@michaeljk1963 My thoughts exactly!
Given that this big box weighs less than 1.9kg, what’s in there?
Never the less, I wait with baited breath…
I opened mine up and it’s just full of bees. Dozens of them.
1 Like
They must be very busy bees!
My guess would be that the board with the grid, screen and knobs on sits above the board that has ports on it. And since the midi din ports add a lot of depth to that lower part, we end up with the depth of the Hapax as it is.
Nice catch. (Obviously) hadn’t noticed this before.
yeah, I think the full size midi din are a large factor in the depth.
on that page, you can also see a cad design of the lower board
that said, I’m wonder if it could be a bit thinner… e.g. look at the Octatrack which is a bit shallower (and has full size midi din too) … but honestly its not much.
if we 'enhanced the above image a bit, we can see there is some ‘spacing’ on the bottom case…
though in fairness, not much, and you do need strengthening with plastic housing (which I assume what the ‘struts’ are for)
I guess the main thing you could say is the main board (which is deep) is only 2/3rds of the unit, ie. doesn’t come to the front - but hard to see what that could be used , and the dimension here is dictated by the grid size.
anyway, tis what it is…
in practice, width/height is given by the UI/grid, and the depth is only marginally more than Elektrons.
so overall, feels like its the size it needs to be, without compromising UI or things like full size midi din.
When I first got mine, I was a little disappointed that the top cover wasn’t slanted similar to the Pyramid (I also have some Elektron stuff I’ve bought brackets for to put an angle on. But I guess there’s probably just as many people who are annoyed by slanted interfaces that flat ones, and it’s not really that big a deal. End of the day it’s a design choice, and I didn’t design it, so who am I to argue. It’s far from annoying.
yeah, seemed 50/50 with Elektron those preferring the mk2 (slanted/bigger) vs the mk1 (original/boxy) form factor.
I think Elektron showed the trade-off well… to add a bit of ‘style’ you can’t reduce the size (tech internals remain the same), so are you willing to ‘spread out a bit in size’, or compromise functions to get it sleeker? some are happy for this, others not so much.
back on topic (but keeping on form factor) ,
the oxi one does look nice, but it compromises with single trs midi in/out.
also compared to the hapax, its got a lot less UI space (less encoders, less buttons, one screen).
that is going to compromise what it can do mid-term, whilst you can do ‘anything’ in software, if you keeping adding more and more functions the UI will become increasingly cryptic.
however tons of features is not what everyone wants/needs.
there are lots of great sequencers, that are pretty simple…
so the compact nature of the oxi (and lots of CV outputs) are going to be a win for some.
for others, they may not mind the extra size of the Hapax, prefer the more ‘hands on’ UI, and full size din etc… (and hopefully more future proofing)
there is no perfect sequencer or instrument for everyone, we all have different needs, and designers have conflicting design choices … where they chose to prioritise some choices over others is where the differences emerge, and how it suits some more than others.
I think often the issue here, is some (YouTubers ?) like to think there is a ‘perfect solution’, that the next big thing will be perfect for all scenarios, that there is a ‘right way’ to make a sequencer/instrument, and thats simply nonsense. there are many different ways, different choices and different priorities.
therefore, as buyers, part of our buying process is to decide which products match our needs as closely as possible… which compromises we are willing to live with.
thats how you can chose between a hapax/oxi one/pyramid or any other sequencer.
I can, definitely see, different people would make completely different choices on this… or even buy more than one, for different scenarios (e.g. studio use vs portable live, or modular vs other gear)
none is the right choice for everyone, all will have compromises.
… only way to get the perfect combo for yourself is to design/build/code your own 
I am a much bigger fan of the Mk 1s. The Mk 2s have a few things like dedicated buttons for things that are shift-functions on the originals, but other than that, Mk 1 all the way, baby. They’ve got that industrial utilitarian look which is a bit lost in the rounded edges of the Mk 2s. But that’s just personal preference.
but also the angle on the brackets I installed is a lot steeper than the Mk 1, and they take up less desk space, both winners for me.
Agree on everything else, too. You can’t moan too much on design choices if you are relying on someone else to design and build it for you. Some things might be insane (not on the Hapax, but used a few bits of a gear that some things are proper WTF-ery - I mean the sequencer on the TB-303 is a prime example, but I sure still love that box) but mostly it’s just that the people who designed it designed what they wanted, not necessarily you.
2 Likes
Well, this leads me to think some of us (not me) might want to give a thought to our own designs. I came across this invitation the other day from Roger Linn (creator of the Linnstrument, LinnDrum and Tempest and early MPC stuff): Invitation to class on instrument design.
