the more “plugins” (really synth instruments and VST modeling) that Akai adds to the MPC, the more i realized it’s basically the best of both worlds – sampling workhorse on one side, banks of non-sample sounds on the other if i need them (plus expansion packs).
I have an MC-101 which I bought as a small device to play samples chromatically for my live sets, and it’s great for that (and also sounds really good, to be perfectly honest - the filter and the effects are really bloody good) but the thing the Wavestate has over that is that you can import multisamples (ie, have a different sample per key, or per octave/zone/etc) which gives it a bit of an edge.
But if you just want to play one sample over the whole keyboard, cannot recommend that enough. Plus it does loads more on top. You cannot edit the inbuilt sounds or build your own like you can in the MC-707 (which is a bit annoying considering they’re exactly the same engine) but there’s a lot to give for quite a small price and footprint on your desk.
The internal sequencer is ok, bit clunky for step sequencing, but I actually have been sequencing stuff on my Hapax and then recording the results directly into the 101 afterwards, for the best of both worlds.
Recommend taking a look at that as it might suit your needs.
1 Like
Tha ks for the suggestion Loz, I’ll give the MCs a look.
I don’t know in the real word how much of a difference multisamples across octaves could do, vs a single sample spread across, as I imported some “samples from mars” synths into the wavestate, using one sample per octave and they sounds pretty good indeed.
Maybe I’d just take the time to bond with the wavestate more and settle with it, but you know, GAS never sleeps 
It kind of depends on what you’re after, to be honest. I do quite like the sound of a single sample pitched up and down, got that Rave Flavour.
But yeah, MC-101’s sample capabilities are great for that sort of thing, sample import is dead easy, plus has limiting sampling functionality such as start and end, looping, etc, although you have to do it by ‘ear’ (I don’t bother, just have single shot samples, or longer ones if I want a sustained note. Plus it’s maximum 32 note polyphonic (over all four parts) which is generally more than enough.
I’ve not used an MC-707, but it’s the same engine, just bigger, and the internal engine is fully editable (Roland’s Zencore, which to my ears sounds genuinely fantastic). The 101 has about 1000 presets, which you have limited sculpting over, but if you treat it as a really nice sounding Rompler (which functionally it might be, even if technically it is not) it’s a huge winner in terms of cost to results.
The only thing the MC-101/707 is not great at is long loops, because Roland in their infinite wisdom limited the loop sample time to 1 minute. But single shot samples up to 6 minutes, which is generally more than enough for my liking.
1 Like
The mc 101 is a really solid call for triggering samples and I really dig the synths. I agree the footprint is great too for the versatility you get. It’s one of the few HW samplers to casually pop off with time stretch and there are a stupid amount of ways to load sounds, including a random preset by sound type :).
It pairs well with the OP-Z and it’ll be a mainline use for the hapax for me. There’s no real comparison between it and the MPC though for sample handling. The 4 stereo layers alone blow the 101 away but it does pretty advanced chromatic handling too and has the auto sampler so it’ll dub HW synths automagically. I’d recommend it even just as an effect box but as a sampler too it’s just incredible, then with the synths onboard as well I mean… honestly it’s a beast.
If you can afford one, you’re not likely to be disappointed with the MPC. I’m on a used live I and it’s running the same os but also on a battery and was cheaper than a One. It doesn’t give that weird fluidy sample feel from an elektron box but it chops and stretches and does most everything you accept your normal boutique stuff can’t even though it probably should. (Which, to be fair the 101 does as well just like, fun sized). It has a mellotron synth though. And a solid drum synth (that oddly enough emulates the same Roland drum machines the 101 does - but the 101 uses samples :p). And an ARP clone. And then add the key groups you can make or get pretty easy and you do end up with a box with most instruments plus most of the fx you need.
It really is the perfect box for a lot of occasions. It’s absolutely the perfect box if you like to make boom bap, bar none.
1 Like
The main reason a modern MPCs might disappoint is if the user interface or workflow does your head in, including finding the touchscreen annoying. Sadly thats been my own personal experience so far although I do love the actual features. Maschine+ workflow and interface fits my brain better so Im evaluating that at the moment, although there are plenty of reasons why the Maschine+ hasnt been deemed a glorious success in terms of overall impressions of the community.
In any case the sequencing side of all those devices usually does my head in, so I remain very happy that I chose to make the Hapax the centre of my sequencing setup, with these other devices relegated mostly to being sound sources.
The Polyend Play is off in its own wacky world, it looks like lots of fun but with plenty of heavy limitations. I dont completely rule out trying one at some point, especially if I want to dabble with genres that seem like a good fit for its own particular way of doing things. But I’d probably use it as its own particular thing for certain occasions, rather than try to make it the heart of my main setup.
