Someone should do a full overview video of how OXI solves this, because its pretty slick, (the augment buttons trigger the last played chord) and the augments are laid out pretty well in 2 columns on the grid.
2 Likes
Im sure thereās a video somewhereā¦ will have to go look
I didnt really understand in the oxi manual what was going on, looked like it was quite menu-based, but it doesnāt talk about augment buttons in depthā¦ which sounds like the missing piece ā¦ but thats probably more a topic for the oxi topic.
I think Squarp are going in the right direction, but for sure, inspiration could be sort from things like NDLR, Kordbot, Oxiā¦ and Im sure others, and of course importantly user feedback - and come up with something that is their own 
anyway, def take your ideas to squarp , they are very open to suggestions.
2 Likes
Honestly I canāt get and wonāt speak about Hapax since I donāt have it in my hands and I canāt get what the people at Squarp designed just by reading the manual, but I can speak about what some OXI strengths and weaknesses are and a little bit of its philosophy (not trying to highjack the thread btw, just some points that as an user Iād like to know):
Regarding UI
The looks differ from the UX. The function buttons seems cramped but they are about the size of a keyboard and haven't found myself pressing a button I didn't want to. It definitely was designed to be portable and compact tho, that's why MIDI Bluetooth, long lasting battery and upcoming USB Host to power/send MIDI to other devices had priority and took a lot of R&D.
4 encoders seem to be little, then you have 8 and people will see that 16 would be betterā¦ When UI is designed around 4 encoders itās different than cutting from 8 to 4. I donāt see this as a downside.
Definitely not menu based as we are used to in other devices. Thereās only 2 levels maximum of nested screens. With 2 button presses you can reach 95% of OXIās features.
Sorry I can't disagree more :D
OXI is built with modularity in mind. Modes can be added without interfering with the rest of what's already created, so UI space it's not a problem, it's just one more item on a list of modes. This approach hasn't been done before as far as I know and it feels closer to having 4 independent sequencers (definitely not tracks) as most parameters are per sequencer exclusive, except for a few global ones.
Just choose what 4 modes fit you better. Need a lot of tracks? multitrack is there (beta has built in MI Grids drum engine). Need something more generative? Stochastic is the choice, where you can lock sequences if it sounds good or leave just a few notes to be affected by the engine. Hands-on mono sequences or real time recording polyphony with adjustable quantization. The chord mode to play chords with modifiers and strum, specific tailored keyboardsā¦ all this is not limited by processing power.
This is just what it is now but we have more ideas for modes that can be more specific at one task and itās up to the users to choose the best fitting one, we donāt force a preset configuration.
Param loq sequencing
We decided to offer step param-loq sequencing up to 128 steps with up to 64 patterns per project (shared between the 4 sequencers, up to 32 CCs and tracks per project and 16 projects that load on the next 1/32 beat). That's the RAM limit but there's still room to add more parameters per mode. Adding modes does not take RAM space, so the point above stands.
Arranger
Arranger was definitely a grip for first users, now it has been reworked entirely (beta) and it's very stable. Scene launch and master sequences have been added in the beta, and we have more ideas coming like "jump to pattern", very much like follow actions on Ableton scenes behave.
OXI Pipe
As you said OXI Pipe is nice, but it's only half of the story. The CV layout we designed makes the setup (MIDI to CV) from being a pain in all the devices I've come to, to be something so fluid it becomes performative by using the 128 button grid.
Really small team
This is good and bad at the same time. Bad that the manual needs some work ;) and the resources are limited. Good that we are very reachable and very passionate about the project.
We are proud to be very communicative and listen to all the feature suggestions and feedback weāve been getting. Also we are lucky that the users know well what they want so itās very nice discussing features over our forum. Really bright ideas popping up that we are definitely adding!
Pricing
It's half the price after taxes. From the beginning we invested a LOT of time looking for solutions that could keep price tag at minimum. Having a smarter processor for more resolution meant quite the price jump to add a couple of features that weren't worth for us (quality over quantity), this way we kept the price way lower but without really loosing that much functionality compared with what was out there at double the price.
