As far as I know, it’s an issue that needs to be solved by Squarp.
Different engines read PrCh at different times.
In OXI, we had to adjust it to send PrCh a tad earlier.
1 Like
I could see this being changed in later firmware due to user requests…
obviously 8’s (patterns/drum rows) , fit naturally with the UI.
so, I suspect for v1 , it seemed like a natural start point/limitation.
bare in mind, in each case the, the up/down buttons have not been used,
so no reason that I see, these could not allow for paging to allow more.
also, like the pyramid, I do not believe the hapax is hampered by limitations in this area…
everything is stored as events… so the limit is on number of events.
the pyramid already allows for more patterns… etc… so its a UI thing more than anything.
The hapax has a high limit (much more than the pyramid) of events,
but even there we saw with the pyramid, Squarp were able to optimise that substantially over its lifetime. iirc, Pyramid stated at around 6000 events… and latest firmware is 13000!
(I doubt we’ll see quite as big improvement on the Hapax, since no doubt it uses that experience to already be more optimal… but we will see)
again, this is v1 firmware… users have only had it a week or so, Im pretty sure we will see firmware updates rolling out, fixing things users find - and also no doubt including suggestions, this has happened with every sequencer I have including the pyramid/hermod.
in many ways, I think, the unfortunate, pause of shipping, will actually provide a useful time to the Squarp devs to focus on the firmware 
we know they are active on the firmware, as many, including myself, are getting responses to issues we have submitted.
not sure when they will release the next firmware, as a dev, Id do it, once I felt Id hit the ‘big issues’ that users are having issues with… Id also focus, pretty much exclusively on bugs… with just the odd ‘low hanging fruit’ … but only, if its was as easy/obvious change.
1 Like
Haha, just different styles of musics and workflow. You know what ? I should shut up and admit that I am a DAW type of guy.
1 Like
haha, that’s totally fine! It seems to be a recurring request but I couldn’t understand why (as one pattern can be 32 bars long and you have probability and trig conditions per note, one pattern could be enough for me at that point!) but as you say, different style/workflow I guess!
There are music styles that are more than just a little bit of minor changes. For a techno track I am rarely using more than 2 patterns on my Octatrack because it’s a lot about minor, constant changes in volume, modulation and rarely much change in melody and or harmony.
In Psytrance Tracks you sometimes change every 8to16 bars to something sometimes completely different over a period of 6-10 Minutes. I rarely have less than 8 patterns per instrument on those.
Dunno how much you are into metal, but it’s like comparing an AC/DC sind to a Metallica song that alone uses more riffs then AC/DC on two albums. It nothing that defines quality, it’s just a different style.
4 Likes
Never been much into trance (and variations) so got a listen to a psytrance mix (not my cup of tea but I can appreciate the hard work!) and indeed, a lot of variations in the set. I think I’d go with a DAW at that point but being able to create such tracks with hardware must be rewarding too!
I’ve failed magnificently at trying to play Metallica/Megadeth/Slayer so I get the idea ; )
1 Like
Sure. And the examples are helpful so thanks for that. But I think what I (and maybe others) am hung up on is, each track can hold up to 256 bars of unique content (8 patterns, 32 bars each), which is 1024 beats, which is 8 and a half minutes of song at 120 bpm with no loops or repeats. And then, on top of that, there’s seamlessly transitioning between projects which can make this effectively endless. So compositionally, it doesn’t feel like we’d run out of space.
So what is the limitation, then? Is it a performance thing? In the Elektron world the OT and DT rule here, right? Each has 8 tracks with 16 patterns per bank?
But seems like you could set the Hapax up the same by just using two tracks for each instrument thus netting you 16 patterns per logical “track” and 8 “tracks” per project. And with seamless project transitions, the Hapax projects are more akin to Elektron banks anyway.
(and each pattern could be 32 bars instead of capped at 4 if your set could benefit from that)
Maybe it wouldn’t work for some reason, but I’d love to hear more. The limitations and constraints of different genres are endlessly fascinating to me.
2 Likes
True, you could put more parts into one pattern. Arranging might get harder but true. But at the end, we agree, that 8 patterns with 256 bars is better than one with 2048, right?! Just because of practicallity.
And to repeat what I already wrote: I am fine with the 8 patterns, i don’t have one yet because of money and availability. I would love 16 patterns, but I wouldn’t depend on it!
Ah, I don’t do psy with electrons because of how modulation gets messy and sold pyramid long ago because I hit events Limit due to heavy modulation work. So currently psy in a daw, but I would love to get out of that some day.
