Nice to see the Hapax on the renowned YouTube channel Bad Gear.
Not going to say Hapax does everything I want it to do, and but it is still the best all-round sequencer I’ve ever used. Want to tell you guys: Good work!
3 Likes
hapax (short for happy accident) is amazing but as with any good thing theres room for enjoyment i mean improvement
3 Likes
hum, i feel Oxi One was better at exploring happy accidents more intentionally… I like how the Oxi One generative features lets you evolve a melody by making small changes to it; not simply overwriting the entire thing with a new one. With the Oxi One you have more nuanced control over the type and size of evolutionary adjustments. Hapax just regenerates a new one… or maybe there are features I’m not aware of yet!
Something about MIDI FX feels like a mixmatched paradigm to me. In Oxi One, everything happens in the grid. You generate notes in the grid. You have tools to evolve those melodies by tweaking them in the grid.
In Hapax, some features generate notes in the grid, and some features (Effects) generate notes in some virtual space (pre-grid, or “trans-grid”). I understand it, I just feel like it’s a weird decision. I’d prefer if everything happens in the grid. For example if register machine rendered notes in the grid, then the notes would be quantized to your track and you could save them. Instead it’s like some virtual arpeggiator which runs outside of your sequencer. It seems like an odd design decision for a sequencer – it’s like a virtual sequencer in my sequencer which lacks many of the features I want in a sequencer.
got oxi one?
Started with BeatStep, upgraded to Oxi One.
Got curious about Hapax and bought one.
Sold the Oxi One before mk2 release (saw it coming from their changelog patterns) to avoid market flood. Initially planned to get OO mk2, but decided maintaining knowledge for two evolving sequencers was too much hassle.
Sticking with Hapax but miss just a few Oxi One features!
when i say happy accidents im not talking about an automatic process that sounds ambiguous. my happy accidents take time and effort to stumble upon, and involve combinations of gear.
Maybe there is something about Hapax I haven’t discovered yet, but the Oxi One’s generative features excel at evolutionary melodic and bassline development through its sophisticated “generate and select” workflow. You can set up probability weightings for specific scale degrees—like making the fundamental, third, and fifth more likely to appear than other notes—while controlling density (how many notes vs rests) and note length ranges.
Then you can dial in exactly how much of the existing pattern to preserve when generating the next iteration. This means you can make tiny incremental mutations that slowly morph a bassline over time – small variations on a theme – or you can completely regenerate for entirely fresh patterns.
I’d generate new melodics lines, then when I heard something I liked, I could make a small iteration, undo, and try again, over and over until i hit something even better.
I found this approach very effective. Hapax, while incredibly capable in many areas, doesn’t offer this same granular control over pattern preservation and mutation. BUt I guess I could try one of those VSTs like Scaler 3…maybe they are even better!
1 Like
better is relative
This is a good explanation. The effects do seem a bit disconnected from the rest of the sequencer.
2 Likes
Yes! Totally agree — better is relative. I’d never claim my preferences are objective truths, just what works for me. Love the way you put it.
1 Like
this only becomes important if you do edits to note timing that you made a cc modulation for which could be a problem if they dont line up. sometimes i record to my mpc and change the timing of my cc in the event list. does that make it bad gear?
bad is relative.
did i even need to ask
I didn’t know about Oxi but that’s not for me (just blutetooth makes it impossible for me !)
And I just start with Hapax but just LOVE how the midi enveloppes and LFOs are allowing me to do exactly what I wanted with my gears while impossible. Like filter enveloppes on Analog Rytm where missing the curves parameters to have exactly what I wanted. It had to few lfos when used to play samples or synths.
I’m impatient to try building complete songs. It just seems to be what I always dreamed to find but being desperate about WHY no one if building such a sequencer ! And without digital sounds I don’t need (while still consuming energy and make the unit bigger)
Then you can dial in exactly how much of the existing pattern to preserve when generating the next iteration. This means you can make tiny incremental mutations that slowly morph a bassline over time – small variations on a theme – or you can completely regenerate for entirely fresh patterns.
Did you know you can select a range in the sequencer to apply Algos to? You don’t have to replace everything. I think the same might be true of algos in the automation.
thanks! I’ll take a closer look into that!
I wish I didn’t know this… I’ve been calling it “hay-pax” but now the cognitive dissonance of knowing it’s actually “hahp-ax” is causing a kernal exception.
2 Likes