Hapax is fundamentally the spiritual successor to the Pyramid, so its very possible the pyramid is end of life? I imagine for a small company like Squarp that it would be difficult to maintain two product lines that have like a 90% overlap. just a guess
its so not. its a different tool. the pyramid is i mean. I see the hapax as unusable. so it can’t really be a successor to me, its not the right workflow for me.
I think us pyramid users have a long wishlist too. i’m not gonna believe pyramid is done until squarp literally says so. then i will cry, because it really could use a hardware upgrade with a little more horse power, timing accuracy, among other items on my personal wishlist
i don’t think i’ve seen that as a commonly-encountered issue. maybe if someone was going crazy overboard with loads of FX automations at the step level they could tax it but for basic sequencing it’s pretty robust
Im curious what the shortcomings are for you in the Hapax vs the Pyramid. Having owned and used both, I found the hapax way faster to work with and more intuitive in its workflow. Biggest thing that comes to mind is the lower amount of “patterns” per track on the hapax
Easy if you use the clock sync on load feature. There’s a bug where the longer the list of files it has to display the longer there is a hitch when reading the card. I use this feature extensively and I have to keep the number of songs on my sd cards really low or this hitch will literally cause my analog rytm to just stop because the clock is delayed too long.
the main one for me is the hapax form factor is too large to fit in my rig. I’ve spent a number of years building this rig and its not like i can throw out a bunch of gear to make room for a larger sequencer. I haven’t dug too deep into the feature set because that alone is a non-starter for me at this point in my musical journey. Not to mention I’ve got a library of work I’ve made for pyramid over the years that I’m still performing.
it is pretty tight. It all depends on where cables need to go, how willing I am to solder on 90 degree ends or redo the wiring. Re-looking at the dimensions I actually might be able to make it work but it’d be a pita. But I mean I literally have synths hanging off the edges and stuff. Also, It wouldn’t solve my problem of “well I have a million songs I wrote on pyramid and know it like the back of my hand” issue - but maybe the size ends up being moot? I think I have like 4.5 or 5 inches available, not quite enough - but maybe? Heh, watch someone writes a pyramid to hapax conversion script and then I’ll have to upgrade lol.
I love my pyramid though. Pry it from my cold dead hands. (i don’t hate hapax at all btw! not a hater, just entrenched in my pyramid)
Also don’t agree with that, though not for space concerns lol
I just hate things with lots of flashing lights, they distract me. I prefer listening to my music instead of seeing it.
Absolutely love my Pyramid and after considering the Hapax, which seems a cool sequencer, I realised it would just not fit into my workflow.
Now I do still miss some things with the Pyramid, so if there would be a successor I would definitely upgrade. Main things I miss in order of importance:
just in general this mode seems very undeveloped… I mean even “copy” and “paste” show the wrong text on the screen when you use it
I use the Perform mode mostly, rather than the play/loop mode
One thing I would really like there is to “shift” sequences forward, to make room to insert extra sequences in between. Because when I compose a song, it grows, and I need to insert parts in between. To keep everything logical in my head, I want to keep them in sequential order. Now this makes for lots of copy-pasting to achieve that, which gets crazy once the song gets long.
Btw, I discussed this in the past with people from Squarp, and they had similar ideas already… But yeah, we can only hope for novelties like that to ever arrive. I can imagine the focus is currently on the new products/codebase.
edit: copypaste from a mail with them:
The shifting left or right of sequences on the pads especially would be such a compositional timesaver: want to insert some extra parts, just hold a pad and press arrows to create a “gap” at that position. Not feeling it, no problem, just “close” the gap again to leave the structure as it is.
Sections in Hapax Song mode does make the “sequencing” process much faster compared to Pyramid, to be fair – you can insert/delete a Section with a few encoder clicks on a drop-down menu. but the tradeoff (currently) is you only get 7 total patterns per song Section to generate all Sections for a given track . . .