Edit: phone-typos
2 Likes
Anyone here has its “clicky” buttons to the right of the Hapax get “stuck” in the metal frontplate upon releasing it? If I press them down perfectly centered, there is no problem, but if I do this a little bit skewed, they often hang to the side of the hole in the metal plate. (I hope it is clear to you what I mean, english is not my native language)
Ive not had this in all the time Ive been using it … doesn’t sound normal to me… I’d contact Squarp see what they suggest.
if you feel like it, you could try taking the faceplate off (make sure you use the correct T6 screw heads), lift the pad, and then reassemble. it might just be a little off-centre… so this might clear issue… its very quick to do, but thats just what Id try to see if it helped.
then contact squarp if its still occurring.
edit: just tested to ‘make sure’, I tried pressing each button on extreme(!) right (then left) , and no didn’t catch on either side on any button…
1 Like
Many iterations and an experienced hardware engineer made this possible.
I haven’t tried better encoders honestly, specially with the aluminum CNCd knobs.
Elektron’s encoders being next, oh yeah they are lovely too.
2 Likes
Oh yeah. I get about one hard lock a session, which is still 1 too many to want to play live with this.
Yeah the OXI’s build is incredible. Really loved the knobs! It was very clear a lot of love went into picking components.
2 Likes
No joke, we tried at least 15 different encoders plus 3-4 knob designs haha
The final encoders were very hard to source since the shaft needed to be shorter than usual to keep height to the minimum.
3 Likes
I like the idea of the compact nature of the Oxi… and I was sorely tempted, because of the OXI pipe.
but on the other hand, the UI feels too crammed in for my taste…
4 encoders., not having dedicated track buttons, few dedicated function buttons.
I do get it, its a trade-off , size/form factor … and for on-the-road I get it…
but just love how hands on the hapax is, mostly with with dedicated buttons, makes sense when you have it on a desk.
I also feel Hapax has more growth potential… more processing power, more UI space…so, my gut feeling is the functional gap between Oxi and Hapax will grow over time.
but do you need more? do you want to pay more? is form factor important?
… all are very individual.
only time will tell… both have talented engineers, and we as users will win by having more choice!
BUT hey, thats my a feeling on the “Squarp Hapax” topic, Im sure if we were posting on the “Oxi One” topic, feelings would differ
Having had the OXI for 6 weeks, and the Hapax for 2, there are things I very much miss about the OXI, and sort of wish I was decadent enough to have two bespoke hardware sequencers on my small desk. Hapax certainly maps to my workflow better, but I loved thee OXIs chord mode, and am not gelling yet with the Hapax one.
but yeah in general I think the OXI packed every last little bit of that hardware with what they wanted, and it will be interesting to see what they do to help it grow and change (both hardware and firmware) as they see how more folks are using it. Both the Pipe and the small extra Midi box are really interesting, but also they could have been in the OG hardware. UX wise its REALLY crammed tight.
I do think, with both of them relatively new, that the Hapax feels like it has room to grow, where the OXI feels like every button combo is already doing triple duty. Ultimately the big sell for me was I kept hitting the 4 track ceiling (multi tracks on the OXI are cool, but it changes some of the fast live playing workflows)
1 Like
chord mode is interesting, it went thru some radical revisions late on in beta, so I think its still a bit work in progress.
one important feature is coming… a kind of chord palette…
so you will be able to save your chords, this is sorely missing now, since you cannot play chords with modifiers really quickly… this will solve this issue.
what Id quite like though is to have a ‘chord track’ , where it stores chords rather than notes.
… I made a request, but no idea if it’ll ever see light of day, depends how many others want it 
I also think some Algos or more intelligent chord FX would be good things to add… all seems very possible given what’s there already.
3 Likes
I have tested this a lot with my Machinedrum, however I will not be a good use case for you since I am using a Megacommand, and the way that architecture works requires 4 beats to change a slot (basically loading a new machine from memory via sysex). The really nice thing though (as you point out) is that because PC is on an automation lane I can line it up perfectly with what I need from the Megacommand.
This does mean that I cant use each clips automatic program change with this box. Which is a bit of a bummer since that is a super nice feature.
This will be a nice add
Yeah my vulcan mind meld hand configuration doesn’t like the current layout. Seems easy enough to try some stuff from a UX standpoint and see what is working better for their beta testers.
yeah, with the different layouts tried, it became clear its quite difficult to get it right…
sure if you just have triads, its easy enough…
but those kind of chords don’t sound natural, not as you’d play on a keyboard, where you use different inversions… then what about 7th/9th etc, sus2, sus4? simple power chords…
the problem is the combinations are massive… even for a 128 pad grid…
and really hard to layout so users can actually find them
this is why I liked the kordbot (?) like approach.
(I do feel octave needs to perhaps be made a bit easier to grab?)
but indeed at times it can feel like street fighter combos - so we need fighting macros : )
1 Like