I, as a musician and knowing OXI well, donāt see a matter of a product being āmoreā than the other. Itās just a matter of choosing what workflow, philosophy and features fit you best. I hope more people with OXI can get Hapax and do reviews, because both machines are very feature packed and it takes time to know their strengths and weaknesses (some strengths may not be useful for every user and the other way around).
*Edited to keep things contained with dropdown menus.
8 Likes
For me, someone who does not own any of the two, it looks a lot as if Oxi is more directed to Modular-People and Hapax more to the Studio-Several-Synth people (just from looking at the ports). Even that I am very trigger happy on sequencers I skipped OXI because I donāt want another 8 tracks limitation and (FOR ME!!) donāt see the need of a battery powered sequencer, when everything else in my studio needs power from the wall. For traveling and couch-fun I went through more or less everything available and ended on the M8, thatās brings sequencing and sound in that awesome form factor.
For my studio-setup I prefer āmoreā over size, as, as I said, its table bound in my setup.
4 Likes
Sorry this is wrong. Itās up to 32 tracks and it has 2 virtual MIDI devices (2x16) via USB, Bluetooth and OXI Split, effectively being able to send all 32 tracks each to a different MIDI channel. All with independent time division, start/end point, playback direction etc etc.
2 Likes
most of this sounds like it would be better on the OXI topic ā¦
seems a bit disingenuous having a co-founder/employee(?) trying to sell the OXI on the Hapax topic.
disclaimer: to be 100% clear, Im not from Squarp, nor have received a dime from them.
sure, I got a hapax to beta test with, but given the hours Ive spent testing /suggestions/ videos/ supporting the community ā¦ you cannot call that āfreeāā¦ and Im happy to point out flaws in it ā¦ as you will see in this topicā¦ Ive also been pretty balanced, when talking about the OXIā¦ as Ive no beef with it.
3 Likes
Oh, didnt know that with more tracks, thatās new?
Nice that they provide a way to expand MIDI! Looking at the device there were tons of ports and one for midi 
1 Like
to be fair, OXI is as unavailable as the Hapax
2 Likes
Iām not economically involved in OXI.
Iām plainly talking as a fellow musician and a user of OXI.
Sorry if it looked otherwise, Iāll keep myself out of the discussion if the input is not welcomed.
Edit: From an user perspective only a handful of people knows OXI like I do the same that no one knows Hapax as you do, so IMO thereās nothing bad on sharing my perspective, that I think is based on facts, not marketing empty words. Iām also not having a beef with Hapax AT ALL. Friendly competition is good so both companies make the best out of their products.
4 Likes
Ohh I like having @CarlosUnch here. The 2 sequencers have so much overlap. If I was trying to figure out which one was for me this thread would be gold.
9 Likes
I think it is interesting to hear from someone who knows the OXI very well what his take is in the (obvious) comparison, so very welcome!
Even if you worked for OXI I think it is interesting. Just be clear about who you are, so people know.
5 Likes
Apologies,
I thought earlier you said you had designed it ( during pad discussion) , my misunderstanding.
That irked me, when today, you quoted a 10 day old post praising the oxi , seemingly out of the blue. Which I perhaps misinterpreted, as you trying to bring the light back onto the oxi.
Then I have my personal opinion on why I cancelled my pre-order of the oxi ā¦. and I see what appeared to be a bit of pitch again
again, I pointed out that it was my use case, and I could see why others might come to different conclusions. No diss on oxi.
So indeed, apologies if you are just keen -
but it felt like you were pushing product.
perhaps Iām just over cynical from marketing and the way social media is used.
I value your posts, i found your insights on the pads interesting ā¦
Anyway, itās free discussion for everyone to join in
4 Likes
I havenāt gone back and read all the posts to confirm but I have the sense they were mostly posting about OXI in response to people asking how aspects of Hapax compared to OXI.
