Whilst I think that’s true for larger manufacturers such as Roland, I’m not sure it applies to ‘boutique’ manufacturers like Squarp etc.? It seems reasonable to assume a highish probability of feature development over time based partly on community feedback such as this thread. Pyramid was a good example of this. I think that (ongoing development) is one of the reasons folk buy into complex hardware from smaller outfits.
3 Likes
perhaps for some, but I already get lost on the current linear timeline when editing clips that are more than a few screens wide - so I dont see it being very comfortable with something even longer.
but ymmv.
well yes, and no.
a few reasons :
a company like Roland have (a lot) more development resources to throw at projects.
whilst Squarp have a good reputation for delivering new features - relying/ expecting this is pretty much a sure fire way to disappointment. dev teams get literally hundreds of features requests, they will never do ALL of them, so you have no idea if the one YOU want will ever be done.
so. assumption is a bad idea… esp, for any particular feature request.
so yes, Squap listen to community feedback, particularly request/bugs via the contact form … but not all requests are ‘equal’. some are quick n’ easy to implement, some are much more fundamental, and a lot of work. BOTH factors are important in what actually gets implemented.
e.g. you can have an easy request from one user being implemented (aka low hanging fruit),
whilst lots of people requesting something that extremely difficult to do (or not in line with design) that will never be implement .!
which leads up to the topic in hand …
creating a new linear song mode is not a small feature, its more a change in design.
when the Hapax was designed, Squarp chose this pattern arrangement song mode.
its not like the alternative discussed here is revolutionary, its how Ableton works, so Squarp will know it was an option… and to be clear Squarp products, have always variations on this song mode thats on the Hapax.so, sure, whist adding new features is common, fundamentally changing workflow is not so common.
so yes, Im sure Squarp will add features as it matures, but don’t expect, or base your purchasing decisions on what might be - only what is.
dont get me wrong, for sure these days… with everything being ‘software’, updates with new features are much more common than they used to me - but buying in expectation, or being disappointed that a feature never shown is never developed - is kind of pointless…
again, thats not to say don’t send a feature requests to Squarp via the contact form.
there is nothing to say that the developers arent already thinking of this as a progression, or think is a good way forward.
1 Like
Deluge has always displayed arrangements on the pad grid, even when it didn’t have the recent OLED screen upgrade, so I wouldn’t expect to need Hapax’s screen(s) for primary arrangement functions. as others have noted, the grid is right there
and obviously Hapax is Squarp’s product so they can choose to design it however they think works best for their intended users but when your main (only really, to my eyes) competitor has X + Y functionality for a major feature and your device is limited to X, at the least it puts your product at a disadvantage when consumers are comparing and choosing between the two.
3 Likes
its a major feature for SOME users… others are happy as is…
Hapax is not alone in the approach,
all the Elektron sequencers are similar, and my eurorack sequencers too…
its just a different approach.
no two instruments are ever going to have all the features as each other, they all have pros/cons,
and so suit different users/use-cases.
this is good… hardware (imho) needs to be focused, to help with usability/accessibility.
so we have choices…
if this was an important aspect for me, Id have bought a deluge,
and Im sure , those that have a critical need for this did already 
if I want everything… I use a laptop/computer + controller(s).
there I have different workflow (daws/vcv etc) , and I even write custom software.
thats not what I (personal opinion only!) want from my hardware sequencers/synths.
I should say, it’s not that Id not want a linear clip timeline, I think it’s a cool idea, I use it in Ableton already, and enjoy it there…
I guess, I just think it’s unlikely to happen (but could be wrong!) , and thats ok for me too.
( * ) I use this loosely, I often code for rPI and Bela, so this almost then is custom hardware… but the point is, computers are great for all-purpose…
but I buy hardware instruments because they are focused/ they have a ‘view’
1 Like
Hi Chris, they might be limited in terms of it costing more to add these kinds of features - but its a tad disappointing when you compare it to others, that might have other limiting factors or not-so-great workflow - but got these bits right - HAPAX isn’t a cheap device compared
I was hoping this would be a little more flagship in these areas - as it’s so awesome in every other respect
if oxi had 1 more sequencer - id go for that, but it doesn’t lol
thats the point… nothing will ever have everything exactly as you want it…
why? because everyone’s needs are unique… we all have different priorities.
the chances that a company will create exactly the right combo of features, at the right cost, the right form factor is close to nil. and if it suited you, it would miss the mark for others…
there is no consensus on ‘right’ here
so we compromise.
if you want the perfect ‘anything’ , you’ll have to design and create it yourself.
(though that’ll take years too 
)
1 Like
Im not saying things should be the same.
