4 Likes
small things, but this made my day
I love Jeremyâs videos so much , to get a shout out was fantastic to wake up to 
25 Likes
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
3 Likes
Yeah the oxi one has way less features tho. Which can be good depend what you need
1 Like
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.
8 Likes
same.
To be fair OXI have proven an exception and delivered a very nice unit.
Both machines seem relatively fairly priced. given the features gap. I have an OXI and a pyramid; will take a bit of time to consider if sell both and get a hapax makes sense as one box would be nicer than two.
I just have a psychological line in the sand that if the complexity gets to a certain level, Iâll switch over to the DAW., so more in a the camp of needing a capable sketch box than a dedicated turn-my-back-on-the-DAW does-everything box. I remain tempted however!
5 Likes
THIS
2 Likes
Yes, but that price, (and itâs plastic body) And itâs not battery powered. 
I am keeping the Deluge, and went with the OXI One, both units can be truly portable.
I believe in the updates that will come, but like that Squarp, has brought out features, that the OXI team may consider adding.
5 Likes
Do the preorders get charged right away?
Yes, they do fit in slightly different niches.
For me the biggest advantage of the Hapax is the number of tracks 16 vs 4 for OXI) and that the pattern view shows all patterns of all tracks in 1 view. The Oxi does have more tracks if you count the multitracks, but they are monophonic and you canât see (nor launch) them similtaneously with all other tracks.
I do hope Squarp will add easy note length input by holding a note and pressing a subsequent note. And I hope they allow for an alternativr arranger mode similar to the Deluge (using the grid to compose your song out of patterns instead of linking sections)
2 Likes
Im not sure I really seen the difference?
on the hapax, you select a set of patterns , then click new section (if you use the default name its two clicks on the encoder)? you can then use with or without a song (launch section is select + clic)
the advantage of this is you can name the sections, so you donât have to remember what they are 
you can rearrange order etc
it naturally leads you to a place where you can arrange a âsongâ should you wish.
anyway, its one of those suck it nâ see areas, once users get it in there hands, they can see if they need an âalternative viewâ or not.
ps⌠I think the deluge design is hugely influenced by not (essentially) having a display, and its done a great job pushing that philosophy (sometimes a bit too far ) .
as for OXI One, more I see/hear/read ⌠the more I think they are very different markets.
and of course, youâll get fans of both - as for some, each will meet âexactlyâ what they need.
also buyers bias is a thing ⌠as is our time investment,
its something I recognise about myself too ⌠I donât think you can be unbiased if you invest a lot of time in a product⌠simply because you get to knows it best and worst side, better than others.
the plastic body is really a non-issue, I didnât even notice until they mentioned it, its very solid, hard ABS.
I guess the question is ⌠if you treat it roughly, will it break? frankly, I doubt it⌠and if you donât look after something like this, youâll be more likely to damage screens/encoders/pads!
if it did crack (mostly likely outcome with plastics) Im sure Squarp could sell you a replacement shell pretty cheaply. ⌠and having been inside the Hapax, Id say itâd be very easy to take apart and replace.
scratching? not seen any on mine, and Ive been moving it around A LOT in my studio whilst testing it with different gear/setups in last few months⌠hardly ever stays in the same place
3 Likes
About the Hapax vs Oxi it really depend what you need. I wanted an analog step sequencer on steroid, i think the Oxi is the best thing since sliced bread :).
Sure if you need something to sequence all your midi synths and want to be dawless etc the Hapax seems to be a better choice i guess if you are willing to pay double price.
Whats nice on the Oxi is : 8 Cv and gate, 5 AND 10 v gate (i need this), support Hz/V (again i need this), flexible routing, envelops, parameters per step (i prefer that way of working), battery powered etc.
I will probably get both in the end (because the Hapax looks very nice) but my Oxi is staying with me since the Hapax cannot replace it.
4 Likes
yeah, If youâve seen my hapax/eurorack video
youâll see I adore my Frap Tools USTA⌠its not replaceable any of these more âstep basedâ type sequencers⌠and leads to very different places.
I think the OXI Pipe was a clever (and cost effective) way to have a one cable solution to eurorack.
