Mini vs Oxi E16?

General discussion
1

Hello-

New to the forum. I’m in the market for a MIDI controller and I’ve been doing some research on my options and the Electra lineup came up in a thread about the Oxi E16 which has been at the top of my list. The full size Electra One Mk2 looks amazing but it may be more than I need and the Mini seems to check a lot of boxes for me- it has less tactile controls than the Oxi but it’s also cheaper and seems more customizable. Anyone care to weigh in on the relative pros and cons of one vs the other?

My use case is for live use, I have an Elektron Octatrack that is my main brain/clock, I also use an Oxi One as a more full-featured sequencer, a KMI K-Mix is my mixer, and for synths, a Beetlecrab Tempera (unrelated but this thing is amazing- cannot say enough good things about it, can’t believe there isn’t more hype surrounding it) an Elektron Digitone and a modular with a Befaco MIDI-CV converter as well as various other non-MIDI devices. All of those things are awesome but there is A LOT of paging through menus to get to various places and I want to consolidate as much as I can into a MIDI controller. Particularly I want to setup some scenes or pages where I have control of a number of different parameters for different devices on the same page- for instance, a page with volume and pan control over the Octatrack audio tracks but also the sends on the K-Mix, etc.

From what I can see, both the E16 and the Electra’s allow this pretty easily. What are the relative pros & cons of each? Does one leap out as a better choice? Should I bite the bullet and go for the full size Electra One (ha ha) I welcome any thoughts- thanks in advance

2

Hi and welcome,
I stepped into the Electra One range because of its flexibility (I can solve almost any synth puzzle with it), the support we get from Martin and Zdenek which is, let’s admit it, rare in our Music World, and the awesome user forum where ideas, tips ànd results are shared.

The Mini is brand new , so it might take some time to stabilize. But the more people help out, the faster it goes of course.

I have it since Friday, and build a preset for the Evil Pet granular synth for it. That went rather well, but their were some challenges along the way. All in all it was built and tested in a couple of hours. So that’s promising.

If you want to use the Mini for simple stuff, like controlling various MIDI CC for multiple devices out of one place, then that is very, very easy to do.

The depth of this thing is simply amazing, yet it comes at a prize: if you wanna make specific solutions like for instance build an entire editor for a synth that is able to request it to tell the E1 how a patch is built up whereby the synth manufacturer not only uses MIDI CC, but also SysEx , NRPN and the likes, you’ll need to dive into that matter. But this synth community may help you along the path.

As for modular, the E1 doesn’t send or read CV’s (not the current models anyways), so you"ll always need convertors like the Befaco you mentioned.

For your other gear (I don’t have any of them), it’s important you find their MIDI implementation guide, usually inside the manual. If you don’t find a synth MIDI implementation chart or guide from the manafufacturer or on the internet, you won’t be able to control it decently without a PC (if at all).

3

I’m on the MIDI controller journey too. I’ve had the E16 for a few weeks and the Mini since Wednesday, so take this as early impressions, I’m still learning both.

E16 – Pros

  • Smaller overall footprint (similar height, ~1” wider than Mini; weight difference is negligible)

  • 16 encoders

  • 2× TRS MIDI outs

  • Automation recording is built in and very fast/easy to use

  • Linking multiple parameters to a master knob is quick and intuitive

  • Works great out of the box with minimal setup

  • Excellent carrying case

  • Bright LED rings, easy to see parameter positions

  • Brighter screen

Mini – Pros

  • Knobs feel fantastic

  • 8 pages of parameters are easier to navigate than E16’s 7 scenes

  • Deep customization
    Example: using “4-stage” mode, each encoder gives access to 8 parameters. You’re always two clicks away from 64 parameters without leaving the bank.

  • 6 extra programmable buttons

  • More flexible overall

  • Bigger screen with more readable information

Tradeoffs / Unknowns

  • Mini is less immediate and requires more setup/programming/template uploads

  • I don’t know enough about Lua or deeper scripting yet to fully judge how powerful the Mini can be long-term

  • Unclear whether the Mini can record automation natively the way the E16 does (happy to be corrected)

Other Differences

  • E16: USB-C power

  • Mini: Mini-USB (USB-B)

TL;DR:
E16 feels more immediate and performance-ready out of the box, especially for automation. Mini feels deeper and more flexible, but likely rewards users who are comfortable with programming and scripting.

