T-1 vs NDLR vs Oxi One

The Lounge Other Gear
#1

Hi everyone!

so in this current age, we are lucky to have many options when it comes to sequencers. However, with that, there also comes the necessity to choose!

I’m curious about how T-1 compares to Oxi one and Hapax.

For me; what I want from the sequencer is the ability to quickly create a nice sequence when I have no inspiration to program it myself. I would want to use it on both drum machines as analog synths, so both rythmic, but also melodic sequences.

I also have an octatrack, so not necessarily looking for a brain for the entire studio, more an idea generator.

Any opinions / advice is highly appreciated! anyone aware of a video/page that compares them all?

thanks!

1 Like
#2

Not sure if anyone owns them all and I’m yet to see a comparison between all three. They all offer different takes on the same thing, with varying levels of depth and feedback.

The Torso T1 has the least amount of feedback, having no screen, so it relies on a lot of memorisation, a bit like a Novation Launchpad. Not sure about the MIDI and CV I/O aspect.

The Squarp Hapax has the most feedback as it has two screens and way more pads than the T1. It’s also the newest with the least amount of coverage from a user perspective. Decent MIDI and CV I/O.

The Oxi One is in the middle in terms of feedback - as many pads as the Hapax and one useful screen. This is the one I own and I’m very happy with it. Exceptional MIDI and CV I/O, plus Bluetooth MIDI. Also benefits from having an internal battery.

They’re all really, really good. I would love to use a T1 and a Hapax but at the moment I’m completely happy with the Oxi One.

2 Likes
#3

I only have the T1 so cant compare but from watching videos of the others they all seem to have their own strengths and differences

I find the T1 quick to create sequences and with no screen its very much a tweak and listen process. Quite organic and i often get a result I hadn’t foreseen if that makes sense?

The other 2 look excellent and id be happy with any of them, tough decision to make

2 Likes
#4

None is better than the other - they all have different features and workflows, and ‘focus’.
one may gel with you more or less, or better suit your requirements.

Hearing from others, X suits them, won’t really mean it’s the best choice for you.

Your best bet is to watch Loopop’s videos on each, to get an idea of features, then go from there. Trick really is deciding which of these feature is important to you.

(He is probably the least likely to have a bias.)

4 Likes
#5

I saw the videos, it seems like the hapax and oxi are more focused on ‘planning’ your sequence and program it and the T1 is more about randomizing?

To the oxi users: how is the oxi in terms of happy accidents/randomize features?

#6

I was asking this question myself the other day,

Shouldn’t Pyramid be included as well?

1 Like
#7

kind of… though theres a lot of overlap…
obviously the Torso is focused on a Euclidean/Generative approach, so if this is your primary use-case, then seems a strong contender.

Hapax, however, does also have a lot in this area, with both Algos and FX… but its taking a very different approach - also its v1 firmware, and we are promised more Algos, so I think its going to become stronger in this area.

and the Oxi similarly has randomisation features…
(and again is still in development, so perhaps more will come?)

but all take a rather different approach.

if I was just after generative, I think the TS-1 would be very temping.
as a mix, I think Hapax… but if you want something small/portable then perhaps TS-1/Oxi.

if generative is not your only requirement, there are so many other differences,
size, input/output, power, price…

@phading, yeah, Id throw Pyramid in the mix… Ive been pointing this out on the Hapax post.
there are some really good (used) deals on the pyramid, and indeed, in terms of features its still a top sequencer (esp, if you like polyrhythms) … and the Euclid function on the Pyramid is excellent. so on (used) price, its unbeatable at the moment :wink:

all that said, frankly all these sequencers are so powerful, I doubt they will hold any one back… I think in many cases, you might just have to approach it differently, but you’ll get to a similar result.

2 Likes
#8

For generative the Oxi One has been a star for me. Euclidean, harmonising melodies to chords (or vice versa), stochastic sequencing, looping sections, random semi-random pattern generation (in or out of your key of choice), randomising the velocity of a lane (perfect for hi-hats) plus an overall random perform feature makes it incredible for coming up with organic tunes. Can’t speak for the others but I’m eager to try them.

1 Like
#9

I ridiculously own a hapax, T1 and Toriaz squid (which the op should definitely consider part of the list above).

To be honest, i don’t think the t1 can be considered interchangeably with the others - it is more of an instrument - and for me doesn’t perform utility functions without being frustrating.

That is not to say the Oxi (of which I have no experience but did strongly consider during the crowd funding) or the Hapax or the Squid aren’t instruments, but I feel that they are sequencers first, algorithmic generators 2nd.

