Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

MIDI 2.0 - Do You Care?


Recommended Posts



  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I do care.

 

I just don't want to learn another set of weird numbers for controllers. And that's one of the promises of MIDI 2.0: PROFILING.

 

Say, you have a modern analog synth or a virtual synth. You connect two different synths together, they "see" each other" with all of their hardware controls and voilá, you can completely control a synth from another synth with full auto-mapping (profiling).

 

Or, say, you have an organ... or two organs... or a MIDI controller which happens to have 9 faders... when connected and profiled, you will have those faders or drawbars ready to control the other organ or software.

 

... just to start with... and I'm really excited. Why not?

 

If it's backwards compatible and I can use new and old stuff together... Yes, I DO CARE. :love:

Músico, Productor, Ingeniero, Tecnólogo

Senior Product Manager, América Latina y Caribe - PreSonus

at Fender Musical Instruments Company

 

Instagram: guslozada

Facebook: Lozada - Música y Tecnología

 

www.guslozada.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I care too. I like all the profiling and such, and I like that a lot of MIDI 1.0 devices will be able to do some of the MIDI 2.0 functionality. I guess as opposed to forward or backward compatibility, that would be "prescient compatibility" :)

 

The trap door that's built into the spec for higher resolution is also pretty cool. It will probably take a while for instruments to incorporate that, but it's significant.

 

I'm surprised there's not more of a buzz going on about this, considering how long people have been grousing that we've been stuck on MIDI 1.0. True story: Someone gave my MIDI for Musicians book at 1-star review on Amazon, even though he admitted he never read it, because he said clearly the book was obsolete :) Someone else hipped him to the fact that MIDI 1.0 is still happening, and everything in the book about the spec is still true...

 

A lot of thought went into making the MIDI 1.0 to MIDI 2.0 transition as seamless as possible. I think good stuff is ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't use MIDI for recording. I use it for connecting various beat boxes. I'm so heavily vested into MIDI 1 that it may take 10 years or more before I could fully convert, and I am afraid that partial conversion is nothing. I've got 8 Electron devices that I connect through MIDI and cannot afford to replace them. I really hope that integration between MIDI 1 and 2 is useful and well thought out. Otherwise I may never really use MIDI 2.

This post edited for speling.

My Sweetwater Gear Exchange Page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not very much, I have to say.

 

I make orchestral accompaniments of classical music (cantatas, oratorios, opera) for my wife (semi-pro, bel canto mezzo soprano) to sing to when there's no orchestra available.

Using some of the orchestral VSTI's that are available today I find I can do all I need to with MIDI 1.0.

I was experimenting with using all 16 channels, with a note on each channel and using pitch bend to achieve genuine sharps and flats some 15 years ago.

 

The new ASM Hydrasynth seems to achieve most of what we want as performing musicians using MIDI 1.0 too.

 

And it's not so much the specification, more who actually implements some (all?) the new features, and at what sort of monstrous cost.

 

I still can't play the keyboard consistently so that I achieve every one of the 127 currently available velocity levels, and I don't know anyone who can.

Why do we need a shedload more?

 

Meanwhile ... back to sequencing the violoncello piccolo! ;-)

Akai EWI 4000s, Yamaha VL70m, Yamaha AN1x, Casio PX560, Yamaha MU1000XG+PLGs-DX,AN,VL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use MIDI heavily but have a large investment in legacy devices so I'm not about to replace them when 2.0 comes out. I don't subscribe to the upgrade treadmill.

 

That said, I do care about MIDI 2.0. While MIDI 1.0 has been sufficient since 1983, it does have its shortcomings that hopefully 2.0 will resolve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still can't play the keyboard consistently so that I achieve every one of the 127 currently available velocity levels, and I don't know anyone who can.

Why do we need a shedload more?

 

As a lifelong piano player, I would argue that 127 levels of keyboard velocity is not enough. The Rhodes Chroma uses 256 levels for keyboard velocity and that feels more natural. The ARP folks who designed the Chroma fought for 256 level keyboard velocity at the initial design for MIDI 1.0.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a thread on this not too long ago. It will be cool as long as manufacturers start realeasing gear that takes advantage of it. Initially I see it having the biggest impact with so,e of these alternative controllers.