2 Likes
4

Nice comparison: automation recording on a E1 would be a very nice addition :slight_smile:

1 Like
5

my personal take on this is that Manuel from OXI designed E16 to be a good counterpart for the OXI One, and very performance oriented. The origins of the Electra One are way more in the realm of the sound design. Even though it evolved over time in to a more general purpose midi controller, my personal priority and heart are still closer to the sound design.

The features such as automation recording and such are perfect example of the difference. To me, it makes perfect sense to have it on the E16. It could be added as a feature to Electra One too, but I am just not sure it if fits the general idea and philosophy of the device.

6

@martin Thanks for the thoughtful reply, understanding the origin story and design intent behind Electra One really helps contextualize the decisions you’ve made. Even only a few days into ownership, it’s clear how intentional and cohesive the instrument is.

I’d been watching the MKII for a while, but the Mini was an instant buy for me. Most of my setup is compact and TRS-MIDI based, so it dropped right in and already feels like a natural extension of my setup.

My own use leans a bit more performance oriented, I’m 100% hardware and a single midi controller to access lots of parameters across multiple devices quickly, and recording automation has been high on my wish list for a long time.

I do think automation can be an exceptionally powerful sound-design tool. To me, recorded automation is essentially a deterministic modulation source: an asynchronous LFO, rhythmic LFO, or an alternative to random LFO modulation: repeatable, intentional, and musically shaped. Especially if automation can be saved and recalled, it becomes a powerful way to control parameters that may not already be LFO assignable on a synth.

I’m very much programming/lua ignorant, is this type of behavior something that could theoretically be achieved via Lua?

Either way, I really appreciate the dialogue, and I’m excited to keep learning and exploring what the instrument can do- thank you for making it!

2 Likes
7

This makes sense- and does explain some of the differences in implementation, thanks for taking the time to weigh in!

8

Awesome comparison, thank you for taking the time to post it. As for the lack of recording automation, I don’t mind that for my own personal use case but I could see how it could be a cool feature.

Can you explain the “4-stage” mode a little bit more? I like that idea, particularly if I want to control the same basic parameter on multiple synths- say, a filter cutoff or something.

9

please see Docs: control detail and Docs: changing active value. Currently, all values within the multi value control share the same MIDI channel. I am planning to change that in the future updates. Or, as with everything on the E1, you can use Lua to do whatever you wish.

1 Like
10

@ngroth 4 stage is one of the control templates

Screenshot 2026-01-31 121458
Screenshot 2026-01-31 121458897×940 72 KB

Here’s a simple video showing the 8 parameters on the home screen, using with “V Fader 4” or “Four-Stage” and the 3 additional parameters behind a “V Fader 4” knob press and 7 additional behind a “Four-Stage” knob press https://photos.app.goo.gl/V8XaVyfif2AHuUXr6

11

I don’t think the two can be compared - LUA support puts E1 into a different league.

12

As Martin explained: E1 is focussing on sound design and parameter changes. It’s not focussing on clock driven changes , so you won’t find a lot of LFO’s, sequencers or realtime animation stuff for the E1.

But it can do that for sure. It just doesn’t come straight out of the box.

I’ve built myself MIDI clock controlled LFO’s in the past. And sequencers were also already built.

So if the only criterium would be ‘versatility’ : the E1 would win from any other MIDI controller in its price range, I think.

13

I had the mk1 and now have the mk2 and I really enjoy the deep customization and how thoughtful the entire e1 midi development environment is. I find the features and performance on the mini appealing but I’d like to know if most users interact with all 8 dials. I don’t love the idea of reaching up across the screen. I was just wondering how current users felt about their experience. Since the dials are contextual and can be layered with encoder clicks is it essential to have 8 dials or can the 4 lower dials control everything in a preset if so preferred.

14

When I first saw the Mini, my thought was to turn it 90 degrees and have 2 columns of controls - one for the left and one for the right. I haven’t used it enough to comment on whether reaching up over the screen is a big deal or not.

15

Funny, that was my thought too!

16

I like the right left idea. I guess midi controllers are like old sweaters and comfort matters. For some reason the vertical arrangement sounds like a cool approach. I noticed the 1010 bento box has a similar row of pots above the top of the screen. I’m sure the mini works great as is with the rows apart from one another and perhaps there are even some organizational benefits. Thanks I appreciate your feedback.

1 Like