A long time Pyramid user here, and already ordered a Hapax. I am really excited about the Hapax since it seems to have everything I wish for the Pyramid to make it even better.
Everything except one thing already worked so nicely on the Pyramid and seems to be gone in the Hapax which is the main poly editing step view ( press step and record button on).
This view gives a nice overview of all the steps existing in a pattern no matter the pitch. I found this extremely useful for quick edits like muting a few notes or moving steps back and forward after recording a pattern.
The now row per note is nice but it doesnāt give the same time of overview that the poly step editing gives on the Pyramid since you need to go up and down octaves to see or edit certain step position.It is much better with the screen but still not as clear as the single row view I believe.
It also works really nice with chords since you can select a chord by pressing a single step.
This type of view could be just one of the rows of the current piano roll or it could even be multitrack editing where each row are the steps in a track.
I hope you guys consider this view since it already was the main step view in the Pyramid.
I also wonder if anybody else is missing this view?
I donāt think many can comment on if its āmissingā a view until they have experienced what is already thereā¦
my experience (had it for a while as a beta tester) is the screens and the large grid, and the way navigation is done, gives a much better overview that we got on the pyramid.
its not really directly comparable to the piano view there.
of course, thats not saying there wonāt be preferences, but. I think without experience its ājumping the gunā a bit
and also each sequencer has its own take on workflow etcā¦ they have their own ācharacterā
and as I said the editing is different
e.g. on hapax you can do things like block/column edit notesā¦
so you can easily select an entire chord, and then (e.g) transpose it.
I understand this might not be immediately obvious (see my upcoming video ) , but thats what I mean about getting some experience āunder your beltā being useful for āfeature requestsā
I completely understand your point and I agree in what you are saying but Iām only asking for opinions. Iām also very confident in what Squarp has chosen to implement will be very good or at least thatās my hope. I ordered mine before RMR video.
I though some people already had their units and perhaps could give their opinion on this like you just did. Which by the way Iām glad to hear about the column editing which would already be half of the functionality that the main step mode in Pyramid already has.
The other half would be to actually see in a single row if there is any step with any pitch without having to look at the screen.
In any case my intention was never to criticise what looks like a great sequencer.
Step entering and editing is the main task of a step sequencer thatās why Iām so interested in the specifics of this mode.
I will totally get back to this thread to further comment once I get the unit and, as you said, Iām able to actually completely see how it currently fully works since for now I have been only able to read the manual and watch RMR video.
also please donāt get me wrongā¦
Squarp will really appreciate feedback, and also be taking feature requests to help improve Hapax - as we know from previous experiments with Pyramid/Hermod they are very reactive.
I guessā¦ my only concern isā¦
everyone is understandably very excited by the release of Hapax, they watch the demos and then say, "oh I wish it had this feature of X sequencerā - so you can imagine the forum is going to get floodedā¦ with the (Im sure very valid) ideasā¦
is that usefulā¦ if they donāt actually get reacted too?
on the other hand, I think questions like yours are valuable, not only for suggestions/ideas.
but also because, it opens up the possibility or myself and others, to talk about what is currently possibleā¦ and so perhaps can be done ādifferentlyā to sequencer X
so honestly, Im not saying I have the answer to the best way to approach thisā¦ so Im āwinging itā a bit at the moment
(and Ive just reached out to Squarp, for how theyād like to go forward in this regard)
Such one-dimensional view, rather than the current two-dimensional one, emphasizes the rhythmic/positional/bar structure. This allows for more flexible motivic development and gives a wider structural overview (easy to compare what happens in each bar-position).
128-key grid in one-dimensional view would allow for classically-oriented composition. (imo, 32 steps, i.e. 2 sets of 16 events is the minimum comfortable requirement for such use case)
I know it is not the intended purpose, but I believe if you can use a device for classical music, you might open whole new horizons for the device.
anyways, thatās what Iāve been dreaming of for quite some time now ā a grid sequencer that might allow me to do just that.
Such one-dimensional view, rather than the current two-dimensional one, emphasizes the rhythmic/positional/bar structure. This allows for more flexible motivic development and gives a wider structural overview (easy to compare what happens in each bar-position).
