Jump to content


Mike Kent

Member
  • Posts

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mike Kent

  • Birthday 11/30/1999

Converted

  • homepage
    http://www.amenote.com
  • occupation
    Consultant, MIDI and Audio Devices
  • hobbies
    Music, Synthesizers, Guitars, Auto Racing, Watches

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Notes/Events may be processed serially, but that doesn't mean they can't be rendered simultaneously. In MIDI 2.0? It continues to exist like in MIDI 1.0. It is slightly transformed into a packet-based transmission in the "Universal MIDI Packet Format" but the core data remains the same, allowing for backward compatibility. In fact, MIDI-CI is a set of SysEx messages that enact a lot of the MIDI 2.0 functions. Then we added something new called System Exclusive 8 (or SysEx8) that is the same concept but allows 8bits per bytes instead of the 7bit data format of MIDI 1.0. Like the older SesEx, it can be used by manufacturers, tagged their own ID, for their custom purposes or for standardized functions that might be defined in the future. The limitation here is that SysEx8 is not backward compatible like the 7-bit SysEx. Thanks, Mike.
  2. Yes, they are. A controller device could capture your live playing and send data with MIDI 2.0 JR Timestamps. If the controller knows that there is a 367.25ms difference between 2 notes that you played and sends those notes with JR Timestamps, then the receiver can play those 2 notes 367.25ms apart, regardless of any timing jitter introduced by a transport. But to be honest, I don't think any devices will implement JR Timestamps in the next couple of years. MIDI 2.0 is a huge specification (actually a set of specifications) and will take some time for the various features to be adopted across the many manufacturers. I predict that JR Timestamps might start to be implemented in new products 3-5 years from now (but predicting the future is very hard so there's a big chance I will be proven wrong). Topics intertwined. Using time stamps requires adding latency. It's a timing tradeoff. You can have delivery of each message as fast as possible or add a bit of latency have timing as accurate as possible. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Transports are quite fast so latency keeps dropping. If you are using JR TImestamps, you are likely to apply a bit of latency so multiple USB packets received in a single USB Frame can be treated as simultaneous. Without JR Timestamps, I still expect MIDI 2.0 timing to be better than MIDI 1.0 on USB. Most MIDI devices use the "Full Speed" defined in USB 1.1 which can theoretically send up to 152 MIDI 2.0 Channel Voice Messages per millisecond (the time of a single MIDI 1.0 message on 5pinDIN). Devices which use the "High Speed" defined in USB 2.0 can theoretically send 6656 MIDI 2.0 Channel Voice Messages per millisecond. I say "theoretically" because USB itself is just one component of systems have other limitations. Early testing of the forthcoming MIDI 2.0 network specification shows extremely low latency over a local (the devices in your studio) network. I think networking will provide better performance than USB within a couple of years (when operating systems add support and devices start to add it). Roland implements smoothing algorithms in many products. So do many other manufacturers. But it's not feasible/possible in every product. Right. More accurate and repeatable reproduction is the end goal. Mike.
  3. Multiple MIDI 2.0 messages can fit into a single USB Packet. So they arrive at the Receiver at the same time. Of course, they maintain their serial order, which is a fundamental rule for MIDI. But all the messages in the single USB packet can use a shared timestamp so the receiver can treat them as simultaneous, not spread across time in a serial manner. Multiple USB Packets can also share a timestamp if you can't fit everything into one USB packet. Stepping: Even with a relatively low resolution, you don't always hear the steps. A good implementation of MIDI 1.0 7-bit data will apply smoothing, adding smaller, interpolated steps between the steps of the incoming MIDI messages so the change sounds smooth. Lots of musical devices do this. Of course, it is probably better to have higher resolution in the first place. But even with MIDI 2.0, smoothing will probably still be used. MIDI 2.0 messages generally use 32 bit values. That's over 4 billon steps. But it doesn't make sense from a processing standpoint or when considering available bandwidth to send 4 billon messages when adjusting a volume knob from 0-100%. So senders will send less than 32 bits worth of data. Some properties might be served with 8bits of data and I think almost properties all will be great with 10, 12, 14, or 16 bits. The 32-bit potential might seems like a waste at times, for most properties. But modern systems often use 32 bit data storage regardless of the source data, so the format is friendly for modern memory and processing. Mike.
  4. Maybe 30 notes with identical timing is a bad example, not very real-world. (I've played trumpet in an orchestra. LOL) However, simultaneous events, even 30 Note-On messages is possible. It does not have to be serial. Today's synthesizers process each note and render it in serial fashion. But they do not have to. In MIDI 2.0, you could send a bunch of messages all sharing a timestamp. The receiving device will generally get these in a single packet over USB, Ethernet, etc. The receiver could calculate the resulting sound of the 30 simultaneous notes in the packet and play that rendered sound, rather than rendering each note individually. It's what a DAW does with multiple tracks of audio - sync/phase is reproducible to audio clock rate. Will future synthesizers do that? I don't know. If processors are many times faster in 20 years, why not? But perhaps as Craig pointed out above, the point is to reproduce exactly what you played, when you played it. That includes simultaneous events. Repeatable, identical reproduction is useful. MIDI 2.0 defines far better support for simultaneous events than MIDI 1.0 defines.