Dan

 

Acoustic/Electric stringed instruments ranging from 4 to 230 strings, hammered, picked, fingered, slapped, and plucked. Analog and Digital Electronic instruments, reeds, and throat/mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't use MIDI for recording. I use it for connecting various beat boxes. I'm so heavily vested into MIDI 1 that it may take 10 years or more before I could fully convert, and I am afraid that partial conversion is nothing.

 

Actually, you don't "convert" from MIDI 1.0 to MIDI 2.0. The two scenarios are: there's an update for MIDI 1.0 gear that gives it some MIDI 2.0 capabilities, or you add MIDI 2.0 gear to your existing MIDI 1.0 setup. It's pretty benign that way. MPE (MIDI Polyphonic Expression) as used in the LinnStrument and ROLI keyboards is a good example of how things can proceed. They work with gear that's not compatible with MPE, you just don't derive all the benefits. But if you have a synth that's MPE-compatible, then you get the full spectrum of options.

 

I think the main thrust for MIDI 2.0 will be, as J. Dan said, controllers but not necessarily just alternate controllers. If I was in the market for a new controller and one had higher resolution and profiling, I'd buy it. I could still use it with the MIDI 1.0 gear, but also with MIDI 2.0-compatible stuff.

 

MIDI 2.0 features will roll out over a period of several years. It could easily be two or three years (or more) before you could put together an "all MIDI 2.0" system. That's why it's so important that new gear works with old gear. The manufacturers involved in formulating the spec pretty much rejected any proposals that would make MIDI 1.0 gear obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as it's backwards compatible, I'm OK with it. Time will tell if it offers anything for me personally. I have a lot invested in 5 pin DIN connectors, so as long as they are still workable, I'm happy.

 

Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I care. The high resolution is important. I have a VAX77 that reports 4k velocity levels - played with PianoTeq it is just more natural feeling. It isn't about consistently hitting the same number. It is about being completely unable to hit the same number, it same way that a piano can't. I also have a Non-Linear Labs C15. It doesn't even use MIDI so that it can massively overscan the keyboard in a similar fashion. It is wonderful to play, and you notice how much more connected the sound is. I have three synths with identical top-of-the-line Fatar actions. Two are standard MIDI, the C15 is sensed through propriety means at 4,000 levels. It is far more expressive to play. I don't know what the "right" number is, but it is more that 128. Think also of filter sweeps and other things that only work with lag processing in a 7-bit controller space. Smoothness for controls lives well above 128. The profiling and other things are wonderful advancements. I hope MIDI 2.0 is widely adopted.

 

I also hope that we see someone start making controllers with the care that luthiers use on guitars or violins. It is about time that someone made instrument grade actions for synthesizers. Maybe it is just better sensing... But anything that gets more data out of the controllers is good. All the best stuff, like the Hakken Continuum don't use MIDI because it is too limited. If MIDI 2.0 fixes that, it would be wonderful to have it widespread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not expecting MIDI 2.0 to "solve" anything.

I've been a happy user of MIDI for its 36 years of existence and I can do everything I need with it.

 

I can say, though, that MIDI connections via USB or other protocols have made things easier, less cables, etc.

 

That said, I would like to see how much and for good MIDI 2.0 makes things better.

Músico, Productor, Ingeniero, Tecnólogo

Senior Product Manager, América Latina y Caribe - PreSonus

at Fender Musical Instruments Company

 

Instagram: guslozada

Facebook: Lozada - Música y Tecnología

 

www.guslozada.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this will affect USB controllers like the NI's?

