HApax or Oxi One?

Was on my way to buy an Oxi when the Apax just popped up …

Mostly working on modular, the Apax is missing some connectivity for my taste.

Any thoughts from the community?

I have both now. I just ordered my Hapax

While the PXI looks amazing…

  1. it’s only pre order, while Hapax is already available
  2. it’s half price but half features too :wink:

Not sure it’s even worth comparing as it seems more a traditional sequencer, while Hapax offers things you won’t find in almost any other hardware sequencer.

BTW, it’s Hapax and not Apax :smile:

To be a little fair, OXI was an indiegogo and some folks have received theirs which is just to say that it is more ‘back ordered’ than ‘preorder’ The OXI also makes different choices (regarding half features). Bluetooth and battery power are both significant along with (much more niche but the reason that I looked at OXI ONE) Monome mode.

They are very different things, as you’ve said.

Yes. I have both the OXI and the Eurorack Pipe companion. The biggest thing (for me) the OXI has going over it is the battery life and bluetooth. However, as a Force owner, I also have a large brick battery that can do 15V so perhaps I’ll be able to make the Hapax “portable”.

I have had an OXI for 2 months, and have finished 5 full tracks on it. I sold it yesterday to fund the Hapax I bought the day before. Once I have the Hapax I can do a full compare contrast, but based on Jeremy and Marks videos I am pretty sure it fixes some of the issues I had with the OXI.

2 Likes

Comparing feature by feature is important, because ultimately one will be better than the other for any user’s specific needs. Even it the features and connectivity were 1:1 the same between the two, I choose Squarp because they’ve already proven themselves to:

  1. be of reliable build over time
  2. know how to support a product well after launch and several iterations
  3. know how to prioritize feature suggestions when doing OS updates
  4. have a robust user community
  5. still understand the needs of the particular niche of “performance oriented desktop MIDI-hardware musicians” and not just blend it all in with the eurorack scene
5 Likes

I had an Oxi ONE on order which I have now cancelled. I wrote a spec for my ‘dream sequencer’ in December as every one I have used has had some feature(s) I like but is missing others, or does something in a way that makes things trickier than they should be. I landed on the Oxi as it ticked the most important boxes and was due to receive it this month. Once I saw the feature list for Hapax and watched the videos of the workflow, I found that it ticked, well, basically, everything! I am rather shocked. It is like they have built my sequencer for me!

I think the Oxi ONE is likely a better proposition if you have a fairly decent modular setup. Having 8 CV outs and 8 gates is pretty awesome. I don’t have a modular setup and need good MIDI connectivity, so the 4 assignable outs and 16 tracks as opposed to 4 - along with a lot of other stuff - wins it for me.

I do love the size of the Oxi ONE though; very slim. It is also quite a bit cheaper, so that is a consideration.

I still can’t believe Squarp have added the dual project capability. That is something I had on my feature list I never thought would happen :joy:

6 Likes

yeah, I think OXI ONE using an HDMI cable to carry 8 cv/gate to a (passive) eurorack modules was inspired… its such a great way to not have a ton of cables from desktop sequencer to your rack.

(ok, we have seen similar things in eurorack to transport signals from rack to rack… so its not new, but that doesn’t take away from them actually doing it !)

I do really like having the sequencer on the desk rather than in a rack, its far more ergonomic.
so when using my main rack, I use Hapax, in a similar way to how I used Pyramid… I use a USB MIDI cable from Hapax → Hermod.
ok, ideally, cv/gate is better, but in practice, find 99% of the time, midi is fine between these devices.
also as you can see in my latest video… I also use a hybrid of midi and the built in cv/gate.

if im hapax with a small rack the built-in 4 cv/gate is usually enough… so I do like having the built in.


What Id love to see… is @squarpadmin produce a usb based CV expander for Hapax!

the issue I find is too many solutions max out at 8 cv/gate…
thats not really enough, sure I don’t have 8 voices, but I want as much (analog) modulation as possible.
so I tend to find im using 4cv/gate, and then 4 cv for modulation (one per voice) is not really enough.

so my dream Hapax CV expander would be:

  • USB device
  • Hapax would recognise as extra CV/Gate (rather than midi channels!)
  • 16 cv output
  • 8 gate output - can also be used for clock/run out
  • 4 cv/gate in - can also be used for clock/run in
  • of course, run in parallel to existing 4 cv/gates we have.
  • just jacks/usb, nothing else … so ‘small ish’

why this rather than use midi->cv, something like Endorphin’s shuttle control.
because it could use a protocol , that allows at (or near) audio rate, and at high resolution.

