anyone know of a comprehensive comparison of Hapax and OXI One?
I only know @verstaerker that has both, shared this picture:
He may have some insight.
Yes with a (long, sorry) but. First, each track in Multitrack has independent MIDI channels, so you can use the rest for another 4 mono instruments or sample triggering. Each track has independent length, time division, playback direction, etc.
More conceptually speaking, you won’t use Multitrack to make chords (you can ofc), you would use Chord or Poly mode that you can load in any of the 4 slots or in several at once. The reason is mostly because the workflow is much better suited for that end, and you have the same amount of voices out that in Multitrack, just more cleverly linked/presented (plus the keyboard and arp voices on top, independent for each sequencer so you can play (hold) 4 arpeggios at the same time). Additionally Chord mode has an independent MIDI channel for the root note (1 or 2 oct down), being able to run another instrument using only one sequencer. Multitrack is best suited for drums, sample launch or several mono voices with Euclid, a ton of randomisation and MI Grids engine under the hood.
The sequencer mode thing is quite unique because each mode is very focused in certain tasks to make the best out of it, and they overlap more general features with the other modes so nothing goes missing, this way you choose what your 4 sequencers do. Instead of forcing a fixed architecture it becomes modular to best fit your setup. Stochastic mode is not for you? that’s ok, you won’t see it in the UI other than in a list of modes, it’s virtually non existent in your machine. You enjoy Multitrack? let’s add 3 of them.
This is also a misconception. I can’t judge directly because I know the workflow and how it evolved since the beginning, but new users are saying that it’s very accessible, but an improvable manual.
True that some don’t click that fast with the workflow, but I know a few don’t even read the manual.
Any new instrument requires certain expertise (I’d say it’s a couple of days), specially with performative and feature deep ones. Loopop review is not a current reference, 1 year from that prototype and lots of updates made a huge difference.
Yes I hear you, but I don’t think this is a misconception as much as an opinion. If you’ve ever owned a grid sequencer you will maybe have experienced that feeling of “shit what page am I on and what does that light there mean again and where am I again in the loop, at which octave?” — to me it’s just a matter of the amount of information represented simultaneously in any grid sequencer really that make them a risky proposition.
The OxiOne has the mode buttons which give direct access to those, which is cool, but after that it MUST get cramped, given the lovely feature set alone and the lack of more physical buttons & a bigger screen. I get it, it enables the form factor, but I’m pretty sure it takes a good amount of practice to not get lost on the device at times, at least I’m almost certain it would do so for me.
The Hapax has the two screens, one serving almost exclusively the purpose of giving orientation and facilitating informed navigation across the grid within any of the modes (though eg chord mode I think is not that well thought out in that regard). The Hapax is also less modular in regard to what each of its modes do, which is a plus to me in fact (in terms of usability / workflow).
The Hapax will be the center piece of my space ship setup, but as I said, an Oxi might be in the cards down the line as well, since I love midi sequencers and its form factor alone to me should be worth the price of admission.
You’re completely right!
It doesn’t, honestly. Kind of hard to explain workflow to a person without the machine in front of them, even less via text…
It’s true there’re a few combos with shift, most of them intuitive, and a couple that aren’t (just 3 IMO). At the same time this implies menu diving is removed almost completely, except for global system parameters (set once and forget), scrolling though CC numbers or renaming patterns. Immediacy and performability had priority.
All the mode buttons are a constant between sequencer modes, meaning that you only need to see which number is active 1 to 4, and what mode button is lit to know where you are, not even the screen is needed for that. In regards of the grid itself, there’re 5 layouts: piano roll, keyboard and MOD lanes (exclusive per sequencer), save/load/arranger (it looks the same) and CV out configuration shared between all sequencers.
Whatever, it’s better to check for yourself or read from people owning both. I encourage you to try it given the chance. I can only speak regarding OXI unfortunately, I’m dying to try Hapax too
a friend of mine has had an Oxi One for a while now… and is a big fan.
I bent his arm to try the Hapax at Superbooth,
he came out the tent swearing … ‘why did I listen… now I seriously want a Hapax’
anyway, I believe he will be getting a Hapax for review… so that’ll be a good head to head. (not quite sure when that’ll happen)
he still proudly demo’d the Oxi too me the next day,
and, as Ive said all along Oxi is cool, I really do like ‘the pipe’, its portability, and there are some features on the Oxi that the Hapax does not have (currently?!)
similarly, there are things the Hapax has the Oxi does not… (currently ?! )
but they are also quite different in a few ways, and trying different approaches.
really, best thing is to try them both (or watch some YouTube videos if not possible) and see which gels with you more.
what’ll be even more interesting is to see how they both evolve over the coming months, as both have plenty of scope for further development.
Im sure the oxi one is great but it doesn’t appeal to me like the hapax as an ableton live and elektron user. Proper polyphony per track and push style keyboard and all. Lots of talk of the oxi on this for some reason wondering why
My thoughts too. My hapax has replaced my cirklon in everyday use, especially when I just want to jam out quickly. The cirklon is built like a tank and perfect for minimal techno vibes but not so much when you stray into more structured and chord heavy territory.
Really appreciate you sharing your experience. The consistency in shift/mod functions across the board is a big one, not self evident that it would be that way. After your first response I read the Oxi’s manual, it felt cramped just reading that but that’s not necessarily an indicator of the actual user experience with the device.
I def will try one down the line, I’m imagining it for eg a mobile setup. At it’s price point it’s not a huge “risk” to take anyway
Now I’m super excited about the Hapax arriving hopefully in June…only issue is that — with the polyphonic limitations I had accepted in my sequencing setup before removed — I now also want an Iridium
EDIT: @CarlosUnch do you know if the OxiOne is class compliant? I’m imagining that with an iPad could be a killer travel combo….oh boy, what have you done?!
it has BT, so class compliance is not so much an issue, i hope. have one arriving today or tomorrow, will know more
See @jemmons comment below, he’s right. Moved this comment to the appropriate thread.
We’ve moved past comparing features to talking exclusively about the Oxi and how to use it. There’s a whole big popular thread just for that. Please take your Oxi-related questions and answers over there. This will make it easier for interested parties to find them.
I’d love to try a Hapax. I’d be willing to bring my Oxi One to a place where there’s a Hapax for tests! Need to check out Elevator Sounds to see if they have a Hapax I can try out.
Oxi just came and Hapax coming at the end of June. I am going to figure out by myself what is the one that fits my workflow better. I will post a pros/cons after that.
I hope you have space for both! From specs alone you can seen how much they shine on different territories!