I didnāt get the feeling they were trying to highjack the thread (I donāt have OXI but Iām here because I intend to get a Hapax).
3 Likes
I worked in OXI in the past, but currently I get no benefit of it selling more units at all. I just benefit from it by pushing the dev to add more features to fit my needs (itās working guys!)
Currently Iām a admin on the forum and help with beta testing and UI/UX design for new features when I have free time, thatās it.
Regarding the old post praising OXI hw, I was looking for it to show the hw designer, praise to him!
As stated, I havenāt hide my connection with OXI since my first post here. I think I have some good insight in sequencer design (sw and hw) that could be useful for the conversation, specially since OXI has been popping up here constantly and, letās be honest, the manual is outdated and itās not that accesible so itās a bit harder to grasp what it does well, thatāll change ofc. Squarp manuals are the dream!
2 Likes
ok, that explains itā¦ since I remember you often referred to as āweā (inclusive) and talked about internal discussions - so, I assumed you were there ā¦ obviously I didnāt know you have moved on.
for sure, as I said, I thought your insights into the pad development were interesting.
and of course, being connected , means you get to have lots of interesting discussion with dev teams.
and donāt get me wrong, of course , when we get involved we get passionate about these thingsā¦
(or absolutely hate them, if the relationship turns sour 
)
all coolā¦
ha, ha - you think
quite a few users donāt like the fact they are online, and not in linear formā¦
in fairness, I think the issue is you need different types of manuals to really help users
Quickstart
User guide
Reference (online?)
Squarp do 1 and 3 ā¦ and people cry out for another one !
BUT like Oxi, Squarp is a small company ,
I think there are only 4 (?) of them.
(at least on dev/support side, I can only think of 4 namesā¦)
only so much they can achieve
3 Likes
All good here. I do understand why you said those words though and was ready to move on.
Definitely neither you or me are completely unbiased with the respective sequencers (there are a lot of features and ideas in OXI that came and will come from me), however I try to be objective about what it offers and never diss other devices that doesnāt do x or y, because having experienced what it takes to create something from scratch and make it a mass production unit made me value quite a lot more all the small manufacturers out there. Both companies have released products competing directly with the Elektrons, Arturias, Korgs and Behringers out there that have much more infrastructure, employees and ofc funding, thatās quite the feat IMO. Same goes from the people at Torso, Deluge and other manufacturers. So much love to them 
Thatās something I havenāt considered. I can see the benefit of a linear structure, but by the looks and definitely as a marketing tool, what Squarp does is great. For more in depth topics that needs more literature you better have a linear manual.
4 Likes
Im like you here. For my studio I dont need battery power, or onboard synth/sampler, or cramped small form factor, etc. So hapax is perfect. On the go I also chose the M8 because it has everything in one tiny portable packageā¦ but I would never use it in my studio I dont think.
1 Like
I did a few studio tracks with the M8 as a midi brain and I agree. It wasnāt awful, but sitting at a desk staring at that tiny screen was not how it was meant to be used.
1 Like
@carlosunch - Thank you for your comments. Not that I disagree with you, but it was threads like this on the Squarp forum (Digitakt program change reacts one bar too late - #2 by Thibault_Squarp - Pyramid - Squarp Forum) that led me to believe the issue is with Elektron devices.
In a pure Elektron setup, I am able to switch patterns very quickly, often right before the end of the pattern and all the Elektrons seem to flawlessly switch patterns without issue (with the assumption that the pattern is the same length on all the devices).
I am puzzled as to why program changes are reacted to very quickly in a pure Elektron setup, but need a certain amount of ālead timeā when sequenced by the Pyramid (and perhaps the Hapax). Any comments on that point?
@MatthewAllen - thank you for your comments. So in the automation mode, (and using your example) given that there are 16 pads across, is each pad equivalent to a 1/16 note so that you can perfectly time when you send the Program Change?
Does that extrapolate (across the pads) if you make your pattern longer than measure? In other words, does each pad in automation mode become a smaller time unit the longer your pattern is?