What Iâd love is if Hapax did a CV expander via USB , sure itâd not be as cheap (as OXI Pipe is passive) , but USB could handle many more CV channels⌠Id really love 16 cv 8 gates out, and 4 cv/gate in.
very feasible project, squarp has the expertise (from hermod)
the question is⌠is there a market for such a module?
(perhaps it if it can have an additional midi->cv mode, that opens it up a bit)
2 Likes
Main difference is the linear workflow and being able to build a structure on a more âgranularâ level, for example you can easily make little drops and lead ins at the boundaries of a section, so it can be a bit more flexible than clip based song building, although not always. You can easily shift stuff around in groups or isolation for just 1 instance, crop and extend - all of which is doable in a clip or pattern based environment but requires more copying and pasting, and each unique instance would need all the tracks copying to a new instance, even if only a couple of things change. By contrast the Deluge arranger allows for just changing the parts you want, without the need to duplicate the stuff which stays the same.
There are other advantages (and disadvantages too) but in summary the difference is a bit like Abletons session view vs arrangement view.
3 Likes
The biggest advantages of the Deluge arranger vs the (current) Hapax Song mode:
- You can âseeâ which patterns are playing and when they are playing, so it gives a much better overview of the whole song.
- Using the grid, you can just add a pattern at a desired point in time. No need to first find out which section etc. So it is easier to make changes in the timeline.
- It removes a lot of steps in the proces, so it is much quicker: just add a track anywhere you want. On Hapax you first create separate sections, then link them together. You need to rename each section, otherwise you get lost very fast, which takes time.
It also adds the possibility to records a performance into the arranger and even record automation into it.
I guess if you donât see the advantages, you should check out some videoâs on yt about it. I think it is brilliant. Would be awesome if something similar would come to Hapax.
But I mainly ordered the Hapax to use for live performance and it seems brilliant for that! Much better than the Deluge, since on the Deluge you can only see 8 clips of tracks at once, while the Hapax shows you all 8 patterns of all 16 tracks at once! Thatâs what I have been wanting the Deluge to do for years (and ultimately made me sell it)
4 Likes
ah, thanks @mprinsen , I get it now
so, you directly place the patterns on a linear timeline.
sure, the major benefit of that approach is you are not âdefiningâ which combinations of patterns you are using up front. these combos are simply what ever happen to be overlapping on the timeline.
(does it support looping of certain sections ⌠without manual intervention?)
nice.
perhaps Squarp would be interested in doing that , I donât knowâŚ
whilst I can see how this had some advantages (and likely disadvantages), musically you can likely achieve similar results either wayâŚ
itâll be interesting to see how this progresses.
as I said, the deluge had to figure out how to cram this all into a grid format without the aid of a screen⌠which its done a great job of.
whereas, perhaps Squarp are evolving a bit more⌠they are coming from the pyramid with a screen and only 16 âstepsâ⌠suddenly having a big (rgb) grid, and 2 screens ⌠lots of new hardware and possibilities, so settling on how to use all that new hardware , I can see being iterative.
2 Likes
Very nerdy question, but do we know what microcontroller the Hapax is built on/how much RAM it actually has?
I believe its dual MCUs
(rather than dual core, since when you update firmware, it flashes 2 mcus!)
specs say : RAM: 32MiB
I donât know what MCUs, I forgot to look! (*)
(many are using H7 so, id not be surprised if thats whatâs used⌠but thats a complete guess, and then which sub model)
theres also another interesting design aspect⌠when we had the odd bugs in Beta, the UI could freeze us out, but the even processing/performance would continue unharmed.
so the UI handling appears nicely separated from the event handling.
(I donât know if thats down to separate cores/code or separate mcu)
once others have had it for awhile, and perhaps when I get my production unit - Iâll take a looking inside again⌠perhaps a mini teardown type video⌠but I donât feel this is ârightâ on this unit, and also whilst âthe paint is still wetâ
(*) I had to change the pads at some point during beta for a new layout, and so had it open ⌠but was keen to try new layout, and irc ists a dual board, so couldnât see without going âdeeperâ. but i will say it look extremely neat and tidy inside, look well thought through.
2 Likes