oxi One down the line as well though for the form factor alone. Plus it’s sort of nice to see a small company dare be so innovative and idiosyncratic.
1 Like
Yeah, I find this uncomfortable tbh (like purposely selecting a picture showing how much the OXI is thinner than the Hapax for example)
4 Likes
Guys, I’m at a loss. I just purchased a Hapax, came here to talk about the Hapax, responded to a comment on design choices made around the Hapax in relation to other sequencers, there’s a 3-4 msg exchange, super cordial and informative on correcting a few (erroneous) assumptions about Hapax competition — where in the process of it someone also posts an image of the size differences between an OxiOne and the Hapax…that’s neither off topic (though I’m ok with moving the exclusively Oxi One focussed comments to its thread) nor uncomfortable (I don’t get that at all!).
Seriously, what’s up? We’re talking Hapax here primarily. To my understanding nothing discussed here breaches community rules and 90% of it is related to the thread title. Why would a photo that showcases a size comparison between two similar products — one of them the product in the thread title - be an issue? I for one, as someone who is SUPER excited about the Hapax and has one on order, really appreciate that photo to get a better idea of the physical presence of the device I can’t wait to receive & use.
1 Like
Nothing wrong with you man.
If you read this thread from the beginning you’ll understand why
1 Like
Speaking of that has anyone used the Hapax for sequencing a Ipad?
Yes. Works as expected. What do you want to know? The only thing I wish is that it doesn’t recognize different devices on the USB B port the way AUM might.
Can I ask what you use to interface with the iPad? I’m looking for a peripheral that will allow me to connect the hapax to the usb-c port of my iPad and also allow me an audio out or two. . .
There are USB C hubs with 3.5mm stereo outs, but never more than that.
On the other hand you have class compliant audio interfaces with more I/O but no USB MIDI host capabilities, so Hapax would have to go to a MIDI input in the interface in any case.
In my case I use a little USB C hub without audio out, an audio interface and USB MIDI controllers connected to the hub.
2 Likes
You could try something like the iConnectivity Audio 4c or maybe a cheaper alternative audio interface integrated USB hub. Or you get a usb hub, get a usb audio interface and then connect your midi sequencer and audio interface to the USB hub and the hub to your ipad.
1 Like
I use of those USB hubs with a little usb-c tail and 4 usb-a ports, plus a cheap usb-a DAC. If I am feeling fancy, I can use an RME Babyface.
2 Likes
From watching four or five videos now, this is my biggest concern. I just ordered a Hapax anyway, though, because I think the compromise here, having different modes balanced against giving you access to different kinds of complexity as needed for different tasks, makes a lot of sense, despite its drawbacks.
I had the same idea–to use my Linnstrument with this, along with the Cobalt8m, Iridium and Hydrasynth, to see what kind of craziness I can create with this and MPE.
1 Like
The auto inversion in chord mode looks interesting, wonder if it works with other things like note spread and other chord modifications on as well?
2 Likes
Agreed! There’s certainly enough space in the 128-step grid for voicing modifiers to be added. I prefer playing my chords but it’s nice to have a chord generator there still, for experimentation that sort of stuff is great.
1 Like
So I’m just curious about this device, is it objectively better than Pyramid? And is there any reason to have it over the Deluge? (Besides running two sequences at once, but I bet Synthstrom would add even that if they got a few requests …)
1 Like