This thread has delightfully morphed into something like “Hapax versus other sequencers.” I have had pretty much the same experience as @SteveElbows with both the MPC (One) and the Maschine world. I haven’t managed to sell my MPC One because it is an amazing “does everything in one box” kind of thing, and for the $750 I paid for it new I can’t bring myself to let it go. The problem is the UI, it is klunky, and actually seems like a “franken-sequencer” meaning that, in order to achieve the “does everything” it is like a single OS that has several different apps kind of tied together, but not very well. I also don’t love the touchscreen interface, not because I don’t like touchscreen interfaces (I really like the touchscreen on the Waldorf Iridium), but because the touchscreen doesn’t work that well (especially for navigating midi sequences) and it doesn’t seem to harmonize in my mind with the buttons and knobs very well. I will keep it I am sure, as a fun little box to bring to the cabin, but have decided that it is not really going to get used in my home studio, at least until I get the Hapax, and then I may find a way to use them together very well if possible.
1 Like
I had an MPC1000 for a bit years ago and found the whole thing incredibly frustrating, just could not get my head around that workflow at all. Felt like using a computer but with no mouse and a tiny screen.
Funny how certain things ‘click’ with you and some things don’t. Pyramid was massively in my wheelhouse, and the Hapax is even better, can fly through both of those workflows without even thinking, just after using them for a few days.
just got my MPC One yesterday because as easy as Blackbox was to just get sampling and sequencing via Pyramid straight away, i started bumping up against its 16-pads-only-for-everything limitations pretty quickly.
out of the box and some brief menu diving, MPC One seems to be on the opposite end of the spectrum – because i have no need/use for its internal sequencing, challenge will probably be figuring out how to route all the different sound options (drum programs, loops, plugins, audio tracks maybe) for Pyramid/Hapax to sequence everything together nicely. but at least i won’t have to muck about also trying to learn the other half
All this about the MPC ^^^. I don’t understand how they have all the right pieces for the step sequencer but can’t get navigating through it even close to fluid. I’m fine with the workflow now, but I’m obviously still chasing the sequencing dragon cause that’s def one of the places the MPC falls flat. The live I’s touchscreen is even less responsive than the One so … sigh.
I’d argue the last few updates where they added the new synths and audio interface stuff are what moved it from ‘for the headz’ to ‘for anyone’, but maybe that’s ‘for anyone with the will to squint their brain enough to stop asking - but why??’.
I couldn’t gel with the maschine + lack of touchscreen. Selecting from the piano roll on it is somehow worse, to me, than the MPC and it’s why I returned it. I really want to love it, the chromatic and chord modes are great and the sound browser is amazing. It’s not ready to be standalone, and for that price you could MacBook + machine mk3 since you need the Mac for piano roll and a handful of Mac only features anyway.
I’m also loving this morphed into sequencer comparo/ love in general. I have an oxi and a hapax showing up (hopefully) soon I may be talking to the few folks that understand why that is crazy exciting.
2 Likes
Oh Man, I’m waiting my June Hapax, but still can’t help myself going o the Oxi site and place the One in the cart, hovering on the buy button… I really can’t justify to buy two darn sequencers in the same month, but it feels exiting just thinking abiut that tho. Please feel free to open a discussion once you get them!
Back to the morphed topic, that I’m enjoying a lot, I’m not a sample guy, and a boombop/loop/breakbeat one neither.
My setup consist only on sequencer(s) and various synths. I’m no keyboardist at all, but once I got my wavestate I found myself uber creative using its keyboard as a midi controller for all the other desktop moduls, via Pyramid, starting to lay down simple patterns in minutes. The only limitation I feel is about the arrangement part, but I’m confident to level up on this with thw Hapax, as the clips/pattern structure feels more my thing versus mute states of the Pyramid, even if I didn’t ever use a grid style sequencer yet.
That said, I’m using the Wavestate to fill gaps in between the other “regular” synts, achieving that kind of sounds that I tried to play with samples on the Octatrack before, but with not much success. Let’s say you want to put a layered pad, or an acoustic/classical instrument, but without going mad trying to pitch notes or synching chords with other stuff, the Wavestate is perfect for this, but somehow feels too clunky in designing your patch.
It’s too time demanding, but I guess the only way to do that in a efficient way is to use a mouse and PC/Mac, maybe with Wavestate editor itself.
So, I was wondering if there’s an hardware box out there for this kind of things, with a more fluid UI and better screen, and without all the wavesequencing stuff I’m not interested in.