 

I don't think it will make any difference, unless they come up with a firmware/software upgrade. They already have a sort of profiling with NKS, perhaps the MIDI profiles can be "skinned" to feel like you're using NKS...but I don't know. MIDI 2.0 is still very young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do care also, I'm far from an expert but as a gigging keyboard player I'd used it somewhat extensively to control my keyboards and rack gear as well as for the occasional backing tracks. I've found it useful for recording also. SYSEX, program changes, volume, expression, panning; I've spent a lot of time looking at the CC list. I get the emails from the MIDI association but must admit I don't take time to do much reading or research.

Just as I thought I was going to get back to recording my back log of original material I'm finding myself being sucked into creating some backing tracks for my husband/wife duo. I'll be using midi on that until it's coming out of my ears!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as it's backwards compatible, I'm OK with it. Time will tell if it offers anything for me personally. I have a lot invested in 5 pin DIN connectors, so as long as they are still workable, I'm happy.

 

Notes

And if there is a gem or two in there that makes my life easier or my music better, I'll be even happier.

 

Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SYSEX...I've spent a lot of time looking at the CC list.

 

A lot of MIDI 2.0 is intended to streamline that process. It's one of the areas that really interests me, although the hi-res stuff that will come down the pike at some point is needed. To me one of the differences between analog and virtual analog is when you sweep that resonant filter, and there are audible steps instead of a smooth continuum.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SYSEX...I've spent a lot of time looking at the CC list.

 

A lot of MIDI 2.0 is intended to streamline that process.

 

I've used SYSEX primarily to switch modes on synths (patch-<->combi, etc.) but never had any luck trying to create my own, even after I'd studied it and thought I understood it, there was always a piece of information that seemed to be missing. Fortunately I've found most of what I needed from forums and manufacturers websites.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I plug in my MIDI 2.0 cable into my computer, I don't get any sound in my DAW? What's wrong?

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I plug in my MIDI 2.0 cable into my computer, I don't get any sound in my DAW? What's wrong?

 

Is the parking brake on?

Hang on, I'll go checkâ¦

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MPE is official, everything else is gravy. :D

Dr. Mike Metlay (PhD in nuclear physics, golly gosh) :D

Musician, Author, Editor, Educator, Impresario, Online Radio Guy, Cut-Rate Polymath, and Kindly Pedant

Editor-in-Chief, Bjooks ~ Author of SYNTH GEMS 1

 

clicky!:  more about me ~ my radio station (and my fam) ~ my local tribe ~ my day job ~ my bookmy music

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MPE is official, everything else is gravy. :D

 

The spec is further along than most people think, there will be NAMM 2.0 products at NAMM. It's reaching the part of the process where people are trying to figure out logo rights and such. BUT it will be a slow rollout, I don't think the situation will be the same as MIDI 1.0 where there was an explosion of products. I think over the next few years, people buying new gear will be going "Oh cool, this has a useful feature I hadn't encountered before"...and then one day, it will reach critical mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the most important aspect of MIDI 2.0 is that it's bi-directional - it can have a "conversation" with other MIDI devices, not just a monologue. This means MIDI 2.0 gear will know what other MIDI gear does (even MIDI 1.0 - the MIDI 2.0 gear will know it needs to converse in "MIDI 1.0"), and the gear can agree on what features they share. This is what allows for auto-configuration in a MIDI 2.0 system.

 

I don't know when the high-resolution aspects will roll out, but I think that's a big deal in terms of expressiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the most important aspect of MIDI 2.0 is that it's bi-directional - it can have a "conversation" with other MIDI devices, not just a monologue. This means MIDI 2.0 gear will know what other MIDI gear does (even MIDI 1.0 - the MIDI 2.0 gear will know it needs to converse in "MIDI 1.0"), and the gear can agree on what features they share. This is what allows for auto-configuration in a MIDI 2.0 system.

I suspect this aspect, if implemented in hardware may prove useful, however ...

 

I don't know when the high-resolution aspects will roll out, but I think that's a big deal in terms of expressiveness.

Whilst a huge hike in expressive capability might be built iinto the specification, will manufacturers make use of it?

 

Take the current implementation of Pitch Bend in the MIDI 1.0 specification for example.

