I use FH2 + FHX expanders, the CVs/Gates outputs were not a requirement for me, just a bonus that I yet did not use. Maybe if I travel with a small modular system it will make total sense.
Still I would love to switch the FH2 for a 16bit CV equivalent. If you listen Squarp, make it expandable/modular, not only 8cv 8gates!
1 Like
yeah, I looked at the FH2 + FHX, its good…
but really Id like an expander that avoids MIDI altogether… so we have better resolution/performance.
(Id then keep the hermod for midi, which is fine 
)
what were the issues with the oxi? i’m curious about the comparison between hapax/oxi.
Id suggest heading over to the oxi product forum, that’s the best way to read about current user issues.
and also, if the manufacturer is planning on addressing them etc.
given its still pretty new, and under development, I think pretty important to get the ‘latest’ on it.
generally for comparing oxi/hapax , I think Loopop’s video are great, since he goes into enough details on features and workflow.at the heart, both are extremely powerful sequencers, so choosing will come down to differences: features, workflow, price, size, UI, IO…
so as I said, above… one may be perfect for one musician, yet really unsuitable for another due to different priorities… so take others opinions with a pinch of salt.
1 Like
in the early version of OXIs firmware there were quite a few bugs. They are working hard to fix them and do major improvements . I think i can say that a new big release is not too far from being published with new features, major workflow improvements and bug fixes.
Btw the Hapax has in its current early stage also many bugs , missing features etc.
I have both and i like both a lot. The OXI has an excellent mono-sequencer - thats really a big difference if you’re creating sequences for monophonic synths. I also like the pads better for live-playing.
Or the multitrack is a lot more flexible than the drummode on the Hapax. And if you’re into modular the OXI has twice as many CV/Gate connections, already supports different CV-scalings and also Gate with 10V. And in combination with the pipe there is a very, very convenient way to connect all 16 CV/Gates with just one HDMI cable.
The arp on the OXI is also more flexible and can easily be recorded to a step-sequencer.
Many features that are offered as FX on the Hapax are also there on the OXI, just differently implemented. I would say both devices are pretty similar in this matter.
And last but not least the OXI is a lot smaller - if you plan to take you sequencer with you, thats a big advantage.
But the Hapax has advantages due to it’s bigger size - the screens help for better overview and the additional buttons and encoders for certain commands are nice as you have a few less shift+button commands. And clearly it offers more tracks - 16 vs 4 on the OXI.
As cool and unique the track elasticity on the Hapax is - it’s missing a basic speed division feature. While you choose on the oxi simply a clock division 1 Bar to 1/32T you have to deal with track speed percentages on the Hapax.
If you’re into it: the OXI can work as a monomoe-grid controller. Wich on it’s own could be a reason for some to get an OXI instead of the hapax.
I think i could continue a while to name the pros and cons for each device. Im really serious: Get them both!
However both are on preorder currently - so you might have some time to think about it.
2 Likes
Forgive my ignorance, whats this monome mode your talking about?
monome grid is a controller for certain software to generate notes, etc … it’s almost a whole universe on it’s own
1 Like
Thanks for the reply.
I can see the hapax being the brain of a large setup, fairly stationary.
I sometimes like to bring 1 or 2 synths out of my studio to a desk for some experimenting, and I think the oxi portability is a big advantage there. How is the monophonic sequencer of the oxi better/different than hapax?
And what about the Korg SQ-64? or the torso electronics T-1? so much to choose from!
1 Like
yes, theres a lot of choice…
generally, however, I think we should stick to discussing squarp products on this forum… rather than wandering off to discuss various other options with no reference to these products
…after all they are the ones paying to keep the lights on here 
also frankly, there other forums, will give you access to a wider user bases of different products, as this forum is natural ‘tilted’ to squarp products. (*)
of course, comparing squarp products to others is ‘on topic’, though even there probably better to be asking about features etc, rather than subjective opinion which of course, will vary depending upon individual.
(*) edit: actually, I just noticed (didnt spot the username before) you also posted and we were having similar discussion there… essentially the same question on the Elektronauts forum… that does seem a much better place to discuss it, I think you’ll find a large overlap of users from here there anyway
totally hear you on that technobear. catch you on elektronauts!
1 Like
Right about speaking of related products on related forums. At the same time comparing products can leads to ideas that can push the concept forward.
Maybe those should go straight to feature request?
But, I have been reading some great ideas that came out on this topic.
Communication in between hapax and hermod
Having an hdmi companion to the hapax for modular duty.
of course, as I said… if it relates to Hapax (or other squarp products), so comparison or features we might like thats all the focus of this forum…
just, when we start talking exclusivley about other sequencers (*), without that references, its start to move off topic… and I think there are better places for that discussion.
e.g. you want to compare T-1 vs Oxi, perhaps Elektronauts or the Oxi Instruments Forum?
