nice! Thanks 
Would have never figured that out through YouTube.
Iām selling my Vector and waiting for the second batch of Hapax. I love the Vector, but I canāt stand how It handles polyphony and drum sequencing.
Itās great for a 100% modular setup, and I know Iāll miss its complexity (pattern chains with different time signitatures, chance, subsequences itās great) but I need a brain for my Hybrid setup (modular/hardware/vsts) and for this Hapax Is a better candidate.
There Is only One cool thing about the Elektron Sequencer: p.locks. Other than that itās mediocre and each one in the Elektron line has a limitation to make you buy another machine.
The elektron Sequencer is thought to work in conjunction with a machine in a certain way.
Hapax is a sequencer that doesnāt tell you how to make music but gives you pretty much all the tools and freedom you need to experiment.
Thatās the hapax specific take on sequencing and Itās fine If you donāt like It, but thatās exactly what I was looking for in a hardware sequencer which I havenāt found elsewhere. After 10+ hardware sequencer, Iām tired of limitations sold as philosophy.
Workflow considerations are subjective and I might agree with you after trying it.
3 Likes
This is a great example. The Elektron sequencer is just a tracker brain in a step sequencer body. All its strengths (locks) and weaknesses (one trig per step) derive from this single principal. Whatever you think of the relative worth of those strengths and weaknesses, it is at least very consistent.
If you think the Hapax is without limitations, I donāt know. Good luck, I guess? I hope itās specific limitations are all in areas you donāt care about. But representing music is complex ā manipulating those representations more so. Thereās no solution that doesnāt involve trade offs.
Generally, the more thought put into a design, the more harmonized those trade offs appear. This isnāt limitation parading as philosophy. Itās the residue of the thought behind the trade offs as one decision leads to another and another andā¦
The more I use it, the more I think the Hapax explicitly trades unified design in favor of a blank canvas. Itās got this giant 128-pad sheet of paper, and it wants to do something unique with it every chance it gets.
So live mode has three completely unrelated modes but are each powerful in different ways (chords and mods, isomorphic keyboard, and velocity for drums). Each of which is great to use, but is incompatible with the other.
And all of these are, themselves, unrelated to step mode which is really all about selection and tweaking (and itās crazy good at it. Selecting a group of notes and looping/transposing/shifting/rotating them is a joy!)
Each of these modes takes a blank canvas and makes the best, unique interface out of it for doing the task at hand. But the other side of that trade off is that these interfaces are largely orthogonal. They donāt overlap apart from the narrow, awkward bridge that is note learn.
The result is a sequencer that feels strangely disconnected from playing notes 
But yeah, if you only want to play live or whatever, youāll love it. Or even if you donāt you may still love it. I find this kind of modularized isolation annoying, but I still love the heck out of the Hapax.
4 Likes
Hmm, interesting! Iām not sure how each of these concepts could be very closely interlinked ā of course you could have e.g. drums and isomorphic keyboard as āsplitsā, but Iām not that much of an instrumentalist to play both simultaneously 
3 Likes
Getting close now to June, looking forward to getting my hapax, Iām confident it will be good.
Plug it into my mpc live 2 and away we go! Sequencer & sounds
Iām wishing for a few features like midi import, new algos & midi fx and tweaks Iām sure will happen eventually
1 Like
Apparently Squarp are implementing a āpresend program changeā feature in some form, after getting a lot of feedback about it! Great times for Elektronauts.
7 Likes
Totally. And also, thatās kind of the point. There isnāt a solution out there that does everything ā music is too complex. There are only different trade offs.
So you couldnāt make a thing that magically relates three very different keyboards and a sequencer. Instead youād have to, say, give up the fancy keyboards and give the sequencer rudimentary ability to play notes. You have to make it worse in some way (playing live) to make better in another (composing by sequencing). I donāt know if thatād be a good idea, just an example.
Anyway, ideally, knowing the vision that went into a box would help make it clear what itās prioritized and what itās actively decided to be worse at. Currently, I think the Hapax (and the Pyramid, too, though I never used it this way) are optimized for capturing very nuanced live playing, editing and tweaking that capture, and then arranging that into a song loosely enough that polyrhythms and different timings can still be accommodated.
