Hey! Alright! That does sound like a great combo. I hope you get your others working. I don’t have the space or the time to mess around with a DAW. It’s another thing I would have to learn and tinker around with instead of making music. I barely have time to do that lol. Happy jamming!
1 Like
That’s some nice stuff. Do you get the full 16 parts without dropping due to polyphony on that Fantom? I know the Virus has that problem where it runs out of CPU before poly limit is reached, so just curious about Fantom. I almost bought one when I was looking to replace my XP80.
indeed super powerful combo and plan to use the virus, moog and oberheim together. Plus add in modular drums from cv outs. Perfect combo for live recordings then remix and remaster in DAW into songs. Hapax is very easy to use and fun too. Reminds me of Ableton Push without the need for a computer.
Thats rather a complex answer to a seemingly sinmple question lol.
you need to understand how fantom works in this regards. It is similar to Virus in that theres no fixed polyphoney - its dynamic and totally depends ont he engines (and also filters) you use. Same as Virus. Im used to this as I use a Fractal Axf-FX for guitar (have done for 15 years) which is also the same. No limit on how much you can put in a patch BUT a limit to the processing power - and all blocks use a differing ammount.
so, a ONE TONE/ZONE.
V-Piano has its own chip and it unlimited poly. Supernatural sounds give 64 NOTES of polyphony. the Models are intensive. 18 notes for the Juno, 21 for the SH101 and 24 for both Jupiter and JX8P. Obviously you cant layer 6 Zones using the Juno models and keep high poly - your down to 3 notes.
Zencore is harder still to work out. Its based on how many Oscilators - or more accuratly number anbd type of filters. Each partial (Oscilator in pure synthesis) has its OWN Amp Env, Filter, Filter Env and 21 LFOs. You can have 4 Oscilator each with different filter types and settings for instance. BUT… for maximum polyphony (256 VOICES - not notes, and bear in mind if you have seamless switchign engaged is takes 40 of those to enabl that which takes away from teh poly to 216), you can only use the 12db digital filter.
There actually made up of 6db filters in series… but 12 is the lowest. So a 24db filter uses twice the filter resoures so halves teh polyphony, a 18db uses 50% more than a `12 db so reduces polyphony by roughly 1/3. Then you have the modelled analogue filters (Jupiter, Prophet, Moog, and a generically modeleld filter) that are more processor intensive and lower poly to 64 voices. Again, as you can have up to 3 Parts/Oscilators/voices per TONE, if you DID that and used a modelled filter in EACH path, your Poly ios now down to 16 NOTES for that one voice.
So - while its POSSIBLE to run all 16 zones with Zencore sounds, and if they were single oscilator tones using the digital 12db filter for each - youd still have 16 note polphony when there all played together… BUT Equally, you could layer or split 4 sounds, using 4 part tones each using modelled analogue filters, and even with just those 4 zones your down to 4 notes of polyphony. Obviously help or decayoing nortes still cound… so a 4 tone layers Pad - could easily note steal even if only uysing one 3 note chord (as your up to 6 notes when you cahnge chord).
Now - the voices are dynamically assigned… so its constantly changing. Your oinly using poly is your playing a particular tone/zone and only for the nnotes your usung (not uncommon obviously) BUT you can “reserve” voices for any given zone… So if you want a nice fat bassline using 4 stacked Oscilators, or a single Osc in 4 note unison mode - running in a saequence you can reserve say 4 voices notes for that and THAT sound wouild never be stolen BUT those voices are then permanantly not available to be shared amonth other tones if its NOT playing.
Does that all make sense?
So - if you sequencing and have lots of 2/3/4 Oscilator parts you have to be aware of which filters your using and the afect on the overall polyphony. You may need to compromise and use a digitla filter rather than an modelled analogue - or a 12bd ont not a 24bd one, or drop an Oscilator form the tone etc to get the poly you need for a part.
This could be (and is for same) a problem if ALL your sounds in a given project come from Fantom (but even then Ive seen many examples where its not a problem) BUT if your ensible in your sound design, layers, splits and use other gear as well its ont actually a problem in reality.
In the nearly 3 years Ive had mine, Ive never had note steeling problems that Im aware of (and If Inm n ot aware its not a problem).
Some of this is down to experience… If you used to monos, or 6 voice analogues etc then the possible limited polyphony isnt really an issue. Were used to these low levels. If your ony used to 128 note workstations though where you get those 128 notes regardless of the sounds yo uuyse, then it may well be a problem. Your not aware, you dont plan, you just layer away and expect it to just work.
