Just wanted to share my experience with the Oxi One MK2.
Short report: I sent it back after a few weeks.
The Oxi has a few fun things to explore (especially rolls/retrigs with acceleration or deceleration, and of course the other generative features are enjoyable too). But all in all, it was just one device too many. I even paired the Oxi and Hapax in a way that allowed me to start Oxi patterns from Hapax patterns—but it became too complicated and, in the end, unnecessary.
I also tried replacing the Hapax with the Oxi for a while, and that was a real pain. The Hapax is just so user-friendly, with everything exactly where it should be. The dual displays are fantastic, and with the Oxi having nearly all its controls cramped on the left side, that difference became even more obvious to me.
From a songwriter’s perspective, I think the Oxi absolutely cannot compete with the Hapax. By the way, I had the Oxi One MKI before I even got anHapax, and I really tried hard, for quite a while, to like it. But after switching to the Hapax, I was ready to produce in a very short time.
I just want to tell Squarp as a company how much this product means to me. There must be some truly fantastic and brilliant people working there, and I really hope you stick to your philosophies and strategies so we can continue to enjoy your creations for years to come.
One thing is probably a little better on the Oxi: The buttons feel more like “press me please master”. The Hapax buttons are still a little to stiff for my taste.
I see the “Hapax vs. Oxi One” dialogue as being analogous to the “Ableton vs. Bitwig” conversation. They both do a lot of things really well, and they both have features that the other could benefit from.
My experience (so far) has been the opposite of yours. Ever since I got the Oxi One mk2 I haven’t been able to move away from it, even when I tried. Every time I try using the Hapax, I find myself thinking “I wish I hade mininum and maximum CC values for modulation”, or “I wish I had an advanced Euclidiean sequencer and accumulator”, or “I wish I had groove templates (they really make a difference)”, or “I wish I could have different lengths and time divisions for each individual drum lane so that I could create interesting polyrhythms” etc. I spend so much time wishing the Hapax had features that I can already get on the Oxi One mk2, that I find myself going back.
That said, having dual screens is a game-changer. And I like the say the drum sequencer is setup on the Hapax vs. the Oxi One (despite the comparative limitations of the Hapax drum sequencer). And even though I prefer the way the Oxi One’s modulation setup over the Hapax (I prefer columns to drawing curves), the parameter default feature on the Hapax might seem trivial. But it is far and away one of my favorite features of not only the Hapax, but of any sequencer I have.
I really appreciate the Hapax and its power. But it still feels like it’s in “untapped potential” phase as I feel like it’s still missing some basic features for a sequencer of its reputation. I currently do not have plans to buy a Reliq (which is still in the infancy stages of its development), but it’s got my attention. If there is any sequencer that is poised to take the crown of “most advanced sequencer” from the Hapax, it’s the Reliq.
I’m not saying this to put the Squarp team down. As I’ve said before on this forum, I’m hoping that they are inspired by these other sequencers to push the Hapax forward even more. Rather than being a downer on Squarp, I like to see myself as a season ticket holder for my local team looking at other teams make acquisitions and advancements hoping to see my team do the same to keep up with the rest of the league.
hapax could have some basics, but i think they are on the way. at least a few. its already advanced in many ways. i see it as a really amazing synth sequencer but ill use my mpc for drums, thanks.
btw you could probably make hapax control reaper and get similar functionality to reliq. it would be digital tho. but as long as youre doing it right you can get great results. of course youll need a goofy computer to take with you. i heard it was possible! but theres only one lfo per track on reliq??? i need more and lots of options and hapax does it pretty nice!
my bet is there will be a number of charming features added over time. the next update is impressive i hope!
I use the Hapax to control Bitwig (it’s sooo good and the modulation options are just so insanely well implemented deep into the core of Bitwig) only no hardware synth. And it’s incredible fun. I record clips with an Erae 2 for example and sequence even those clips from the Hapax. So the full song is always created with the Hapax.
Yeah, this is a limitation of the Reliq sequencer. I think they try to make up for it by having up to 128 different LFO shapes (8 per track, I think that’s how it works?) that you can sequence between to get some interesting variations. I’m not the sort to use a ton of LFOs, but if Hapax were to offer multiple LFO shapes per track in a future update, I’d be very pleased.
Another limitation of the Reliq (at least currently) is that there are only 4 midi effects per track while the Hapax has twice that amount. The only midi effect it currently has available is an arpeggiator, which looks quite basic.
I think the appeal of the Reliq (or at least one of the main appeals) is that it has the look and feel of a DAW without having to actually use a DAW (if that’s your preference). And it offers crazy routing via a breakout box, though I predict Squarp will have something similar for Hapax soon.
I feel like Hapax much like I feel like the upcoming Starfield update/expansion: the silence and length of time since the last update must mean they’re cooking up something awesome . . .
1700 bucks for reliq… seems like itll be worth that at least! i think there is room for all of these sequencers and every one will have its strength. i dont think you can have too many sequencers! as long as you have great sound sources to sequence!
controlling bitwig sounds fun. im that way with reaper but im sure bitwig is hella deep and intuitive. i was a big fan of short circuit sampler and if the thinking is similar then im sure it would be good. im working on getting into the live 10 suite i bought but never used lol! it works great on my modules but crashes more than reaper. reaper hardly ever crashes and you can use it indefinitely. its only $75! live wants close to $300 for the upgrade to 12 suite.
hapax and plugins is definitely a great combo. i sure hope they round out the tempo sync divisions in the next release! its basically game over after those drop.
I bought a Hapax while waiting for my Oxi One MkII pre-order since I’m impatient and needed an external sequencer for my MIDI and CV gear. Originally I had fully intended to sell off one of them after having time to use both, but now a couple months into ownership of each I am going to keep them both. For most of my writing tasks I prefer the Hapax due to a few core things like the step editing being more intuitive for changing note length, position, or micro timing and the chord mode being easier to jam with and then copy the progressions over into the step view. The effects and algorithms are also top notch and make coming up with things I wouldn’t have thought of a breeze. The only cons of the Hapax for me are its size and limited cv/gates, which is why I’m going to keep the Oxi One for my controlling more of my modular gear and when I need to be mobile and the Hapax will mostly be for MIDI based control. Only thing on the Oxi One I really like that I wish the Hapax had was something similar to step accumulation, maybe it does and I just don’t know it well enough yet.
When it comes to workflow, Hapax is king. I have a preference for the way the Oxi One saves patterns, but in every other respect the Hapax workflow is superior.
This is a much requested feature. What’s great about how the Oxi One handles the Accumulator is that it has a conditional trigger seperate and apart from the step/note conditional trigger. This makes it possible to create complex sequences using only a few notes. I’m the kind of person who likes to do all my sequencing on one page, so conditional triggers are essential for me. I hope that this is something the Squarp team keeps in mind going forward. Make an Accumulator with conditional triggers. Equip rolls/ratchets with conditionals (which both the Oxi One and OP-XY have). And while they’re at it, why not make make automation/modulation conditional on a step-by-step/note-by-note basis?
I know these might seem like trivial ideas, but they would take Hapax to another level.