Thatās valuable because it lets us know what things outside the flow will feel like swimming against the stream. Composing directly from the sequencer, for example, is going to be more awkward than it would be in, say, a groovebox (which doesnāt prioritize capturing nuanced live performance). But also, polyrhythmic compositions are going to be way easier than your average āsong modeā (which prioritizes fitting to a rigid grid).
Anyway, Iāve figured out a lot just talking this through with you all. Thanks for letting me ramble. I really do appreciate it!
8 Likes
Really good write up. I like how you elevate the view from a sum of features to a concept that encapsulates the overall purpose of the instrument. It makes me wonder if this concept you present may or may not align completely with what the manufactures intended in the first place.
Iād be up to read more reviews like this instead of listing features. But of course, you have to get to know the instrument VERY well.
Thanks to you!
3 Likes
Iām quoting you after two months because I just figured out exactly how to do this and I think It could be useful for anyone. In fact the Rytm allows you to route different track parameters to one midi channel.
Midi lfo from hapax to control performances on rytm where different tracks parameters are routed. (Cc 35 to 47).
I Guess the same Is possibile with performances on the A4.
It should compensate the loss of p-locks.
I get where you are coming fromā¦ but feels its bit simplifiedā¦
underlying, all the modes are actually the same thing - putting events onto a grid.
rather these are āviewsā on to that process.
views that you could say are tailored to the needs of a particular use-case.
also we need to separate out two different thingsā¦
live mode - isomorphic/ chord/drum
step mode - step, drum, mpe
this is a bit unfortunate, that we have these two kinds of views/modes esp. since underneath the covers its all very similarā¦ also I know talking to Squarp, this differentiation has troubled them.
the isomorphic/chord is simply a way to enter the notes on stepā¦ i.e. you can enter notes via chord, then switch to isomorphic mode, and nothing changes.
similarly mpe is kind of odd, since its really just an indicator to say how to deal with note events, but itāll become a bit clearer why the differences is there (per note editing ) when we get mpe editing.
and then drum mode is this hybrid, where its kind of a specialised view on both live and step mode.
I can understand WHY they took this approach, as for a musician that just wants to get things done it does make sense (i.e. doesnāt care that its all technically just notes and events), and makes things easierā¦
but I also wish you could just freely switch between the modesā¦ and I think the different live and step modes is a bit āawkwardā as a product designer.
I do wonder (and have proposed) if really it would be better to just have track modes.
basically - normal, drum chord, mpeā¦ and these dictate both live/step views.
then perhaps the ability to āconvertā between the modes.
this is best illustrated by chord modeā¦ which I think should change to a proper āchord trackā , this could be similar to cubase.
in this mode the hapax would NOT store individual notes, but rather interval/inversion data.
this provides much more flexibility when it comes to editing.
also, in this way, it would then be similar to drum trackā¦ very focused on a particular task, and dedicated to that task.
but then the ability to ābounce downā to a normal poly track, if you want to go beyond chords.
again, I like sequencers where everything is just notes, and that brings a certain flexibility ā¦ its a bit like modular, where everything is just voltage - however, that approach can also bring a certain amount of complexity esp. for what feels like it should be a simple task.
so I think thats what Squarp are trying to accomplishā¦ under the covers its unified, but the user experience is more ātask orientedā.
but as above, I think Id like the ability to āflatternā things out, and so be able to move tracks from one type to another.
6 Likes
Iāve wanted a sequencer like this for ages.
Iām not sure I see whatās unfortunate about this, curious about your thoughts. (EDIT: this was not meant as argumentative, just interested! 
)
As for the chord sequencer that stores chord/inversion data ā I kind of see the appeal, but then it would be like on the Octatrack, you canāt break the chords into arpeggios or do strumming type stuff, just rigid blocks of notes (or something like a āstrum effectā, but that gets complicated quick). So IMHO, that might be of less utility than something where chords are note events. Simpler, though, Iāll agree!
1 Like
Use a midi keyboard if you want to stay exclusively in step mode,
You should try a mpc live or Octatrack if you want disconnected lol
1 Like
these days in UI designs we try to avoid modes (generally) as much as possible, because they tend to enforce particular workflows, and also tend to add complexity to UIs. ( * )
having overlapping modes (so modes that influences other modes) tends to exacerbate these issues.