But for sure, I think if people have experiences with other sequencers, and think features could be cool on hapax (etc) , then of course, best to send these as feature requests via the contact form
again, let’s bare in mind, whilst of course this forum is a useful resource for those considering buying a Squarp product, its focus is also as a community resource to help users of Squarp products, so its good to keep some ‘focus’.
hdmi, not quite sure what you mean by this, there is no squarp product that could do this currently… it needs different hardware… if you are talking about a Hapax expander, I agree it would be useful - though I don’t think HDMI is the right way for that… unless its built into the unit (as was done for Oxi)
(*) I guess this is some kind of ‘social media’ etiquette for product forums…
I mean, if you go to the Ableton forum, sure, you might compare contrast Cubase to Ableton Live, but it’d be a bit ‘weird’ to start comparing Cubase to Bitwig and Fruity Loops
of course, I do understand that discussion move on, branch off in new directions… so you might start with Cubase vs Live, and move on… but then its arguable, its kind of moving off-topic
the OXI works with minimal cables -even completly without (if you trust bluetooth)
if you use the monophonic sequencer it’s so obvious … its not so easy to explain:
imagine you have a monophonic synth and want to program a bassline
with a polyphonic sequencer you always have to watchout for other notes on the same step/column
as this might sound strange if notes overlap
in a monophonic sequencer you don’t have to think about that and just press or record for each step/column the note you like have
its just quicker, more convenient
please forget the SQ64… that by no means comparable to the OXI or Hapax
it’s a simple sequencer… it can be inspiring at times, but overall i didn’t like it too much
the splitting between gates and pitch is really annoying. Yes the idea is clear , it can have advantages to separate gates from pitches … but not for me. I always felt annoyed that i have to switch permanently between the two modes.
The tiny and very dark UI with wobbly buttons didn’t make this better.
Also you HAVE TO save AND turn it off with the power button, otherwise your patterns are lost. Thats such a nightmare.
2 Likes
thanks all. love squarp, and will probably own a hapax one day as the master brain for my setup (now its still the octatrack, because I also love the sample feature), but for now I seem to be moving towards the oxi…it seems to be available sooner too
I sold my OXI to fund my recently arrived Hapax. My views (as a non-modular maker with 4 synths and a sampler)
OXI pros (over Hapax)
- MUCH smaller size. Being able to play it on my lap was a lovely experience.
- Build quality is great. The Hapax is very disappointingly finished (lots of sharp edges on the box), plasticky, and generally feels like an inferior build quality compared to the OXI and Pyramid. Made me a bit sad when unboxing.
- Chord player felt a bit more immediate on the OXI to me - possibly just because it has fewer modifiers
- OLED screens are lovely
OXI cons (compared to Hapax)
- So much stuff hidden behind awkward multi-button combos (Hapax has a bit of this, but much less than the Pyramid thanks to the dedicated buttons)
- I found the menu very unintuitive, buttons felt like they weren’t grouped in a meaningful way and some of the workflow took me longer than any other sequencer I’ve used.
- Grid buttons feel more responsive on Hapax
- The main reason I sold the OXI: track limitations. 3 poly and one drum track just weren’t enough for me. I know you can have multiple mono tracks on a drum track, but I found that entering melodic sequences that way was super slow and completely at odds with the reason I bought a grid-based sequencer.
3 Likes
Interesting that you see Pyramid as being built better than Hapax. Maybe it is but it doesn’t seem like it to me. Something about the shape of the Pyramid gives it a hollow feeling to me where the Hapax feels more solid to me because it is a normal solid shape. Hapax buttons, pads, and screens all seem like upgrades to me and there is no part of the machine that feels as weak as the XY touchpad on the Pyramid.
1 Like
Have to agree. The Pyramid might be all metal, but the Hapax is much more nicely made and finished.
Also, all the edges are rounded apart from the lid, so not sure about that one?
2 Likes
I think the pyramid and hapax are both well made, but have different first impressions.
my first impression when I got the hapax was its was more ‘function over form’… more utilitarian.
I think the pyramid looks nice, its got a nice angled design, its feels quite sleek, compact.
whereas, the hapax is very much a black box, with lots of buttons. its also I think a lot deeper than one might expect.
I think this hits first impressions (unfairly?), as we are so used to these things getting sleeker/smaller.
but if you look at the hapax closely, and when you get familiar with its functions, its hard to see how it could be smaller, without compromising usability…
( smaller screens, smaller pads, less function buttons, no full size din, only usb host or device?)
and I guess, thats where we have to look at the ‘target market’…
this is a ‘pro sequencer’ to control everything, in that sense, Im happy with it taking up a bit more space, having more ‘ui space’ … and I think one that also has space to grow, without getting too reliant on ‘shortcuts’ (*)
so yeah, I think this utilitarian look, is perhaps less ‘apple - wow’ than others, in use, I think the form factor has proven itself (to me) , and I think is a bit more ‘future proof’.
of course, if you want/need something small/sleek e.g. for a small portable seutp, then that may sway your choice other ways. but overall, I think having choice for different target audiences is important too.
(*) btw: I don’t think this is by accident… this comes from the experience Squarp gained from the Pyramid over the years.
the Pyramid has matured really nicely over the years, with lots of new functions - but the UI space became ‘cramped’ as functions were adding, whereas you can see the Hapax has space to ‘grow’
i guess the counterpoint to that is how much Hapax’s functions are being constrained by the form factor, e.g., with Pyramid you just used the < > buttons to scroll through “pages” of patterns or tracks, which made having 32 patterns or 64 tracks in total no big deal. if putting all those functions on a single “page” with Hapax – like only 8 patterns per track solely because the grid is 8 rows high – then i’m less of a fan of the choice. i’m hoping, like Pyramid, the ultimate Hapax workflow expands to go beyond its current limitations
1 Like
This is interesting to me. Looking at pictures (I don’t have mine yet, in the September batch), I am surprised how deep/tall the Hapax is, especially when compared to a lot of other grid based pad controllers (e.g. Linnstrument, Oxi, Play, Circuit, Launch, Push and even Force). I wonder why? What’s inside the box that needed all that space? I don’t mind, and I assume there’s a perfectly legitimate engineering reason, but just curious what’s going on “under the hood.”