If not, I guess I have to put some time into the wavestate or/and add a PC into the music setup
I am thinking about the many options of using various multitimbral synths (like the MPC One) with the Hapax when it comes in September, so I hope others will chime in with their routing and connection discoveries. I have a couple of old multitimbral Rompler boxes and synths that may get elevated status with the Hapax (Roland JV-1080, Korg TR-1 and Korg Kronos). I also have some limited “semi-modular” (meaning they have limited CV ins and outs), like the MatrixBrute, so that should be fun to play with the Hapax. I would eventually like something like the Hapax and Logic or Bitwig to play as duel “brains” for my studio, somewhat along the lines of this video by Loopop (he is using the Polyend Play as his hardware sequencer and it was this video that got me thinking about starting this thread): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wbHlUZS4-M
I sort of do this with the Hydrasynth and the Iridium, especially the Iridium. With both, you have lots of envelopes and LFOs to control amp attack, filters opening, pitch, and many more destinations. They both have exceptional workflows (much better than the Wavestate) and require no connection to your Mac/PC to navigate their enormous mod matrices. The iridium is kind of ridiculously expensive, but not when you consider what it can do (I got lucky and jumped on a $500 discount at Guitar Center someone over at Elektronauts gave away and sold three unused synths to afford mine). Anyway, the touchscreen on the Iridium can be, in truth, a little flaky for selecting things in limited areas, but overall is very fast, very intuitive, and all the knobs make it mostly unnecessary. You can layer up to six oscillators each doing up to five different synth engines, and can control them, internally sequence them, including using multiple parameter sequences to control all the mod matrix destinations. I have the Wavestate sitting right next to the Iridium. I use the presets on the Wavestate, and rarely start from scratch (too much time and menu diving, or must use the Mac Editor for Wavestate to really know what I am doing). I often create really evolving, layered, super cool patches on the iridium without much effort, but with the capability of going very deep into sound design, and it is a real pleasure.
1 Like
Thank for thoughtful description Michael, sure the top tier Waldorf stuff is sorta endgame in the synth world, and at some point I’d like to put hands on one of them.
I guess for now I’m more towards something more focused and simple, just to add a bit of acoustic/classical instruments palette to my game.
I’m still scratching the surface of what I have on the desk, like the mighty Novation Peak, that’s still really underused cause my lack of time and commitment.
Love those thread, I’m learning a bunch of nuances you can’t really perceive in a standard review
The Iridium also supports MPE these days (although there are a few issues with the pitch side of things according to my brief testing so far). Having several per-note modulation possibilities in synths is rather nice, and the Hapax supporting MPE is one of the reasons I went for the Hapax. Depending on what the MPE editing end up being like on the Hapax once they’ve added that feature, and what sort of algorithmic generation and MIDI fx that support MPE Squarp may possible add in future, this stuff will also be useable by those who dont have an MPE-capable controller. Today it occurred to me that even if you dont have an MPE controller, there is a chance that per-note expression can still be recorded into Hapax if you are prepared to overdub one voice at a time into a pattern. I’ll try that soon and will report back with a proper explanation, but I’ll probably give that subject its own thread.
Right, good idea. I am not familiar with the Peak, but was trying to answer your question about any other synths that could do some of what the Wavestate could do, and thought about using a complex set of envelopes and LFOs with a good, easily navigable mod matrix, to achieve something of the sort, which is why I mentioned the Hydrasynth and Iridium. If you can do that sort of thing with the Peak (and it has multiple oscillators), then there you go. I was also playing around with my Elektron Analog Four, using p-locking different sounds per step, changing the length of steps and patterns on different tracks, and then using LFOs for amp and filter cutoff to create some of this, although the way Elektron devices are designed, for me, it is never very ambient (but could be) and ends up being more techno-y.
I have a Linnstrument that I have intended to use for some of what you are suggesting. It will be interesting and fun to see how I can use both the Linnstrument and the Hapax for controlling synths that are MPE compatible, like the Iridium, Hydrasynth, and Cobatl8.
No worries, I really appreciate your suggestion, just I’m not looking for modulation madness, as I got that covered already, but I’m more on something that can play samples like an instrument, and not as a groovebox, 'cause Octatrack and TR8S are more than enough for my needs on that aspect.
A Wavestate with a bigger screen/better UI and without wavesequence headaches… But I guess the best option is going with a DAW/VST or an hardware Workstation.
Hi,
I’m glad I stumble on this thread.
It has helped me rule out the Polyend Play as an option.
I’m indeed looking for a true sequencer that’s powerful and more intuitive than a DAW like Ableton.
Now I would have to figure out which of the two, Hapax or Oxi One would be my choice…
I’m wondering what made people here chose the Hapax vs the Oxi One, which lack of features is a deal breaker? or why switch from the Oxi to Hapax?
not enough tracks (for me) at a minimum. 8 v. 16 on Hapax