its almost a cross between an expert sleepers FH2 and ES8…

if you could knock that up @Thibault_Squarp , that’d be awesome :wink:

4 Likes

Yes having a usb cv/gate expender for the hapax would be awesome. Have an Hermod already, sound a bit redundant to connect the Hapax to it.

yeah, my poor Hermod gets pretty much used as cv->midi->cv most of the time.

thats said, I do like having a sequence in the rack… just in case I don’t want to connect something else.
(but the problem is , I find having a sequencer on the desktop SO much more comfortable to use)

I also do like to record CV into Hermod … those 4 cv in on hermod are :heart_eyes:

This could move me out of the FH-2 eco-system in my big rack.

I ended up replacing my Hermod with an Expert Sleepers FH-2 & FHX-8CV. It does a lot more in less space. That said, if I was ever building a standalone “modular groovebox” again I’d certainly use Hermod + an external MIDI keyboard!

And mpe support like the shuttle

i will have both … OXI One is great. One of the most intuitive and inspiring sequencer i used so far.
I don’t know for the Hapax yet … waiting for mine to be shipped.

1 Like

some of the points are true for the OXI One as well.
Obviously, as they are a new company they couldn’t prove yet if their product is build reliable … but the Oxi One feels very well made so far. Also i have absolutely no doubt they will support their product in the future.
For feature suggestions they are way more open and fast reacting then Squarp in all the years was.
The OXI One is not yet fully released (preorder production ongoing) and there is already an active community.
The makers of the OXI One are also musicians and beta-testing with some live-oriented musicians and always have good usability in mind.

To be honest i don’t agree with your opinion. I understand one likes to get a good reliable instrument for his money , but if everybody would be so conservative , new companys would have a very hard time to get on the market.
To me the OXI One is a refreshing concept and feels way more intuitive than the Pyramid (i can’t compare it yet to the Hapax).

I’m looking forward to test my Hapax soon and learn the strength of both concepts.

3 Likes

I dont have an Hapax yet to compare but some Oxi pro :

  • Multitrack mode (equivalent of drum mode on the Hapax) - you can set a different midi channel per track, note offset, automation, etc. You can also use multitrack to record melody (step by step or in realtime).
  • The Harmonizer is powerful and very creative.
  • You can modulate time division, gate and note probability with LFO (good for generative stuff)
  • Glide !
  • 8 cv and 8 gates
  • parameters lock exactly like Elektron- Its a different way of creating automation (depend what you prefer, Hapax is more like a DAW)

If you need something more like a Daw, some kind of midi hub to plug all your synths the Hapax looks very very powerful. The Hapax also have some very nice tools for generative music. You are also not limited to 128 steps per pattern like the Oxi.

Note : Both sequencer are new and will probably get new features with time.

Myself i will probably get both since they have different workflow :slight_smile:

I think once you’re getting to this kind of price range (400+ euros?), all will do a great job of sequencing, and you’re differences are particular features, and workflow…
and which are important, really is going to depend on your use-case, what features do you need, and also preference.

e.g.
the oxi’s portability,
the pyramid’s ‘infinite’ number of steps,
the hapax’s dual project (loading in background?)

anyone one of these may be critical to a particular user … or not…
do you even need any of these?
perhaps something like the Octatrack where midi sequencer is only a part, is enough.
or you need a cirklon ?!

then we have ‘potential’ , always a tricky thing to grasp… as its down to what’s delivered…

Oxi has been ‘released’ for a while now (to limited users? since Jan?) , so benefited from firmware iterations based on user feedback. I suspect great progress has been made in this time.
Hapax, has only been in (limited number of) users hands for a week or so, so too early for firmware updates still.
What will the Hapax look like in June, when the next batch is made available ?!

the good news I think both sets of devs are responsive, and inevitably they are going to be getting a ton of feature requests inspired by the ‘other’ machine … and that I think is a good / healthy thing (well for us as users at least !)

Going to be alot of fun, to see things move forward on both devices,
and its great that we have choice!

This !

1 Like

I have Oxi One and it is amazing to sit in the sofa and make music with iPad via Bluetooth.

Ordered a Hapax and it will be amazing to sit in my little studio making music.

So for me, two amazing devices with different workflow and different uses. :slight_smile:

4 Likes