Totally agree on this, actually I was thinking about one 16 step row but as @plaukiu said it is really interesting to see up to 8 bars of note events at the same time.
I was watching your first video @thetechnobear which was very interesting. There is a moment where you select notes on the live mode(with chords) to then switch to the step mode and change a parameter to fix the last played chord and then add that chord to the step.
This process to me looks quite unnecessarily tedious to me. It could be solved by adding 1 or 2 rows of the step mode so that you have a keyboard and also the steps in the same view. This would be like the pyramid with and external keyboard which works really well. You can hold a step and play some notes and they will be written on that step. Circuit tracks has this view and elektron sequencers with external keyboard also work on this way so itās proven to be very efficient way to program sequences.
Quick and easy way of entering notes on a step is one of the main features of a step sequencer in my opinion and thatās why I really hope squarp developers consider looking into this.
Yes but as far as I could see in the manual and videos, you need an external keyboard or swap between modes to see the keyboard instead of having a view where you can see the timeline steps and a keyboard at the same time.
As for the vertical selections, that is only half of the problem. The other half is to actually see if there are notes in a certain step.
Currently if you are view at a different octave you canāt see if there is anything on the other octaves which makes it more confusing that the pyramid single line step mode with poly on.
I can see it in Marks new video where many times the step mode looks empty because the view is focused on a different octave. I think I read there is a button to auto frame but thatās an extra step just to see. I experienced this step piano roll in other sequencers like the ski force and machine jam and I think pyramids single line and a external keyboard is much more streamlined experience in my opinion.
The solution I was talking about consist in having the top row to behave like the pyramids step mode(poly) where the step looks lit if there is any pitch in that same step .There seems to be one line that does nothing currently so it could replace this top row.
no two sequencers work the same, and different approaches have different pros/cons.
and, personally, I donāt think every sequencer has to implement all possible inputs methods.
they just have to be good at what they doā¦
later this week (or perhaps next?) , Im planning on doing a (or perhaps series) of short quick tips video.
one part I want to show is really how quick the Hapax is to add/edit notesā¦ even without an external keyboardā¦ as there are some ātricksā up its sleeve , you donāt see until you start using it
Thanks for the heads up about your videos Mark, looking forward.
Of course I agree not every sequencer needs every input method.
In this case Iām asking about the main step mode/view on pyramid which has been very successful and is gone in Hapax. The rest of the mentions to other sequencers where just examples of what doesnāt work that well.
Anyway, itās true that on paper things might look different and I will wait to be able to test it myself to farther comment on all of this. Hopefully the shipment progresses well and I can get it on my hands soon.
we all make different types of music, and we have different approaches , so of course, our experiences will all be differentā¦ so Im hoping/assuming , as more musicians get their hands on Hapax, this will influence its directionā¦
but, also I believe design is a feedback process users <-> productā¦
you start with a design, users use it, and to some extent adapt to it, then have feedback which are integrated.
the key here for meā¦ is it goes both ways, and its a bit of a balancing act.
users have to try to use as is firstā¦ weād never have any new approaches if users insist it can only work like an older/existing productsā¦ we need innovation.(*)
BUT similarly, donāt throw out the baby with the bath waterā¦ try to integrate (where possible!) ideas that work well.
this is something I love to see, when new products come out, and how users adapt and become creative with them !
anyway, look forward to hearing what you think when you get your hands-on Hapax
(*) Iāll admit, as a bit of a tech nerd, so, very open to adapting my workflows, trying new thingsā¦ so Im a bit biased that wayā¦ and, I donāt make music for a living, so it doesnāt matter if my āefficiencyā drops for a while as I adapt.
So I finally got my Hapax a few days ago and I am absolutely loving it.
But I still have the same āissueā with the way the step mode works. I canāt see what steps have notes if they are not in the same octave that is in focus. I will try to forget about this but it happens continuously so not sure if I will be able.
There are many āsimpleā ways this could be improved like making the steps on the purple line be on if there is any note in the same step position.
I will create separate threads for this and other ideas trying to influence the design process as you were saying.
I know of one bug (already reported), when using pScale (and probably track scale) where the root note is shown in the wrong octave.
ā¦ this might be what your tripping up on
Squarp are working on issues reported, so hopefully this will be addressed soon.
