MMA Announces Changes Ahead Of MIDI 2.0 Adoption

[Dave Bryce]

Link

 

dB

[eric]

Does this mean my 5 pin DIN cables from the '80s are now worth a lot of money?

 

[Dave Bryce]

 

dB

 

 

[ElmerJFudd]

Does this mean my 5 pin DIN cables from the '80s are now worth a lot of money?

 

 

Backwards compatibility is in the spec. What cable it runs over doesn"t matter so much, there will always be converters. Took all of a season to see usb->5pin cables.

 

What it does mean is that after all these years improvements are finally coming. Higher resolution, tighter timing, inclusion of MPE for new instruments like the Roli and software synths that take expressive input from touch screen.

 

It only took an age. I"m glad there"s still some pioneers around to see it happen. Honestly thought we"d see cold fusion first.

[AnotherScott]

What cable it runs over doesn"t matter so much, there will always be converters. Took all of a season to see usb->5pin cables.

There is no such thing as a usb->5pin "cable" per se -- there is more involved than the wires it's running on or the connectors that are at the ends, there is circuitry/processing required. That's why you can't directly connect a USB MIDI device to a standard MIDI device... you have to have either a computer (Win/Mac/iOS/Linux) or an interface box (Kenton or similar) in between... and it took quite some years before we saw the latter. For a long time, there was simply no way to connect the two kinds of MIDI devices together except through a computer. (I think the original iConnectMIDI was the first, and it was pretty pricey to boot.)

[ElmerJFudd]

What cable it runs over doesn"t matter so much, there will always be converters. Took all of a season to see usb->5pin cables.

There is no such thing as a usb->5pin "cable" per se -- there is more involved than the wires it's running on or the connectors that are at the ends, there is circuitry/processing required. That's why you can't directly connect a USB MIDI device to a standard MIDI device... you have to have either a computer (Win/Mac/iOS/Linux) or an interface box (Kenton or similar) in between... and it took quite some years before we saw the latter. For a long time, there was simply no way to connect the two kinds of MIDI devices together except through a computer. (I think the original iConnectMIDI was the first, and it was pretty pricey to boot.)

 

Yes of course. They just market them that way to keep it simple for people who run into the issue. Most common sale I"d suspect is a digital piano owner who wants to plug into their computer. The whole midi interface thing seems so technical for novices who want to do something that is a standard on newer DPs. Class compliant midi helps a lot - and you"re right, it took a long time to get that more common than not.

 

[David Emm]

I don't know how much use I can make of 2.0. I'm not Jeff Rona by a mile! My jaw still drops when hitting middle C on Synth A and also having one come from connected Synth B. My main interest lies in seeing where MPE goes at its next evolutionary change. Poly AT is reappearing in a measured fashion, so alternate control is having a moment. I still consider a small Seaboard, because I have Cello Envy. Even if that's the only use to which I put it, its beginning to feel more justified. Being able to render certain solos or chordal moments in 5-D seems just as sensible as having useful analog or physical modeling means. I'll read the new spec, just to see what I can pick up about MPE first.

[EricBarker]

MPE is fantastic, but I still consider it a hack stop-gap to MIDI 1.0. With MIDI 2.0, there should be some much more holistic poly controller implementation schemes built-in. One instrument shouldn't have to be on 16 channels. I haven't read the full MIDI 2.0 spec, but I hope they allow for MPE-like services on a single stream.

[tfort]

MPE is fantastic, but I still consider it a hack stop-gap to MIDI 1.0. With MIDI 2.0, there should be some much more holistic poly controller implementation schemes built-in. One instrument shouldn't have to be on 16 channels. I haven't read the full MIDI 2.0 spec, but I hope they allow for MPE-like services on a single stream.

 

I posted a link to some sessions from the Audio Developers Conference last month. At one of the sessions, Mike Kent (SynMike here) answered a question about MPE and MPE+ (developed by Haaken, also used on the new Osmose) and MIDI 2.0. He said that both will likely continue to coexist, as there are a few things that MPE/MPE+ can do that MIDI 2.0 cannot. Can't remember the details beyond that.

 

[SamuelBLupowitz]

MPE is fantastic, but I still consider it a hack stop-gap to MIDI 1.0. With MIDI 2.0, there should be some much more holistic poly controller implementation schemes built-in. One instrument shouldn't have to be on 16 channels. I haven't read the full MIDI 2.0 spec, but I hope they allow for MPE-like services on a single stream.

Boy, do I ever hope so. I'm no David Rosenthal by a long shot, but the number of headaches I run into when I use my Seaboard in conjuction with standard controllers in a Mainstage concert...

[hatricklov]

MPE is fantastic, but I still consider it a hack stop-gap to MIDI 1.0. With MIDI 2.0, there should be some much more holistic poly controller implementation schemes built-in. One instrument shouldn't have to be on 16 channels. I haven't read the full MIDI 2.0 spec, but I hope they allow for MPE-like services on a single stream.

Boy, do I ever hope so. I'm no David Rosenthal by a long shot, but the number of headaches I run into when I use my Seaboard in conjuction with standard controllers in a Mainstage concert...

I've been using MainStage for a little over 2 years and have been eyeing adding a Roli. Based on what I'm gathering from the posts above, I'm guessing that MainStage doesn't adequately handle all of the MIDI messages that the Roli can send... is that correct? I'd be curious to hear specific details about the other headaches you have.

 

 

[EricBarker]

I've been using MainStage for a little over 2 years and have been eyeing adding a Roli. Based on what I'm gathering from the posts above, I'm guessing that MainStage doesn't adequately handle all of the MIDI messages that the Roli can send... is that correct? I'd be curious to hear specific details about the other headaches you have.

 

No, I think MainStage handles it just fine. For a live performance tool, the Seaboard handles beautifully in an MPE-compatible environment. However, for MIDI recording, MPE is a dog even under the best circumstances. That's kind of unavoidable when dealing with note-specific controllers, to some degree. But the fact that MPE is a work-around for a protocol (MIDI1) that doesn't inherently allow for note-specific controllers makes it more dubious. Logic's answer is a very simple, "roll all the data together", which is clean and was likely fairly simple to program, but it's hard to unravel all that data and manipulate it cleanly. Non-MPE DAWs can still be used (I use Digital Performer, but ProTools would be another example), and you actually get more precise control over the data, but it's an absolutely excruciating process of tracking down which track which note/controller was recorded to, with no help from the software. My ideal world would be something like Digital Performer's "track folders", but with a lot of handy MPE focused editing enhancements to be able to cleanly get to and edit MPE controllers.

 

In the end, tho, note-based controllers should be able to be attached to the NOTE itself, not a note be attached to a midi channel. For instance, one pitch bend should be attached to note event G4... with all notes and events sent on the same midi channel. That would be my suggestion for MIDI2.0, and it may already be in the spec.