This is the case in comparison to Push, and more acute for the function buttons of OXI (while not hard, they are more button like), the grid is softer as @OldmanChompski said.
1 Like
Which is true of the Hapax too, actually. There are two types of switches; for the grid and everything else. Might be helpful to know which ones youāre trying to get away from.
Having used the Hapax for the first time today after working with the Oxi for a few months I will say that I find the Hapax more capable and well thought out. You can really see where Squarp has learnt from the pyramid and improved upon it. I watched a couple of walkthroughs and was up and running within an hour.
There is room for improvement though and there are maybe 3 or 4 extra features Iām hoping will come through in updates.
4 Likes
This might be off topic, but if you are looking for a good āfeelā in a grid layout, consider the Linnstrument. Aside from having great MPE control (the main reason to buy it), Roger Linn put a lot of thought into the feel of the āpads.ā They are not mechanical, and the depression depth is pretty shallow, but one thing I like about playing it over the Hapax or a standard piano-style keyboard is that my fingers are much more able to glide in four directions to hit different notes. I often use it as a controller for live playing, either with or without the Hapax.
4 Likes
Howād you go with getting the Hapax to record and playback mpe and also using the mpe over multiple synths?
Playing multiple synths, no problems. I havenāt used it for MPE at this point. When I record multiple synths, I have only recorded into my DAW (Logic) using a single stereo audio channel. I tried to use it with the MRCC to record into Logic on separate midi channels, but had mixed results and was fairly confused by the MRCC way of getting midi into the DAW, so eventually gave up on it, even though it seems clear there is a way to do it if you have the patience and keen intelligence to figure it out (for now, I guess I have neither). The difficulty is not with Hapax though, but with the MRCC. Using the Hapax alone with the DAW, to sequence multiple VST midi tracks with Logic worked very well.
You have given me the idea that I should experiment with playing live on the Hapax with the Linnstrument as my control device to see how it fairs with MPE.
Iāve had an OXI One for a few weeks and just got my hands on a Hapax today. Here are some quick first impressions:
-
Build quality ā both are well made but I think the build quality of the OXI is better overall. The all metal case and the lack of screws on the top panel looks very slick. The Hapax feels pretty solid but doesnāt feel nearly as elegant.
-
Buttons ā the grid on the OXI one feels more grippy / rubbery than the Hapax, which are harder and lower profile. For playing āliveā I like the OXI grid better, but for entering sequences and automation data I like the Hapax better.
-
Navigation ā I find navigating within patterns much easier on the Hapax than on the OXI. Having to turn a dial to move vertically or press separate buttons to move between pages on the OXI feels kinda tedious. Hapaxās up, down, left, right cluster of buttons is very natural and well placed. Hapaxās right hand screen giving the overview of your patterns is also very helpful.
-
Sequencing ā being only a few hours into my explorations of the Hapax I canāt give provide a particularly deep analysis, but so far the Hapax feels very natural to me. Because thereās more buttons and knobs on the Hapax thereās less menu diving, shift clicking, etc. as compared to the Oxi. Most of what I want to do when sequencing feels āat handā on the Hapax, more so than compared to the OXI.
-
Effects ā the Hapaxās 8 effects per track are super powerful generative tools. This is one of the features that really attracted me to the Hapax and it doesnāt disappoint.
11 Likes
I love the MIDI and CV channels on Hapax and will be center sequencer for my studio until I add a new Cirklon to the mix.
2 Likes
Iām hoping the Hapax will replace my Cirklon which I never really clicked with.
I always felt I was āprogrammingā rather than āplayingā on the Cirklon, whereas with the Deluge and now the Hapax I feel like Iām using them like actual instruments.
Iāve held onto my Cirklon for a long time hoping Iād eventually come back to it, but from what Iām seeing so far with the Hapax I think I can safely part with the Cirklonā¦
2 Likes
How do people feel about the difference in i/o?
Iām particularly curious about modular users who own or have tried out both. I know the OXI has a breakout module that connects via HDMI and I could see myself using that more often than the individual onboard CV/Gate outs. I can also see it being beneficial to having many more channels of data. Iāve heard that some ppl use the Hermod as a hub for the Hapax but honestly that seems impractical and not something Iād consider as itās more of a standalone sequencer, and not one Iām particularly attracted to.
[edit] just saw that the OXI can be charged up! Holy smokes that is a huge advantage. Just sayinā
2 Likes
It was hard to let go of but I sold my Oxi One a few days ago. Itās a powerful device and has some unique features that are missing on the Squarp but it feels cramped in comparison to the Hapaxes intuitive and accessible interface.
I donāt always have heaps of time to make music so I like to jump straight in and I find that worlds easier with the Hapax.
3 Likes
I love the battery in the Oxi and how small it is but Iād rather use the Hapax also as itās just easier.
2 Likes
Iāve moved the opposite direction; I returned my Hapax and replaced it with the Oxi One.
I am enjoying the Oxi One much more - I like the feel of the pads for playing much more than I did on the Hapax, and there are a few workflow differences that I think are much more intuitive on the Oxi than the Hapax. IE: note preview, creating/extending notes that are more than one step, etc.
