Awesome tip, Thank you! How I never thought of that before makes me feel pretty silly. I have two free tracks with my current setup… I’ll give this a try. But yes, I would still like to see the length of automation lanes decoupled from the length of the pattern.
3 Likes
More patterns and tracks per project please. I know for a lot of people it doesn’t matter too much (myself included) but it stops a lot of others from wanting to buy.
I think 16 tracks per project is pretty generous. Also 16 patterns is more than enough for almost everyone.
The only limit that seems to bother a fair amount of people (myself included) is the 8 lanes limit for a drum track. It would be awesome if they could double that.
8 Likes
This can go pretty far but as far as I can tell it doesn’t work for velocity. I’d love to be able to decouple note velocity, you can add a lot of dynamics this way. Five12 Vector has a great feature that allows you to decouple the note, gate, and velocity pattern lengths and you can stretch a 4 note sequence into something really interesting this way.
tl;dr: +1 on setting automation lane length/division independent of the pattern length
4 Likes
Has anyone seen /heard any rumblings about new OS or beta OS?
2 Likes
rumblings in this thread
1 Like
They just released an update that is primarily bug fixes. I can’t speak for Squarp, but they did mention that a major firmware update is on the horizon. Maybe end of year or early next year?
1 Like
Squarp’s social media is still the best place to get the latest news for their firmware updates. Unlike some of the other situations we’ve seen this year, it’s unlikely anyone will come across any Hapax rumors or “leaks”.
My prediction is that the next firmware update will arrive somewhere between late December 2024 and early/mid February 2025. I have no inside knowledge, just a hunch.
Are we there yet? 
Just want to add that I’ve come to realize my most desired feature request (today) is time signatures per Pattern (or at least per Track). 
1 Like
2025 is right around the corner, so we can’t be much further away, right???
The feature(s) I desire most has changed over the past six months or so as I’ve had more time to ponder over what I’d like to see in the next update. And as new devices have been released that have features I would like to see incorporated into Hapax.
But If I had to narrow it down to the three features I would like to see most (in no particular order):
- Melodic Euclidean Sequencer: Something along the lines of the Torso T-1
- An Improved Drum Sequencer: Make the lanes independent so that each lane can run in different directions, note divisions, lengths, etc. Also would love to see something like Mutable Instruments Grids incorporated, a la the Oxi One.
- Step Components: I admit to being a bit of a prisoner of the moment with this request. With the recent Teenage Engineering release, step components are all the rage again. (Check out the two OP-XY threads on Elektronauts if you don’t believe me.) I’d love to see the next Hapax update include its own version of OP-Z/OP-XY style step components.
I don’t know how much of this is realistic, but a guy can dream, right? Hopefully, there will be at least a glimpse of what to expect soon!
2 Likes
hows the oxi one? still got both?
Yeah, I still have the Oxi One. When it comes to GAS, I have no problem at all resisting shiny new synthesizers. For my purposes, any well made instrument I already own is as good as the latest FM/Wavetable/Granular device that comes out (though Tonverk will probably be an instabuy if/when it’s released). My problem is with sequencers. I got the Oxi One, the T1, the Midicake Arp, have definite plans to buy the NGEN (if it ever becomes available again) and I’ve talked myself out of getting the Metropolix and the NDLR, pending the new features in the upcoming Hapax update. My only GAS purchase regret at the moment is the Ableton Move.
But anyway, to answer your question . . .
I like the Oxi One, and if not for the Hapax, I’d consider making it my main sequencer. It’s biggest strength (compared to the Hapax) is it’s portability. Besides that, it does a lot of the same things. The Stochastic sequencer is great for coming up with generative material. Just press play and the Oxi One can endlessly generate melodies that work in accordance with two parameters. And when it comes up with a melody you like you can save it as a pattern. The Matriceal sequencer is probably the best feature on the Oxi One. It can also generate melodies, but you have more parameters. The Matriceal sequencer is very flexible, because not only can it generate “beautiful” melodies (if that’s what you’re after), if you push it a little I like to think of it as “Autechre in a box”. So yeah, you can do wacky IDM stuff if that’s what you’re after. Thanks to the Matriceal features, you don’t have to put a whole lot of effort into getting great results.
It’s been awhile since the last major Oxi One update. I’ve asked them about MIDI import/export and as I recall, the response was not to expect it anytime soon.