1 Like
not if you want to still have time to make any music 
I do a bit of music dev work, and can say it takes a lot of time to build something that most would consider pretty ‘simple’ … the main ‘advantage’ is you can focus on only features you need, you can also go pretty ‘crazy’, stuff that makes little sense to anyone else
but, on the flip side, means its not going to be much interest to others.
but indeed, its a fun thing to do, and these days there are plenty of platforms to build on…
(but it’ll likely stop your music making for a while! )
You could say the same of people who use MAX/MSP, puredata, Supercollider and even Reaktor for that matter…
Hell, even my Nord Modular was a huuuuge rabbit hole for a long time, and that’s relatively simple.
Although I have had a mad idea of building my own mixer, King Tubby style.
I was thinking more about just wanting to know how this stuff that I use all the time gets built. These mystery boxes are kind of like magic to me.
4 Likes
As a person who is absolutely obsessed with external sequencers, and have tried nearly all of them, I bought the Oxi One as soon as it was available for pre-order. The build quality is truly excellent and the development gets two thumbs up from me. It’s clearly a project of love. It has some incredibly well thought-out functionality and I always come up with interesting stuff when using it. But damn - there is something about its operation that feels so alien to me. There are a lot of shift-press functionality hidden everywhere and while it’s not difficult (after a couple of days you get it) the operation feels quite “fragmented” if that makes any sense.
But when it’s running and you got all set up - it’s really inspiring.
/Carl
2 Likes
I have Hapax and Oxi One.
I’m no expert in any of those, but what I experienced is that they both do things that is great in their own way.
Like that Hapax had alot of encoders/buttons. Easy to see what is going on on the two screens. Like the gridpads alot.
Oxi One is small and portable and has a great build quality. Excellent communication with the users. Superfast firmware updates.
It feels like they are build for different things. I use Hapax with my big setup in my studio and Oxi One with my smaller setup when I want to jam with my iPad, MC-101 etc.
2 Likes
(I’d say the cv pipe also gives the oxi a small advantage over hapax ‘out of the box’, but then again, many of us, already have midi->cv modules… so its not massive)
yeah, to me its clear they are two very different target audiences/use-cases.
frankly, the comparison is a bit apples n’ oranges - naturally, people want to compare, because many want one or another, and want it to cover both bases … which either can, with some compromises which may or may not be fine, depending upon user.
(and frankly YouTube reviewers loving creating head-to-head … but be aware they also move very quickly to the ‘next big thing’ )
as for firmware/support, again, different , but to me, evidence is both companies are very strong in this area.
Oxi has been great,
but look at what Squarp have done with Pyramid/Hermod over the years… Squarp’s reputation is well deserved, hence the anticipation of the Hapax !
I think over next 6-12 months the differences between the Oxi One and Hapax will grow significantly…
partly because Oxi had a small head start.
but more significantly, the extra size of the Hapax is to incorporate a large UI footprint (screens/buttons/encoders) …
Oxi will at some point be constrained by it size and/or its UI will become cluttered with dozens of shortcuts/menus etc…
of course thats true at some point with the anything, including hapax, but the larger ui footprint, means thats much further off… (also its dual mcu hardware!)
e.g. the algo/fx features of the hapax, show how far this could go, without ui constraints.
so thats what I mean by the ‘gap growing’ between the two…
the oxi will remain a portable / powerful sequencer
the hapax, just looks to be more aimed at the powerhouse route
also, some forget…
the Hapax was not born out of ‘thin air’
it was born out of the experience gained from the Pyramid, the 1000s of user requests, the wish to add features to the Pyramid, but finding it ‘pinned in’ by the UI. the adding of features (like patterns) later, and how compromises had to be made.
do not underestimate that… as a very experienced developer, I can tell you v2 of anything is a *huge leap, well beyond the surface of what the user sees… that is the tip of the iceberg, but how you code it, and how that pertains to future plans and features you’d like to add.
… that experience cannot be bought/planned, its hard earned!
so quite different…
the oxi has a ton of features and is portable . that may be all you need…
on the flip side, the hapax is not that big (its all comparative), so perhaps portable enough for some… and that want those extra features.
2 Likes
I absolutely agree! I have both the Hapax and Oxi One, and while the Oxi is fun and portable (and has some unique sequencing ideas), it is certainly not built for a medium to large studio with multiple midi instruments. I have a cirklon too, which has traditionally been seen as the powerhouse hardware midi sequencer, and I think the Hapax is quickly cementing its place in that arena.
2 Likes
ooh, Id love to know more about the cirklon… its kind of unobtainable for many of us. (not only price, but actual availability too… )
I doubt it’d be fair on either Hapax or Cirklon to compare directly… again different larget uses etc.
but I just enjoy sequencers, just learning how their workflow operate I find fascinating (rather than feature lists) … as it often highlights an ‘intended’ approach to making music - perhaps its just I like hearing about musical workflows.
The other interesting part of Cirklon is (like Squarp), Sequentix have been specialising in sequencers for years, fine tuning their workflow and firmware … which as I mentioned above, I think is a priceless experience.