That’s good to know! That does elevate the Oxi One into Hapax territory, as the Oxi One is kind of the closest (and also most exciting) alternative to what I see as wonderful about the Hapax.
Thanks for the correction!
EDIT: @CarlosUnch I looked more closely at the manual, looks like in multitrack mode a sequencer can run up to 8 tracks but that would be 8 monophonic tracks, i.e. if I want to run let’s say a 4-note chord progression that would occupy 4 out of 8 tracks of a sequencer? Is this correct? If so that does give a definite edge to the Hapax in settings where polyphony and track count matter.
I do like the portability, battery, and general tiny form factor of the Oxi One — looking through the manual, it does a lot of things and some really unique things. Though I think the Hapax has the better, more user friendly UI. I can imagine the Oxi is a bit like the Deluge in the sense that practicing with it would make it intuitive to use due to muscle memory, the Hapax just looks cleaner and more accessible to me…or better put, it suits my way of thinking better.
I could see myself getting an Oxi One down the line as well though for the form factor alone. Plus it’s sort of nice to see a small company dare be so innovative and idiosyncratic.
Guys, I’m at a loss. I just purchased a Hapax, came here to talk about the Hapax, responded to a comment on design choices made around the Hapax in relation to other sequencers, there’s a 3-4 msg exchange, super cordial and informative on correcting a few (erroneous) assumptions about Hapax competition — where in the process of it someone also posts an image of the size differences between an OxiOne and the Hapax…that’s neither off topic (though I’m ok with moving the exclusively Oxi One focussed comments to its thread) nor uncomfortable (I don’t get that at all!).
Seriously, what’s up? We’re talking Hapax here primarily. To my understanding nothing discussed here breaches community rules and 90% of it is related to the thread title. Why would a photo that showcases a size comparison between two similar products — one of them the product in the thread title - be an issue? I for one, as someone who is SUPER excited about the Hapax and has one on order, really appreciate that photo to get a better idea of the physical presence of the device I can’t wait to receive & use.
Yes. Works as expected. What do you want to know? The only thing I wish is that it doesn’t recognize different devices on the USB B port the way AUM might.
Can I ask what you use to interface with the iPad? I’m looking for a peripheral that will allow me to connect the hapax to the usb-c port of my iPad and also allow me an audio out or two. . .
There are USB C hubs with 3.5mm stereo outs, but never more than that.
On the other hand you have class compliant audio interfaces with more I/O but no USB MIDI host capabilities, so Hapax would have to go to a MIDI input in the interface in any case.
In my case I use a little USB C hub without audio out, an audio interface and USB MIDI controllers connected to the hub.
You could try something like the iConnectivity Audio 4c or maybe a cheaper alternative audio interface integrated USB hub. Or you get a usb hub, get a usb audio interface and then connect your midi sequencer and audio interface to the USB hub and the hub to your ipad.
From watching four or five videos now, this is my biggest concern. I just ordered a Hapax anyway, though, because I think the compromise here, having different modes balanced against giving you access to different kinds of complexity as needed for different tasks, makes a lot of sense, despite its drawbacks.
I had the same idea–to use my Linnstrument with this, along with the Cobalt8m, Iridium and Hydrasynth, to see what kind of craziness I can create with this and MPE.
Agreed! There’s certainly enough space in the 128-step grid for voicing modifiers to be added. I prefer playing my chords but it’s nice to have a chord generator there still, for experimentation that sort of stuff is great.
So I’m just curious about this device, is it objectively better than Pyramid? And is there any reason to have it over the Deluge? (Besides running two sequences at once, but I bet Synthstrom would add even that if they got a few requests …)
For my purposes hapax is leagues better than the pyramid (which I loved).
The grid of buttons offers so much more UI and so much more feedback than the 15 or so buttons of the pyramid. It is much much easier to make adjustments on a sequence, record live, and add nuanced step sequencing (with conditional trigs, ratchets, velocity, etc) the lfoa and Cc stuff is much easier to work with. Way less stuff is hidden in a second menu or button press combo. It does MPE.
The way of composing on the pyramid was kind of cool (a composition as a series of mute states) but honestly I don’t miss it too much. polyrhythm stuff is still easier to do on the pyramid (though polymeter is easier on the hapax) but none of that is high priority for me. Pyramid is still great, but, yes I think hapax is pretty close to objectively better.