The T1 is musical with its output: it generates quite lovely sequences, but i find it’s very momentary. You can easy mess it all up, or not at all find something good. It’s no good as a general sequencer, as simple things are very laborious or not available at all.

The hapax is an amazing sequencer at both pattern and track levels. It’s so intuitive and complete. It’s very expensive but I’d say easily worth given the range of functions. There’s still loads of room for growth I know, but its miles behind the T1 for musical generative stuff imo. But it guess thats kind of the point with the 2 devices.

The squid is like the blueprint for the hapax in many respects - and it still has a great workflow, connectivity and some awesome randomisation options. The harmonising buttons are a brilliant function. Compared to the hapax it’s lacking, especially with the 64 steps and not much per step automation; but for less than half the price 2nd hand, it is a great sequencer.

6 Likes
#10

And in answer to your question: out of the hapax and the T1, I’d say the sequencer you’ve outlined in your description is the t1 - all it really does is create ideas.

3 Likes
#11

Thanks! It seems its between t-1 and oxi for me at the moment

#12

But which one sounds the best? :thinking:

8 Likes
#13

wait and what about the Korg SQ-64

never seen that one before.

darn, so much to choose from!

#14

I have Oxi One and T-1 and really like them. They are two different beasts as decribed earlier. Oxi One fits my workflow best because I like gridbased sequencers such as Deluge. Ordered a Hapax and therefore I think I will enjoy it too. Haven’t tried the Korg SQ-64, but it doesn’t seem half as fun as Oxi One. Perhaps I’m wrong.

1 Like
#15

I’ve come to realise this too. This makes it hard to choose, I currently have the T-1, Oxi One, and NDLR and think i’m keeping them all.

  • T-1 has a unique layout which almost forces you to unexpected results, especially strong for multitrack/drum kind of sequences imo (euclidian). Cons: sometimes a bit ‘too’ unexpected and hard to keep track of what you are doing (no screen). Also difficult to dial in exact BPMs.

  • NDLR does not give much freedom in terms of the sequencing itself, and chord mode/harmonizer also exists in oxi one, but the way NDLR helps you to trigger the chord progressions in a musical way is really unique.

  • Oxi One: I think the most capable of the bunch, if you’d have to choose one, then choose this one I’d say. You can do so much with it, but that might also be the downside… jack of all trades…kind of thing. Do love the uniqueness of the stochastic mode though, and the grid is really nice.

2 Likes
#16

Just to create some reading material (and because I’m looking into a more mobile sequencer for a new project), one aspect that I’m curious to ask:

How do these different options perform outside of creating gates/pitch, so modulation lanes? Any sequencer that can easily create lfos and random cvs on the spot is good value in a small Eurorack.

My only external sequencer for my 6U Eurorack is two Rytm Tom tracks that I’ve muted and use for midi via an FH2 by expert sleepers. But it’s bothersome to try and use the midi steps as modulation via pitch or velocity.

Any of you use T1 or Oxi One for modulation lanes like a couple of lfos?

#17

Does anyone have an Oxi One and NDLR? How do the chord functions and harmonizer function compares?

#18

The harmonizer works much the same, with the advantage of having more control over the harmonized sequences.

Chord triggering is different, but you could use it in a very similar way.

With NDLR you trigger chord intervals which your pad responds to, but with Oxi what youre more likely to do is use your pad to harmonise your sequences.

NDLR has some good LFO options for moving the arps around, Oxi doesnt quite have the same options but has lots of modulation possibilities that arent possible with NDLR.

2 Likes
#19

What would you guys recommend in techno live improvisation use case ? I am not looking for the most features but best “hands one” experience live. I will still use Ableton for producing/composing. I am sure the OXI has more features than the Torso but I am not sure which one will give me the most musical results ?

1 Like
#20

Techno workflow with Elektron and Oxi One

Techno workflow with Elektron and Torso T-1

These are two nice examples with the two machines.

I don’t own either but I’d like to add a T-1 to my toolbox, just to have that “instrument like” feeling to make some more random jams, as opposed to the more deterministic Hapax and Elektron workflows that I’m more used to.

Oxi to me feels more an in between box, able to do bread and butter stuff as well as generative/random crazyness, but it feel a bit too cramped on the UI side.

If I have to choose only one I’d go with the Oxi, but given you’re using Ableton I guess the T-1 is a no brainer for your use case, with the added playbility and that tactile feeling, leaving the DAW for the more structured stuff, so to use either tool for the job they’re designed to do better

2 Likes