( * )this is a mile high viewā¦ so overly generalisedā¦ there are many texts on UI design that go into details of problems of modes, and also their advantages.
donāt get me wrong though, this is more from a theoretical designā¦ i.e. what I would aim for.
in practice, the Hapax modes/views I think are clear enough - and I think within a few minutes of usage are not at all problematic.
as I also mentioned, modes do sometimes work wellā¦ if they are ātask focusedā. so the use of a drum track is fine, simply because whilst its still ājust all midiā, we tend to want to program it differently e.g. we are not so interested in the note value.
chord sequencer - no it wouldnāt be like the Octatrack, since the main point is to be focus on chords not intervals (as you can see the OT as) e.g. being able to quickly add a 7th to an existing chord without having to know the theory behind it.
ā¦ and of course this is just a view, so you would still be able to use midi fx etc (for arps)
for sure, it has limitationsā¦ e.g. if you want to start āmanuallyā breaking chords up, youād have to flattern it to a ānormalā track.
but the way I see this is all as a process.
so I create a song/patterns initially as broad brush stokes - I form a skeletonā¦
at some point, its starting to solidify, and I want to add details.
for the first part - things like chord tracks, generative tools, or using fixed scales, so things with limitations are fine - I want to move fast, and have freedom to change quickly.
then when Ive got my outline, Im happy to flatten, so for example I could be adding accidentals.
(obviously this process is a bit more interative, so simplifying for clarity only)
but this description, kind of illustrates the issue with āmodesā and prescribing a workflowā¦ one that suits me (much of the time, though not all!) , but might be completely unsuitable for others.
all that said, generally (all) sequencers (and daws) are going to embed workflows, its inherent in the task we are trying to perform. if you keep it too generic, it will make certain musical task too slowā¦ its the difference between creating a musical instrument and a spreadsheet.
overall, I do think the hapax has struck a good balanceā¦ its a step up from the pyramid in this regard, and you can tell this has been achieved by years of listening to user feedback.
anywayā¦ there is no āproblemā here, rather I just find it interesting to think about, and discuss with others, instrument designā¦ I find it fascinating, with many trade-offs/compromises. also I love thinking about what designers are prioritising in design decisionsā¦ which often leads you to think about target markets etc.
4 Likes
Yeah, absolutely, and I think weāre on the same page about this being more of a discussion out of academic interest than anything strictly wrong about the Hapax.
W/ regards to the Octatrack, I was thinking more about the fact that you canāt have different length notes in a chord, or various timing things are tricky to achieve. But good point about the interval vs. chord approach, too.
For me, what you describe is not a hurdle ā I tend to work upwards from a detail. Typically, I create a riff or a sound that works, and then derive everything else from there. So my workflow rarely involves chords as the starting point.
But the chord sequencer is an intriguing thought ā it might be that something like that would build more opportunities to think in a chord-based fashion for me, too.
Maybe the reason I donāt see the Hapax as strongly modal is that everything is about the creation of MIDI data, and that probably translates between each mode. There are just different windows to the same room. (Thatās assuming Iāve guessed correctly how each of the modes works and interacts with others)
1 Like
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.
ā¦
Just wanted to try this after itās been such a popular way of dealing with criticism of devices in recent releasesā¦after trying it I can sayā¦it gives me nothing.
In fact I think itās been a good discussion.
Personally I find the Hapax EXACTLY what I was hoping for in a sequencer. I didnāt need the note input mode as I would have run a keystep into it, but Iāll 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 canāt do that, strangely enough)
-
it lets me add variations to the midi loop in real time, whether thatās 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 Iām 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 competitorā¦the Squarp Pyramid is a great midi sequencer but less immediate in the manipulation of midi clips / individual notes. The Cirklon I donāt know enough about, but itās a step sequencer / has the UI of one. My Elektron boxes are great but the sequencers have limited polyphony and limited resolution.
I couldnāt believe my eyes when I saw this and what it does, itās 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 Squarpās 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 canāt wait for mine to arrive!
6 Likes
Exactly my thoughts on the hapax
1 Like
Sorry to chime in, thatās 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. Itās dual USB device meaning you have 32 independent MIDI channels available to run each track or any combination. Keystep Pro isā¦ 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 āSplitā).
3 Likes