Pitch change is one of the ear's most senstive areas, unlike volume, that's why when the original MIDI spec was created, pitch bend was given its very own MIDI message.

This allowed fourteen bits of data to be sent to represent change. (Unlike the 7 bits of most CC messages.)

(Actual value 0 to 16383, used to represent +/- 8191 and 0)

 

In use?

The best I've tested to date, using MIDI-Ox, is just ten bits. In other words approximately +/- 512.

Many others don't even use 7 bits, some of them quite expensive units.

 

So the mechanism is there for a more accurate representation of the data but, so far, all of the manufacturers I've tested don't even bother to use the MIDI 1.0 spec to it's fullest.

Of course, my tests are limited to just a few, but take in some of the 'big names'.

 

So, what hope that manufacturers will make any use of the MIDI 2.0 extended ranges, when they don't even use the MIDI 1.0 features currently available?

IMHO, I don't see much changing.

 

Loads of HYPE (to be expected) but little action (as per normal)!

In other words they'll tell you how their now sending a full 16 bits of data, but the LSB will be full of zeroes.

Akai EWI 4000s, Yamaha VL70m, Yamaha AN1x, Casio PX560, Yamaha MU1000XG+PLGs-DX,AN,VL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the mechanism is there for a more accurate representation of the data but, so far, all of the manufacturers I've tested don't even bother to use the MIDI 1.0 spec to it's fullest.

Of course, my tests are limited to just a few, but take in some of the 'big names'.

 

So, what hope that manufacturers will make any use of the MIDI 2.0 extended ranges, when they don't even use the MIDI 1.0 features currently available?

 

The processors that were in use in the early days of MIDI struggled to keep up with the serial data stream. With scanning keyboards, if you hit a chord the spread between the first and last note could be as much as 20 milliseconds, and more in a multi-timbral keyboard. Some were around 50 ms. Computers choked on the data stream as well. Remember all those "thinning" filters for controllers, and admonitions to make sure aftertouch was turned off if you weren't using it?

 

This became part of the code that got passed down from generation to generation. Now we have products like the LinnStrument that aren't afraid to send out lots of controller data, and computers that can cope with it.

 

The point of MIDI 2.0 isn't to convert everything out in the world tomorrow, it's to make sure that the spec remains relevant in the future. The companies involved don't want to have to think about MIDI 3.0 in another 10 years. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The processors that were in use in the early days of MIDI struggled to keep up with the serial data stream. With scanning keyboards, if you hit a chord the spread between the first and last note could be as much as 20 milliseconds, and more in a multi-timbral keyboard. Some were around 50 ms. Computers choked on the data stream as well. Remember all those "thinning" filters for controllers, and admonitions to make sure aftertouch was turned off if you weren't using it?

 

This became part of the code that got passed down from generation to generation. Now we have products like the LinnStrument that aren't afraid to send out lots of controller data, and computers that can cope with it.

 

The point of MIDI 2.0 isn't to convert everything out in the world tomorrow, it's to make sure that the spec remains relevant in the future. The companies involved don't want to have to think about MIDI 3.0 in another 10 years. :)

Who mentioned anything about old equipment?

 

I was writing about modern kit.

In fact I remember older pieces of equipment with polyphonic aftertouch which have all but disappeared from the market place.

Where are the ribbon controllers, for example, of yesteryear. (okay there's a new synth with what appears to be a good one.)

 

No, I was referring to equipment available on the market today.

So much of it, despite the advances in technology made since '83, or '93, or even '03, seems to have gone backwards in capability.

 

And why not filter out unnecessary events?

Do we really need a 1 unit pitch bend to be transmitted on every tick of a 960 TPQN MIDI file? Assuming your keyboard can actually can transmit it.

 

The MIDI 2.0 specification. How did Shakespeare put it? "Full of sound and fury and signifiying nothing!"

 

I remain to be convinced ... obviously. :tired: :wink:

Akai EWI 4000s, Yamaha VL70m, Yamaha AN1x, Casio PX560, Yamaha MU1000XG+PLGs-DX,AN,VL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...