  5. I have the FA-06 and I am reasonably certain the Fantom-06 has the same organ engine and same rotary simulation. I play a lot of organ and have numerous devices for comparison: I used a Hammon C3 with Leslie 122, but that was in my first band years ago I own Roland VK-8 organ (same organ and rotary engines as Fantom) I have a Nord with organ and rotary simulation I have a Yamaha YC61 with organ and rotary simulation I have a Yamaha Reface-YC (not as good as the YC61 engines) I have a Roland VR-09 with organ and rotary simulation I use the organs in the FA-06 from time to time I have several organ plugins, but do not use a computer when playing live. I have a real Leslie 245 (solid state version of 145), mostly used with the VK-8 I have the Hammond Leslie simulator pedal I have never used a Ventilator. The Roland organ engine is my favorite, better than Yamaha or Nord. So the Fantom Organ is really good. But simulating the Hammond is probably easier than simulating the Leslie. The Roland Leslie simulation is better than the 2) Leslie pedal, 2) Yamaha, 3) Nord, 4) Reface (roughly in order) The Roland Leslie simulation is better into a PA system than the sound of my real Leslie with mics into a PA system. The Roland Leslie sim in the VK-8 and VR-09 sound great in Stereo or Mono. The rotary simulation in my FA-06 has one serious limitation - it does not collapse to mono well without a lot of tweaking. I assume the same might be true for the Fantom-06. I assume that when using the FA-06 in mono, the synth does some mixing of left and right and the result (some phase cancellation?) for the Leslie sim really sucks. The VK-08 and VR-09 sound basically the same as my FA-06 in stereo, but don't suffer the same problem when mixed to mono. Did Roland fix/change that in the newer Fantom-06? I was able to find settings in the rotary sim that mostly overcome the mono-mixed problem. It's still not as good as the VK-8 or VR-09, but at least as good as the Nord. Mike.
  6. Oh yeah, I forgot to reiterate in that post: The new MIDI 2.0 network specification which is coming soon. So far 9 MIDI Association member companies have working prototypes. I sure hope more developers adopt that quickly. Mike.
  7. Right. We can predict some idea of what MIDI 2.0 will deliver. But the real result will be revealed in the products that innovators do with MIDI 2.0 in future generations of products. There are 2 mains areas of expansion that MIDI 2.0 introduces: 1. Bidirectional negotiations - easier connections with less manual configuration by users. 2. New protocol and data format which greatly expands resolution and the range of messages available. Imagine buying a new synthesizer and connecting it to you DAW that has never seen that model before. The DAW might use MIDI 2.0 to auto-generate a custom patch editor by getting the requirements from the synth itself. Imagine never having to map controllers for your next plugin - the DAW configures the keyboard to send controllers that are needed. Resolution? Great. Absolutely a huge update. But IMO high-resolution is not most interesting part of the new protocol and data format. New messages that convey more information are more exciting to me. A message that tells you the current chord. Knowing that a sequence was performed by _name-of-artist-here_ is intended to be played on a piano with a certain velocity curve. Having articulation information inside a Note On (like we have velocity now). Having jitter reduction timestamps to deliver timing accuracy equivalent to sound travelling 2cm. Being able to send 30 notes with identical timing. Per-Note controllers for increased expression. Precise pitch for every note when you want that. And there's room to define a million more new messages. But just like the designers of MIDI 1.0 could only foresee a fraction of what MIDI would do in 2024, we cannot know all that is coming in 2030 and 2040. MIDI 1.0 had limitations that hindered forward progress. Perhaps MIDI 2.0 even comes 20 years late. For the continued expansion of MIDI, we needed a new environment that pushed past the MIDI 1.0 limitations. I'm excited to see what will come. Mike.
  8. MIDI 2.0 has a bit of a chicken/egg problem. Most products need to be cross-platform. MacOS and iOS both have good support for MIDI 2.0. Microsoft is just releasing developer releases for hardware and software testing and product development work. So now DAWs can now start adding MIDI 2.0. MIDI 2.0 is expected for users some time this year (Microsoft has not announced a release schedule). More companies are now starting to develop their next generation of products that will include MIDI 2.0. So as pointed out by ElmerJFudd and Craig, there will be a transition starting over the next few years. Wireless has limitations still today. Especially for audio. The MIDI Association is developing a network specification for MIDI 1.0/2.0. The initial target is wired ethernet. We have not started testing wireless implementations, but wifi support is possible. But low latency wireless digital audio is a problem; latency is required to have dependable delivery. I'd love to see the industry adopt more networking. We could reduce cabling to a single Cat5 delivering audio, MIDI, and power.
  9. I have the Nord sample Pianet in my Nord Electro6. It's pretty usable. It's a small sample set (5MB), in the sampler not the Piano section. But if I remember from playing a real Pianet many years ago, the original didn't have a wide tonal range. I find even the small sample set is enjoyable and quite playable. And it has a sustain pedal.
  10. Mike Kent