HOPE that all made sense…
1 Like
4 Likes
What’s that chunky mixer you’ve got up there?
Looks like a Tascam Portastudio (244?) to me 
1 Like
good spot … indeed its a Tascam 244 !
1 Like
How are you finding the Osmose? Did you get it this week?
I’ve not even bothered to try to plug it into anything apart from my mixer. Just going to have to learn how to play it properly.
1 Like
oh, I love it… Ive wanted a continuum due to its sound/feel for years, but it was out of my price range.
I’ll admit I feared the Osmose would be a bit of a compromise, but in practice, I think its wonderful.
Ive got other expressive controllers, but the combination of the sound engine, traditional keys, and feel of the Osmose is intoxicating 
yeah, so Ive hand it for 8 days now… like you for first 5 days or so I just played it …
enjoying it as a standalone instrument, and frankly, thats still what I do mostly.
but of course, now Im starting to consider how will it fit it with what I have already.
both in a ‘dawless’ and daw setup… hence connecting the Octatrack + Hapax, and see how this works.
of course the big thing (for me) about using a Daw/Octatrack is multi-tracking.
the Osmose has so much versatility, e.g. playing resonant drums, then pads, then leads/plucks.
but its not really multimbral (*), so Im really diving into creating layers of Osmose.
anyway… so far very happy !
( * ) technically, you can split and such like, so this is not strictly true - but lets say is not common operation, esp once you consider per note expression (aka mpe like)
ooh, let me just talk about hapax + osmose (given its a squarp forum!)
so first off, after some initial teething problems,
I have got Osmose working with Hapax both over din and usb, and as far as I can tell works absolutely fine…
(btw: @Thibault_Squarp not being able to select other usb ports means you cannot use Osmose with Hapax directly, due to need to access the second usb port)
Hapax is still a bit hit n’ miss for me, for MPE generally… the issue is a simple one.
without per note editing, its basically just record/playback…
so I get little above doing audio. AND as the Osmose is not multi-timbral , I can’t switch voice during playback.
so frankly, audio is just more flexible.
now in, total fairness, Ive used mpe (and its forerunner) for years, and even with daws that supported per note editing (cubase was the first by years 
) , I frankly never found a lot of use for it.
there is simply too much ‘data’ to be manually edit, even if it is slick
really for MPE recording, we are going to need daws/sequencers to have some very specific tools (in the same way as audio?) to make it worth doing.
e.g. the most common ‘mistake’ when you play expressive instruments, is a bit of over exuberance or ‘over gesturing’ in certain passages. going thru all notes looking for this is just too time consuming.
we need a tool, which would allow us to select ALL notes (in a region), and to perhaps compress and/or clip the expression…
so yeah, whilst per note editing IS a vital first step, really to be useful we need more.
of course, give the niche of MPE to date, this is perhaps a lot of ask of daw developers, who have other high priories.
anyway I do hope @squarpadmin add the per note editing support soon, as I think the Osmose is an important step for MPE, so would be good to see Hapax really lead the way for hardware sequencers and mpe.
2 Likes
I think that’s the biggest rub with MPE… there is just too much data to edit in an easy way, unlike there is with MIDI, where everything is right in front of you (I guess PolyAT is where things get a bit spicier)
I’ve not had anything MPE until the Osmose, and obviously this goes beyond the MPE “standard” with far higher resolution and a lot more data - hence why I’ve just not bothered - I’m too lazy basically to work it out.
As far as MPE recording into the Hapax being less flexible than audio, I’m not sure that’s exactly true, as when playing back the MPE, you have two free hands to twiddle knobs or try your playback with a different patch, etc, so there is a bit more flexibility there. Plus obviously in a live situation it’s the way to go (unless you have a DAW or an Octatrack that can play stems)
And as you say, MPE is still pretty niche, and there are loads of other improvements I’d like to see on the Hapax before getting into MPE editing, but of course the priority of improvements and features is entirely up to Squarp, and maybe MPE is more exciting and possibly a good angle as being the only hardware sequencer (currently) that deals with it properly.
1 Like
Thank you for the detailed response. I’ve owned mostly Roland products over the years. Not for any particular reason other than they were slightly more affordable and the XP-80 fulfilled my multitimbral needs (for awhile), but the sounds were digital obviously and no amount of “Analogue Feel” would make them sound much better without sounding like a slow rate LFO detuning it. I was never satisfied with how it sounded so LOTS of hours on sound design, and at that time it was the only synth I had. The MRC Pro sequencer in that thing was very flexible and easy to use, but polyphony and processing power meant it wouldn’t stay locked and would hiccup if too many Voices (Tones, whatever. Up to four per patch) played. I made the best of it for years though with only 64 voices. I sold it to buy TI2 as a replacement.