But this is a high price sequencer and some bits dont match up to others out there …ive mentioned mpc priced like 650 pounds…and look what you get.
I dont love all about mpc …but its almost a complete unit…touch screens, sampling, fx, eq, plug ins, cv outs, ratches, probability etc etc etc piano rolls ++++++
I will still get hapax for work flow reasons but…i dont think we can say its just different
Its missed some big obvious requirements and made it a bit limiting … but its still unique …
Hopefully, they can.at least add more pattern storage …even if it turns off other features whilst it does…allows extra patterns
Some stores are trying to tell me oxi is better,i get it …but it would be a faff for me in some areas . .
I love squarp … maybe they will address a few bits …in firmware if possible
It’s a competitive market …so all compassions count
2 Likes
What is hapax then?
An extended midi controller/sequencer?
a jamming unit?
A daw replacement?
it’s a bit hard to understand what it really aimed at - but it’s very cool at what It can do – and probably worth having it on that basis - not sure it justifies the cost tho - but is what it it is
MPC can do so much more and if it wasn’t for the song bit on the MPC you wouldn’t need any other outboard sequencer - IMO - some people would say that they are happy with these types of song arrangers–
ok - if that’s what hapax does it’s what it does ----- but the lower count on patterns per track will always be a limitation unless it can be updated
1 Like
sometimes - some items have far more than you want and keep surprising you,
I have a Behringer wing console and it has endless limitless - expansions - this that the other, there isn’t anything I haven’t been able to do, it always has far more than I could ever use.
I think the Roland TR8-s is like that - so many things you can do if you wanted to, korg modwave another - MPC in many ways, there are lots, but not quite in this area.
I read somewhere Behringer is planning on designing a hardware sequencer sequencer that will try challenge a daw or at least try take you to close to being daw less
so wait for that, if thats what you want…
as I said, we all have different needs.
I don’t need a sequencer to be daw-like, I want them to be more hands-on/ performance focused.
these days, Im more ‘modular’ in my approach, hapax has a particular roles, which work for me - sure, t it doesn’t cover everything…e.g. Ive other sequencers like the Frap Tools USTA in my Eurorack case, because it’s different.
if I need a daw, I’ll use a daw… as I said above, a laptop + push2 + other controllers, is alway going to be better (for me) for arrangement than something with some a small screen.
this is why the MPC, Maschine+ and to some extent deluge have never really appealed to me
but you, and many others, have different needs, so I can see they might be more appealing.
no rights/wrongs, you just have to go with what suits you most.
we live in a time, with a wonderful selection of tools… just choose one, and get the most out of it today.
I cannot live in the future… what may or many not be released/added etc.
but of course, Im happy use these things if and when they arrive
I think many of us …are excited about being dawless … but a sequencer is the missing part of the puzzel
Its not about acting like a daw . Its about giving us enough means to do what we need to do. Even by different methods - dosent have to be super expansive
An old atari with cubase made that happen … a few midi boxes or even midi to cv if required…and your off,
It is what it is , and its not just hapax …it host of devices …and ends up a lot of work arounds and not has fluent …
Even an expander at an extra cost would help those who need a bit more than a creative jam , ideas box …
But it is what it … untill something else comes
2 Likes
A little app that allows to drag selected pattern on the Hapax as a midi clip to any Daw.
It doesn’t feel like a massive development work and it really improves the workflow of a hybrid hardware-software combination.
I have been using it lately with the Squid after ignoring the feature for years.
Allows me to create patterns with the joy and immediacy of hardware sequencer.
Build parts by combining the different patterns, still using the hardware. Still a lot of fun an interactive experience to manually switch between sections and refining patterns.
Once I have the cool sections then dragging them to the daw to arrange with more detail but already starting with nice sections.
Yes it could be done exporting the midi but not the same since this method is completely live just by being connected to usb.
Of cource it allows to print the midi without any type of timing issues.
1 Like
this would be a nice idea… though its another thing to maintain and support.
(multiple OS’s, multiple versions… do it as a web app = multi browsers, its a pain for devs to do this.)
that said, to implement this would require a protocol for data exchange (over usb), which if done with midi, then this would open the door for a web midi implementation.
so perhaps a compromise could be squarp create the hapax midi api side, allowing 3rd parties to create apps that use it.
this way 3rd parties take the burden of continued support, different versions, different daw support etc…allowing Squarp to focus on the hardware.
the other advantage is, given the API there could be different variations to suit different use-cases etc.
of course, the disadvantage is finding 3rd party devs wanting to do it… but thats probably not much more difficult than Squarp finding the dev resources to implement themselves ! (given how many FR they have)
such an api has been discussed before here - a spiritual successor to the quite limited pyramidi that existed on the pyramid. so perhaps one day.
but worth sending Squarp a FR via contact form, so they can see your ideas.
also I think many have have requested midi import/export, depending if/how thats implemented… we will then be able to see how this affects this daw integration.
for now… I just record the midi old school style
The thing is that the app is extremely simple, literally shows the name of the selected pattern(in the hardware) and an icon to drag to the daw.
