Not to be reductive, but I imagine this opens up the Hapax for those who felt 8 patterns-per-track were a limitation before.
Beyond that, the update contains a lot of nice fixes and quality-of-life improvements. But I don’t think it changes much if any of the commentary above. Both are still very capable boxes that can do most of the same things in slightly different ways that you may or may not get on with (unless you need to mix live between projects without stopping in your set. Then the Hapax is the only game in town).
The other major difference, which I know has been discussed at length but is worth repeating, is the workflow. To me they are miles apart. I couldn’t grok that of the OXI but grasped the Hapax immediately. Doesn’t make one better or worse. It just means my brain works more like one than the other. But they’re VERY different.
Hapax also does 32 tracks of polyphony, the Oxi comes nowhere near to that. OS2.0 brings a few updates that make the Hapax more powerful but especially also more convenient/user friendly (eg note length input, mute track behaviour etc).
Oxi is compact and very portable though, whereas the Hapax is more of a studio sized sequencer.
I loved the Hapax for full on studio use. Enjoyed the Oxi for portable put it anywhere and use it use. Loved the Deluge for a lot of stuff. Like the MPC live 2. So many good choices!
Manuel from Oxi Instruments gave it a once-over a few days ago so it should be accurate for the Oxi One; the Hapax side is stuff I gleaned from the manual.
Full disclosure: I currently own an Oxi but am not trying to take sides. I think its amazing but do find it a bit menu divey and am definitely tempted by the Hapax which seems easier to grok. They are both very capable. I wish the Hapax was also battery-powered and had the BLE; that makes the Oxi pretty killer with an iPad.
I’ve added the Deluge to my doc too. Of course it is more than a sequencer, but it comes up often in sequencer debates. I now own all three. I’ll never get rid of the Deluge as it is open source now and while it has its quirks I want to support Synthstrom for doing that. While it would be nice to hang on to the Oxi, these represent a significant outlay and my suspicion is I will sell the Oxi. The learning curve on the Hapax is way easier, and having so many polyphonic tracks is great (the “multitrack” on the Oxi One is a bit of a hack and they’re monophonic, so you have max 4 polyphonic tracks versus 32 on the Hapax). I will miss the matriceal mode; it’s pretty fun. And the size/weight/battery of the Oxi which is awesome. I only do MIDI, not modular, or I might have favored it. They’re all great.
bought Hapax first, but the “Song” mode is not really the linear arranger that i was expecting it to be, so switched to Deluge for that (which is everything I need/want it to be). but especially after the 2.0 firmware from Squarp, now left waiting for Deluge to catch up on the MIDI FX side of things. a box that combined Hapax’s pattern composition tools and automation tracks with Deluge’s arranger mode would be perfect (never seriously looked at the Oxi for the issues you mentioned with mono/poly tracks)
One easy improvement would be to allow Hapax to rotate clip launch 90 degrees so clicking tracks 1-16 triggers the scene. Scenes 1-8 therefore select a track. And of course v2.0 brings a second view to get access to 9-16 tracks .
Personally I prefer a linear view of 16 variations, similar to Bitwigs clip launcher in its arranger view.
I am on day two now on the hapax - it surly has a learning curve, from my perspective it feels a lot like the midi part of Abelton, navigation is quick - and the ability to jam over pre recorded patterns, with snapshots - 2nd project which could have some complete alternative settings is just awesome.
Also the math step thing, is so integral to my patterns, after years of elektron sequencer, it feels great, and also integrates well with the elektrons (send pre program changes.) Easy instrument definitions, you could write yourself. For larger setups this is a dope device - latency compensation - the feature list is so crazy, and that you dont need an ERM clock - works as midi controller for your DAW. So far i am really impressed from the device, and its possible hands on workflow.
It feels also a lot different than my Push 1, which i had back in the day - where i always went back to mouse controls - sure i can imagine that Abelton might shorten the gap when they update the Push3 further with user requests, and open it up with max for live devices.
So not a real comparision to a Oxi - because i didnt have one to try it out - but i beliefe its for sure also a very good sequencer.
After reading the manual - i am even more blown away - track 16 on the sequencer can work as a “lead” track - which means - that other tracks will follow the transpose if configured to do so - its playable via key´s or the inbuild sequencer - this way you could have shorter sequences, which follow your playing , or you program a lead melody where everything else follows, or at least the melodic parts, the drum parts dont have this feature - but its for sure an imaginable idea to expand on with rhythms influencing rythms aswell - no only tunings. I will think about it, and make some suggestions to squarp - but this is really great engineering, workflow!
As these transpose with track 16 could also be used with the math function - you could set a trig with 1:8 , and only transpose after the 8th bar repeat - so your transpose pattern, could effectivly be short - with some long transpose notes, which trigger at different intervalls. I wish Elektron would integrate this in some way. Or maybe even Abelton live, that is a just mind blowing feature.
Resurrecting this thread to see if the comparison between Hapax and Oxi will change now that Oxi have announced the Oxi One Mk2.
Looking at the Mk2 specs and re-reading the comments here about Hapax vs Oxi, my sense is that some of the gap between Hapax and Oxi may have been closed with the Mk2 version.
For example, Oxi Mk2 seems to have better direct access (ie fewer key combos) to get to performance controls. And of course it is now 8 x multitracks not just 4.
As Oxi Mk2 begins to appear in the wild, it would be interesting to see how it stands up against the Hapax.
I have a Push 3 which I love but I’m in the market for a more complex generative MIDI controller to complement the Push. You can do a lot on a Push but generative MIDI is a weak point IMO.
I have both the Hapax and the OG Oxi One (with the mk2 on pre-order). Speaking from experience, if generative MIDI features are of primary importance for you, then I would suggest getting the Oxi One. Generative sequencers is where the Hapax is weakest, IMHO. This was the case even before Oxi One mk2 was announced.
Of course, this could drastically change with the next firmware update. But as it stands now, while it may have other advantages over the Oxi One, the Hapax is at a disadvantage when it comes to generative sequencing.
Agreed. I also have a push 3 (and also love it), and like the form factor of the Oxi. I miss my mk1, which I sold to help fund my mk2 pre order. Really looking forward to it.
Yes, good point! That is a factor for me as well, my desk space is tiny.
Oxi mk2 appeals because it could sit directly underneath and in front of the Push 3 and only raise by about 10-12cm or so. Couldn’t do that with the Hapax.
That’s good feedback, thanks. I’m basically looking for a controller to complement the Push 3 which IMO is overall pretty weak in generative MIDI (with honourable exceptions in the M4L universe like Fors). Push 3 is great for many things but doesn’t cut it alongside the more out-there creative sequencing apps. Oxi mk1 looked solid and mk2 seems to be a whole other level.