Anyway, thanks again for the response. Happy jamming!
that was exactly my point… it needs more tooling than just editing to be useful.
(interestingly daws are start to be a bit smarter on standard midi editing… its where the future lies)
thats not really true … at least in any substantive way
mpe+ does very little for the osmose given its form factor etc,
and we have seen much faster time resolution on other devices …
(e.g. the eigenharps, avoided midi, as it was too latent/slow)
thats not to diss the Osmose, I love it… and its great.
enough superlatives, without these mpe claims.
I didn’t say it wasn’t more flexible, I said practically not so useful (in my experience!)
(though the osmose being mono-timbral, means you will have to bounce to audio to if used on other tracks, but no reason you can’t do that from an mpe track… but thats not part of what hapax can do )
hard/time consuming to edit, as you agreed.
also, practically when playing expressive instruments like the Osmose (Eigenharp, Soundplane are my main ones), I want to ‘perform’ to record…
so I m baking in my expression thru the controller … for me, thats the point of it. if I want to alter something, then Id want that on a performance control at the same time (you can use pedals, or breath etc)
I guess I just don’t view it as a ‘note entry’ device.
the same thing goes of ‘switching patch’ , again, its highly unlikely to work, the expression data is related to what you are hearing in a critical feedback loop. it won’t really match another patch… which has a different feel.
I get you might want to ‘tweak’ the patch a bit, but again, Id prefer to just play it in again, and I can hear it as I play (again that feedback loop)
BUT I get this is all very personal… workflows, and also when talking about expression… it needs to be personal
I also do grant, I do this as a hobby…
if I were working in a studio, where time is money… of. course, replaying in parts is $… similarly, a client might ask for a change in the sound… so again time in money and they also might not want anything else to change.
so there, they need recorded midi… replay-ability.
so yeah… different purposes…
but for me, Ive used Cubase, Live , Bigwig’s MPE recording, and to date, I found it not that useful.
(and thats where Im using VSTs, so the multi-tracking is a non-issue)
Apologies for my mistake. I stand corrected.
As for my suggestions on why recorded MPE might be useful, was just suggesting, I totally understand that you would prefer to record in audio. Although will say sometimes you want to do live knob twiddling over a recorded part, and sometimes you might want to overdub some extra notes on top of an existing part, even if it’s not a multitimbral instrument.
But anyway, I apologise if you thought I was having a dig at you, I was just making suggestions, so sorry again.
It’s ok, I didn’t interpret as a dig at all.
Just an interesting discussion around an interesting topic
Hi, I own Hapax and osmose as well and from what I tried it seems the osmose can only send note to hapx but can’t receive them. maybe I am doing something wrong ? there is not too many options on osmose so maybe the " receive notes features isn’t implemented ( yet?) when they’ll do it a “local notes off” will be mandatory
from my point of view it makes sense to use midi instead of audio to record a mpe track as you can still do some changes even without the pretty complex per note editing. for layering for ex or changing patches, or changig scale, or try different arpeggios, or add midi effects… it’s very nice to have your mpe midi data recorded and edited on hapax and adjust your patch afterward.
2 Likes
Not sure if a pairing or setup, but I still consider it small enough to be mobile:
Hapax +
- Syntakt (drums plus sometimes a synth voice)
- 6U Modular with three voices: Erica Synths Bassline, Loquelic Iteritas Percido, and Intellijel Plonk
- Bitbox Micro for some additional sampled drums (also in the 6U rack)
This makes just the right amount of separate voices for me to nicely progress fluently from project to project and clip by clip using the double-project architecte of Hapax. Or that’s the idea
2 Likes
back to the original question – my default pairing is Hapax + Waldorf XT (30 voice version).
Very quick and easy to get something going then move to another track. Setting the XT up ahead of time with a few different sounds makes it easy to move around between them.
The other combo that’s been getting a lot of love is the Hapax + E-mu MP-7. The E-mu is loaded with a few different ROMs and by default, it’s 16 tracks are set up on 16 MIDI channels, so you put a different sound per track and it all works with zero configuration issues.
Actually, anyone looking to sell the Hapax? I could see myself using a second one for a bunch of other synths and things around here.
I’m loving just hapax and MPC live 2, except for a bug with midi in they are just perfect together.
The hapax has much better sequencer than MPC which is it’s weak point with the touch screen. Ive got a novation peak and moog sub phatty routed into the mpc also 
1 Like