Another advantage is that works for any daw since is just drag and drop midi.
And the workflow really improves so much with such a “little” feature.
I have been recording the midi for years but this methods allows me to stay in the zone get to a final arrangement much quicker.
1 Like
Comparing it to export midi, I see the following advantages.
- Zero dealing with files, the dragged midi file has the name of the track and pattern automatically and you literally do nothing on the hardware except changing the patterns.
- It works through the usb while the hardware is using the usb midi to get the midi clock and to send all the notes so you don’t even have to stop the sequencer.
- Everything remains connected simply chose and empty section on the hardware while playing the patterns in the daw. And do the inverse if you want to work on a new section on the hardware.
I am just as guilty as anyone about asking for new features. Back in the day, I would buy a old analog synth and if it didn’t have a feature I thought I needed (like oscillator sync or changing the LFO rate to go slower), I’d actually do a hardware modification to “fix” it.
Over time, I’ve come to appreciate the consistent vision and package ‘as-is’ with all hardware. So I research what is available and buy something that fits my needs and then use it as it was designed.
I also have been writing software for 35+ years now and I am often very reluctant to ask for new software features in a product, especially when it deviates from the main design.
The reason is that even though from the outside it seems like a simple modification/addition, often it involves extensive changes to many many aspects under the hood and can result in impacting the timing and stability of the product.
If the Hapax design was not conceived for linear tracks or has all their data storage tuned and optimized for only 8 patterns per track or doesn’t have the bandwidth to handle being a USB device and moving large files to and from the computer in real time, adding these features may result in a complete rewrite with extended time to debug and test a bunch of new scenarios.
Small companies do not have the luxury of being able to tell a programmer (or two) – go off and work on this feature for a year. If they do that, often it impacts their ability to support their products and to create new ones.
3 Likes
as a developer, I can say no, its not ‘extremely’ simple…
as I pointed out, its not just the app… it requires a communication protocol, the current midi implementation does not go far enough to do what you are describing.
Im not saying is months, or even weeks of work, but its also not just a ‘couple of hours’.
and, as I tried to highlight, the main issue with an app is NOT actually the initial implementation effort,
rather, its the ongoing support and maintenance costs involved, which are all distractions from the main focus of hardware development.
Ive been there, done that… its important devs stay focused on the core features.
esp. when there are so many feature requests, you simply cannot do everything !
but ,as I said, I think its a great idea, I can see it being very useful to some users.
thats why Id like to suggest to Squarp, something that requires less of their effort, but opens ups possibilities for other (3rd party) developers to step in.
I do this with quite a few other projects… so whilst , for sure, its not easy finding devs with time to do these things , it does happen !
1 Like
I actually meant an app with an extremely simple GUI with one single feature (I know it needs the usb protocol).
Didn’t want to offend any developer.
I totally understand what you mean, but in my opinion it doesn’t apply for this case. A simple app (with not that simple protocol on the backend) is not that much work to maintain. Also the protocol doesn’t really need to change because of the OS update, so the maintaining might be minimal.
Squid manager(the app that has the functionality Im describing) is a good example, it was completely abandoned firmware wise since 2021, last update they went from 1.0.1 to 1.0.2 just to support big sur. It still works perfectly even if it hasn’t been updated in 2 years.
Windows version on the other side didn’t get updated since 2019 and it still perfectly working.
I’m not an expert but it sounds like creating an API that we can program with is much more work that what I’m describing.
I — like some other people here — am bumping into some of the limitations of the Hapax’s song mode. As others have pointed out, you’re forced to keep one pattern empty in order to act as a ‘muted pattern’, effectively limiting you to 7 patterns per track.
At a bare minimum, I think it should — optionally perhaps — respect the mutes you set for a section.
Beyond that, the limit of 8 patterns is frustrating. It’s really not enough. Considering you can have crazy long patterns, this is an odd limitation.
2 Likes
Hmm? AFAIK the track length limit is 32 bars which isn’t long at all, especially considering the Pyramid supports up to 384 bar tracks.
Which is not contrary to your point, instead it’s just another odd limit when the hardware is so much more powerful than the Pyramid.
3 Likes