Of that, I am certain
I had both, and honestly for me Hapax is much better in everything, although Oxi One is very cool (and spanish).
Hapax is a DAW in a box, manages 32 channels and with 4 MIDI outs I can manage all the studio at the same time, having a lot of gear. With OXI, al least MK1, it’s not the same. Hapax’s algorithms are very creative, and I find the UI very intuitive.
OXI is more complicated to learn, screen in super small and relies more in combinations of keys (as Deluge). Quality of the HW is superb, it’s like a tank, Hapax is not bad but feels “cheaper”, specially the arranger keys, which aren’t for everybody.
Hope Squarp continues to improve it, OXI One mk2 seems very cool let’s see what they bring to the table.
hapax has 6 midi buses
I think that there is some good features on oxi that I would like to have on hapax, but that feels like it could happen in software updates.
I would like to be able to set independent different length on mod lanes, and on drum lanes. Yes you can do it with creating a new sequence, and you have 32, so it’s not a problem, but it would be mush more instant/playable.
I would like to have the option to make harmonizer to follow octaves like you can do on oxi, I think it’s a great way to play with sequences.
Otherwise I don’t miss it at all. This was my experience, maby it’s been updated since then. It was messy to assign and fine tune stuff like the lfo’s. In hapax it’s so easy to assign control with automation, lfo’s, envelopes, or/and the matrix once you get the logic of it.
The extra sequencers in oxi are in my opinion not so good. Stochastic need much more control to make it playable, much more like stochastic SIG, or melodicer in modular world,
The fact that hapax has two screens and 9 knobs not in front of them, more buttons make the hardware much more usable. In a 8 notes grid it’s really hard to see what’s going on, but on hapax you always have an overview on what’s happening. I really hope that squarp keeps updating the software to match the potential.
I heard many saying that oxi is so much more experimental, I think it is the opposite, there isn’t just so many tutorials out on hapax, and not the same hype. In hapax you need to create it yourself with combining midi effects and automation and midi matrix, much like you do in modular, and that is harder, but much more rewarding, like building your own sequencers.
In oxi I couldn’t do per step random chance note or octave change, only on all notes, but in hapax I can easy build that function myself, maby it has changed now?
One thing that is seldom mentioned that is possible in hapax is that you can rout different sequences to the same cv output, that plus midifx opens up to much more modular sequencing.
The thing I’m missing that would make it even better would be the ability to rout a sequence to another imput, so I could record it, and use midi xf on top, that would be amazing.
Just some thoughts, cheers Bobb
2 Likes
I agree 100% with your comments about Stochastic mode on Oxi One. It doesn’t offer as much control as some of the modular devices it’s imitating and the results don’t feel as rewarding. I wish it were more like the Melodicer. I’ve been following all the PR since Oxi One mk2 was first announced and I haven’t heard anything yet about an update to Stochastic mode, so I’m going to assume that nothing has changed. But at least it has Stochastic mode!
Matriceal mode, on the other hand, is a lot of fun. There’s a lot more control with this sequencer mode and I’ve been able to get some good results with it. I hardly ever use Stochastic mode, but I use the Matriceal sequencer all the time. I’m hoping that both modes get major updates with mk2, but I won’t be surprised if they don’t
I agree that navigating the Hapax is much more intuitive than the Oxi One. In fact, this was also the conclusion I came to when I first got my Hapax. After being shelved for almost a year and a half, I started using my Oxi One more often over the past few months because I’m traveling more frequently and I wanted something that was more portable for music making on the road. Is the Oxi One a bit more menu dive-y than the Hapax? Sure, but not so much that it’s a distraction. Not for me, at least. Once I built up my muscle memory for basic functions I didn’t even notice it that much.
The MIDI effects on Hapax are nice, but I just don’t feel that inspired using them. I want a proper melodic Euclidean sequencer. Something along along the lines of the Torso T1 (with a Hapax twist). Sure, you can get a few interesting results when combined with the arpeggiator, but after awhile the limitations become clear. I want Squarp to give Hapax proper sequencing modes (like the Monome Kria, Oxi One Matriceal, or the Melodicer) and not just try to make these ideas into simplified MIDI effects.
Ultimately, I’m going to go with the sequencer I feel most inspired when using. Both sequencers have strengths and weaknesses, so this is a completely subjective evaluation. I’ve sent several emails to the Squarp team asking for different features and I’ve yet to see them manifest. So when I see most of those feature requests show up on Oxi One mk2, it’s a no-brainer purchase. It’s been said that we have to be patient because Hapax is a small team, but the last time I checked, Oxi is a small team as well.
I don’t want to leave anyone with the impression that I’ve completely given up on the Hapax (or that anyone else should). But with the boutique sequencer landscape becoming more crowded over the next year or two, I want to see the Squarp team step their game up. I think they can and I’m looking forward to what they do next.
2 Likes
I came to the hapax for the raw power and workflow of it’s vanilla linear sequencing. I have slowly learned to embrace some of the effects and generative stuff. My selfish desire is that all of the improvements are boring workflow and power types of things (more/better drum lanes, better retrigs, and improvements along those lines). I think they are trying to strike a balance between both. Both aspects attract people to the device. The paradigm of using effects and generators as a way to achieve that layer suits it well in a lot ways, because it lets squarp develop both independently at a pretty quick pace, and you can mix and match to taste. At the same time I can see why others want a more immediate experience and want their more experimental sequencing to be more direct, as it were.
In any case, I’d be reasonably content if the device stayed the way it is forever, so it wouldn’t exactly hurt me to see them adding a euclidean mode or something instead of another improvement. Seems like the community is growing a lot and I’m excited either way to see where squarp takes the Hapax.
2 Likes
use it with something like reaper and you can easily rerout midi from one output back to another channel as input. im sure you wanted to do that by internal routing. there has been a request for internal routing. maybe send them a contact page request for that? id love it too.
Yes, I have mailed them and requested it, but as you say, it is already possible. It would just be simpler if the output effex could be routed to another sequencers input. Like when using the Turing machine or euclidian sequencer to record.
Also the fact that you can rout different outputs to same cv or midi output is so amazing, but could be more controlled/filtered with the mono midi fx and such.
Thanx for the tip.
1 Like