As I mentioned on another thread, I’m enjoying the Hapax so much that I don’t touch my Oxi One as much as I used to. I’d like to consolidate my tiny setup so that Hapax is really the only sequencer I ever use (which is why I make all these crazy requests). I’ll probably keep the T1 no matter what, but I’m looking to eventually sell the Oxi One. It’s a great sequencer, I just feel more inspired with the Hapax.
3 Likes
100% agree with your impression, Oxi One is great, but Hapax has much more features and manages more devices (and has instrument definitions open to the community to make).
Among that for people who needs a portable device Oxi is amazing, it’s cheaper has 8CV/gate and the build quality is superb, feels like a tank (better than Hapax IMO).
1 Like
I’d add that the Hapax is much more intuitive to use. I have an Oxi, rarely take it out because I always feel like there is such a learning curve to it. The Hapax is super simple. I’ll probably end up selling my Oxi too at some point, but not ready yet because the matriceal stuff is still pretty fun. Then again I too have a T-1 which is like dialing the matriceal mode to 11, but its another one that has mostly stayed in the drawer because it feels so intimidating to fully understand (definitely won’t sell it though; its quite unique and one day I shall master it, or so I tell myself). There’s definitely something to be said for the dual displays and function encoders of the Hapax when it comes to comprehension.
And the Ableton Move, yeah, that was a bit disappointing, although I am starting to groove with it a bit. It does have one killer feature which is the capture button. If it wasn’t for that I would have dumped it already.
BTW if anyone is interested I maintain a comparison doc at OXI One versus Hapax vs Deluge - Google Docs. Corrections and comments welcome.
5 Likes
Great work with the document 
. Deluge’s community team are working on instrument definitions, but they won’t be as complex and featured as Hapax, for the moment.
This is awesome. Added a comment
im in love with my mpc 1000 now, taking the drum pressure off of hapax. its just a different machine in total and compliments hapax if you ask me.
Bought an Oxi One 6 months ago and got a Hapax a couple weeks ago. The only reason I haven’t solve my Oxi One yet is because the Stochastic mode is superior to the generative features offered by Hapax. I really wish Hapax would evolve their generate features to be more in-line with the capabilities of the Oxi One. I believe the Oxi product team was certainly “inspired” by many features of Hapax, but this is one area where they exceed. Would love to see Hapax close the gap.
Otherwise, I agree with others above, that on the whole Hapax is superior in terms of it’s rational and accessible UI. The Oxi One feels like the features and capabilities exceeeded the intentions of it’s original hardware interface, so it’s becomes overloaded with submenus and inconsistent multi-button actions.
why do oxi one owners jump ship and want a mini oxi one inside the hapax? we need more non generative features. generative features are a waste of time when there is already the oxi one. its like california democrats moving to texas and still voting democratic… things get worse in texas when theres already california! go live there! dont bring that nonsense here! 
2 Likes
That’s an unusual perspective. It’s like asking “Why did iPhone users want advanced camera controls, dual SIM support, customizable widgets, or enhanced multitasking when these features already existed in Android?”
Or similarly, questioning why musicians would want improved audio warping in Bitwig when they could “just use Ableton Live.”
Users generally don’t want to purchase, learn, and maintain multiple devices or platforms, especially when there’s significant feature overlap. People choose their primary device or software based on an overall preference for its workflow, interface, reliability, or ecosystem. It’s perfectly reasonable for users to want their preferred platform to adopt strong features from competitors when they identify gaps.
In the case of the Hapax vs. Oxi One, many users might prefer Hapax’s rational UI design, workflow, and overall feature set, while still appreciating certain aspects of the Oxi One’s generative capabilities. Wanting these features in their preferred device isn’t about creating a “mini Oxi One” - it’s about enhancing an already strong platform with useful functionality.
Now that the Hapax has become my primary sequencer, I find myself gradually forgetting the Oxi One’s workflow. It’s impractical to set up a second sequencer and make space for it in my workstation just to access one superior feature set. However, the Oxi One’s generative capabilities are genuinely impressive - so much so that musicians focused on generative composition might choose it over the Hapax based on this strength alone. This highlights another important point: when a competitor has a killer feature, it can directly impact sales and reduce the revenue needed for ongoing development and innovation. Maintaining competitive advantage isn’t just about user convenience - it’s about business sustainability.
6 Likes