[redacted] feature request

nevermind!
(is there no way to delete here?)

I don’t want to be negative, but this seems like a huge, unwieldy change that is also about taking a dice roll on a matter of preference.

I’ve just read messages about the Ableton Move where users are disgruntled about the fact that tracks/patterns are vertical/horizontal as you describe.

So basically, for Squarp, it’d be a fairly massive task (which also breaks labeling conventions on the hardware). And probably, they’d ultimately have most of their users wondering why this change was made, myself included. Even if it’s optional.

:man_shrugging:

4 Likes

yeah I can see that it would be a big change. It’s such a shame though that Ableton established this convention and Squarp followed along. Bitwig was smart to rethink it. Their approach is much more consistent and logical

That’s really a matter of personal preference.

I don’t care at all, it makes no difference once you wrap your head to it.
Funny you start this topic without having tried the Hapax, and still ordered it knowing this :slight_smile:

1 Like

These quotes are a subjective assessment of the Hapax hardware design. “Poor design” according to whose definition? I like the way Hapax is designed and it seems like a lot of other Hapax users do as well. What makes the Bitwig model “more natural”? Certainly, you may prefer the Bitwig design over the Ableton design, and that’s your choice. But to say that it’s “more natural” is a bit much. The Hapax is a man made machine, there’s nothing “natural” about it (or Bitwig or Ableton, for that matter).

I’ve been using the Hapax for going on a year now and I’ve been a member of this forum for almost as long. I’ve yet to see anyone, until now, criticize the design of the Hapax clip launcher. If it were to be redesigned as you suggest, that would “take away” 8 tracks. Even if I could page down to access the other 8 tracks, that would just make things unnecessarily cumbersome, considering the design is fine as constructed. The numbers 1-16 which are there to map the respective tracks would only become more confusing to current and future users.

I’m always open to new ideas and I’m not here to squash anyone’s requests or preferences. But this is one idea that I think would cause more frustration and confusion than anything else.

1 Like

I mean… to me it’s only logical in a DAW in the sense of being side-by-side with the arranger tracks. And I say this as a HUGE Bitwig fan.

Hapax isn’t a DAW with any kind of such arrangement layout, to me it makes sense the way it is. Tracks vertical, to align with the track buttons. I align this to my mixer channels, which I think is sort of what Ableton was going for as well. If it was track buttons on the left side, I wouldn’t have that synchronicity anymore. That being said, I don’t think it makes a huge difference either way.

That’s a good point about having fewer tracks in the other orientation. I’ll see if I can revoke my suggestion since he seems to have rumpled some feathers!

No worries. You should see some of the zany requests I send to the devs via the request and support form. Sometimes I go on for paragraphs and include links to other products. All this knowing that most of the requests I make will probably never make it. Once you get your hands on the Hapax, I’m sure you’ll come up with more ideas for improvement. In the meantime, I hope you will enjoy Hapax as much as we do!

Feathers intact! I’m definitely of the mind that everything is up for discussion and debate :+1: and that’s often most fruitful when not everyone agrees fully :slight_smile:

thanks! Maybe not a very wise first post on my part :blush:

I do much prefer the Bitwig approach vs Ableton, but I now see how the number of rows vs columns on Hapax changes things.

My Hapax should arrive next week. I look forward to mastering the device. Any tips/resources to flatten the learning curve?

2 Likes

have you been making instrument defs for your gear? def nice to have defs (from the forum or make yourself) to load and be ready to go

If you haven’t already, I would suggest checking out all the tutorials Squarp recently published on YouTube:

Hapax Tutorials Playlist

Also useful is this tutorial/review from Jeremy (aka Red Meets Recording):

Getting to Know the Squarp Hapax Polychronic Sequencer

And here’s one from Technobear:

Squarp Hapax - In-Depth Walkthrough

Finally, here’s a great tutorial that shows off the power of the Transpose Track:

Exploring Chords, Scales and Transpose on the Squarp Hapax

These tutorials are enough to get you started. There are plenty more to be found on YouTube once you’ve mastered the basics. Some of these videos are a couple of years old, so you might notice some differences in the current UI and the UI in the tutorials. I expect to see more tutorials when the (reportedly big) firmware update is released soon.

1 Like

thanks! Appreciate it! I already follow Jeremy, but didn’t know he covered Hapax.
Cheers!