Even though itās larger and less cramped, I didnāt think the physical interface design of the Hapax worked well - it has two screens and 8 knobs - double the Oxi - but the Hapax layout is awkward. The screens are so far apart and the knob placement is not intuitive to me. Overall, the Oxi One just feels far more coherent to me. The build quality is also excellent.
I do wish the Oxi had more hardware MIDI ports (1 vs 4 on the Hapax) but I also havenāt had any issues using the Oxi Split.
Thereās also just no comparing anything to Manuel at Oxi - the value that he provides in addition to the product is really significant. Super responsive, fixes and updates are frequent and fast, itās incredible.
(Edited to clarify that this is how it feels to me; the Hapax is a great device but the Oxi One fits me better personally.)
9 Likes
That is a fair call. I wouldnāt be surprised if the Oxi makes itās way back into my repetoire once everything else is up and running. I certainly only scratched the surface of mine.
As far as the Hapax, I like instrument definitions, easily laid out 16 tracks with mutes, being able to load two projects at once and swap between them and the extra screen real estate. I also have big hands so the space really does help.
Oh, and of course the Midi FX. That is a super fast way to get a fun jam going.
I heard that the Oxi can do multiple Midi lanes over usb which is very cool though and is undoubtedly a powerful device in itās own right.
1 Like
My experience with the Oxi Pipe has been less than ideal. I might have a bad module but it doesnāt feel like it works properly all the time and I have to unplug the HDMI and plug it back in for it to work again.
Overall I like the Hapax a lot more just wish it offered more for CV but I think overall itās much more intuitive where like the other person said, the Oxi feels cramped. I still find it odd that you canāt set the start and end point of a note by pressing the first step and last step, ala the Deluge. Hapax has this and so does Oxi. On Hapax you set the note length before or hold a note and tweak it later. Itās minor, but thatās the one gripe I have for it.
Iām sure note preview will come to Hapax.
3 Likes
have you had any intermittent issues like the ones @OldmanChompski reports?
Also do you find it quick to get a piece up and running from init w/ the one?
I havenāt had any issues with the hardware, no, but I think they were specifically referring to the Oxi Pipe module which I donāt have.
I found one feature I wanted changed and it was added in a beta firmware release today less than a week after I reported it. Amazing.
No weird workflow bugs or crashes for me yet with the Oxi.
I havenāt started learning the templates yet, but even without them itās pretty quick to get a jam going - setting the sequencers up for MIDI/scales/modes is fast and simple.
Loving it, really.
5 Likes
Iāve had the One for the better part of a year now and I find it very easy to get something good going from init. I think it just requires a good understanding of each sequencer type and how they can be leveraged for the results you want. People talk a lot about the shift functions but itās really not menu divey at all, Iāve found the navigation very intuitive. Just takes a brief initial learning period and then working with it is incredibly fluid. Iāve found it fantastic for improvisation and on-the-fly sequence generation.
That being said, I havenāt used the Hapax so I canāt compare it to that piece in particular.
All I can say is personally the One is my favorite sequencer Iāve ever used and I canāt imagine ever getting rid of it. The smaller form factor also makes it ideal for the limited space I have and for portability/gigging.
Also, the pads are perfect for me. I like to have a nice amount of travel and firmness; if the pads are too shallow or flush with the chassis I just donāt feel as comfortable. The One feels like I could program a sequence with a hammer and it would be fine.
9 Likes
This OXI ONE vs Squarp Hapax question really hurts.
I have the Polyend Play but Iāve found that more and more I completely bypass the built in audio capabilities and only use it for midi sequencing. Even more so after getting the Syntakt. And itās amazing as a MIDI device, just with some quirks and limitations (pick & place workflow is not ideal, track limitation etc). I wish there was a setting which would turn it into a 2x8 track MIDI sequencerā¦
Anyway if Iām not using the audio stuff then either the oxi or or hapax would make much more senseā¦ But which??!?
On the one hand the form factor, portability and build seem so much nicer with the oxi but I am kind of irked by the seemingly arbitary 4 sequencer limitation. My wish would be to sequence Syntakt, Digitakt and sometimes some VSTs. I know that technically it can be done, but sequencing melodies with the multitrack sequencer seems counter productive - one of the reasons Iām trying to rely less on the elektron sequencer is to get a better visual overview of whats going on. Also it seems like sequencing Digitakt slices in the mono sequencer would be super quick and fun - but then you already have 1/4th of your sequencing power used up.
When trying to be realistic the 4 sequencers are enough for most situations but it doesnāt scratch that maximalist itch that the hapax wouldā¦ But the priceā¦
I have veen considering and testing a setup where I would use whatever sequencer to print midi into bitwig/ableton - this would remove the need for many tracks but now there aleays needs to be a laptop involvedā¦
Excuse me, this turned into a rather long rant but does anyone have anything to say that could perhaps sway me? I suppose the main question is whether people find the OXIs 4 sequencers limiting or not?
For sequencing 2 elektron boxes + some VSTs from time to time, perhaps a polysynth in the future.
1 Like
The new version (Beta 4) of Oxi multitrack sequencer support piano roll edit :
" Multitrack piano roll Edit. Tap Oct (2nd knob) to enter in this view."
So you have more than 4 tracks.
I guess you could have 4 x multitracks so 4 x 8 tracks for a total of 32 tracks.
4 Likes