    NAMM 2024

    Fly into John Wayne airport. Uber from there to Anaheim is about $20. It's a much more pleasant airport, too.
  11. I use UnRealBook app for chord charts on iPad. Displays any PDF file, so equally good for lyrics. You can make notes on the PDF. You can put songs into set lists. Can link to Dropbox for file import. I've got 500 songs in mine, all the ones I've collected over the past dozen years. https://aronnelson.com/unrealbook/ Mike.
  12. I rarely regret spending more money on higher quality music accessories: I've got about 30 Mogami cables from the 80s that are still going fine today. I have 8 Roland sustain pedals, 4 of them from the 80s. One of those just died this year after being dragged to hundreds of gigs. An M-Audio sustain pedal I got 2-3 years ago died after 6 months of studio use. My friend had exactly the same experience. Another value in a product beyond reliability is repairability. My race team runs Camaros made in the 60s and 70s (along with more modern purpose-built). American cars of that era are crap compared to modern automotive engineering. But there is no failure that we (hack mechanics) can't repair. Modern cars are far more complex. They are more complex, more expensive to repair, and you need diagnostic software from the manufacturer.
  13. 16 bits certainly seems okay. In fact, I would even say that a lossy compressed audio format is sufficient, although you could argue you are introducing new artifacts to the sound. My vinyl collection is pretty old and worn and so is my turntable. The fidelity of my old vinyl records is generally below the fidelity of MP3. So digital considerations are not the weak link. In most cases, great music is still great with lesser sound quality. For songs/albums that are important to me, I have rebought them in digital format anyway and a bought file is going to sound better than a digital copy recorded from vinyl. That said, if you have good preamps, good a/D, and good recording techniques, 16-bit audio sounds great, whether from vinyl or any other source.
  14. I take my VR-09 to play out a lot. That's in spite of its shortcomings and even though I have lots of other options. I even most often select it instead of my Nord Electro or Yamaha YC61 if I'm taking only 1 keyboard and organ is important. Big benefits to me. The organ is better than my Nord Electro or my Yamaha YC61 (in 1 of my bands, the songs are 70% organ). - Well maybe that's mostly about the superior Leslie emulation. Simple hands-on immediacy. Music rest (a bit difficult to get?) to hold iPad, no music stand needed. It's only 12 pounds. Compromises that don't really bother me: Passable piano for an occasional song - would be better if it wasn't for the key action. Usable electric pianos. Usable synth section, even if a little limited. Very limited compared to my FA-06 (also a winner because it's also only 12 pounds). Things I dislike but put up with: Key action below par. Clearly a budget choice. Registration system sucks, only 16 programs quickly accessible. A CK61 might be a better choice on a budget these days, if you don't mind the lesser organ.
  15. There are numerous applications for this. Musescore is among the best. Others that I recommend: Sibelius Finale Dorico But Musescore is the only one of those that is free. Edit: I forgot to mention Staffpad for the iPad. Mike.
×
×
  • Create New...