JohnG11
-
Posts
111 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by JohnG11
-
-
I'm not so sure that we should be too worried about the aliens. 🤨
At it's current velocity (about 38,000 mph (relative to the Sun)) Yoyager 1 would take approximately 73,775 years to reach the nearest star system, Proxima Centauri, with its few exoplanets.
(Thank you Wikipedia.) Don't know about you, but I don't expect to still be around in nearly 74 thousand years time!
But, as far as I know, it isn't heading in that direction.
I believe the odds of anyone/thing stumbling across it in the immensity of space are octillions to one, if not more.
I'm told that for some reason they decided to leave the male genitalia off the figure of the man.
So,if they do find us, they're in for a surprise!
-
The aliens call went like this:
Long distance information give me Memphis Tennessee
Help me find the party trying to get in touch with me
...
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:
For all that, mosquitos spreading disease kill far more people every year than polar bears, grizzly bears and teddy bears combined.
Mosquitos are much more difficult to avoid, for one thing. Off topic too since they don't exhibit any sort of measurable intelligence and bears often do so.
I guess if Teddy Bears are included, mosquitos can be as well, neither one of them is smart. 😇
That's it! Go on! 🤨
Like everybody else you blame the poor innocent mosquito! 😉
It's the nasty Plasmodium parasitic, single cell eukaryotes that's to blame, not the poor old mozi, poor thing. 😁
Having nearly died from malaria back when I was eleven, I had to learn a thing or two about not catching it again or passing it on through infected blood.
A nasty, horrible illness. I never want to catch again.
JohnG.
-
1
-
-
Yeah!
Good, init?
A site I visit every day.
-
It depends just how much time you want to spend on the cleanup, and if extensive, then what Craig says is the way to go.
Personally, when I've been asked to do a quick job of this kind of conversion, I've been moderately successful (to the recipient's satisfaction) using the freebie Audacity.
But I'd start by taking the best possible copy to a .wav file, not converting straight to mp3.
The best job of tidy up will be from .wav as there is far more software available for noise reduction from that format.
Once all the tidy up is done the last job is converting to mp3.
Audacity has all the tools to chop the big file up and save each song as a separate file.
You just highlight the section of the full file you want and export to audio. And do that song by song.
Then you can use the noise reduction features, amplification, etc., as needed, on a song by song basis.
I've used this method dozens of times to make a quick backup of old, or half hour concert recordings for a choral group, for them to listen to.
BUT ... I'm definitely NOT saying it's of studio quality, just a quick and straightforward job.
-
Hi Vonnor,
Your MIDI spec is slightly out of date, the latest version is dated '96. (Available via download at the MMA site).
What you need to refer to, I believe, is the General MIDI 2 spec dated 2007. Also at the MMA.
There you'll find my definitions.
JohnG.
-
1
-
-
As has already been said, of course it's possible to reassign any controller to provide a specific function other than the MMA "recommended practice".
But the MIDI 1.0 specification surely says it all labelling CC#7 "channel volume" and CC#11 "expression" (and CC#2 "breath").
However, if the device / software is GM1 or GM2 (General MIDI) compliant, then it MUST use the controllers as defined in the GM recommendations.
JohnG
(MMA forum moderator)
-
1
-
-
The way it's explained in a couple of orchestral VSTs I have is as follows:
Set CC#7 to the max volume you want an instrument to have within a mix, then use CC#11 (or CC#2 - breath (not both)) to set the dynamics of the instrument in any part of your score e.g. between pp and ff.
Use CC#11 to implement crescendo and diminuendo. Additionally you may need to use the control briefy to implement such dynamics as sforzando.
JohnG.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Anderton said:
I think you're overthinking this! If you don't see any advantage of MIDI 2.0, don't use it - just keep using what you're using
That's the whole point of being backward-compatible.
How is that overthinking?
MIDI 2 simply does not take into account anything that is MIDI 1 and DIN. It's not backward compatible, it just pretends DIN plugs don't exist.
Any MIDI 2 device will NOT communicate over DIN ... unless, that is, it incorpaorates DIN sockets and reverts totally to MIDI 1. But that's not in the specification.
DIN Backward Compatible ... NOT.
How do I create a MIDI 2 patchbay similar to the DIN one I described above using USB, assuming all my kit has USB sockets?
You didn't answer the question about rotations of a Contoller to achieve 16 bit resolution.
I've asked this question several times and never received an answer.
I have a solution, (but I don't like it) which allows single bit accuracy if required.
Have a three way switch above or below the controller, marked "course \ medium \ fine" this allows the switching of the resolution between 65,536 / 25 then 65,536 / 25 / 25 lastly 65,536 / 25 / 25 / 25. the fine tuning gives approximately four turns end to end.
Not one I'd like to use live tho'.
However, take a long throw fader length of 104mm, how do I use that to achieve single bit accuracy at 16bits?
You'd be challenged to get single bit accuracy using just 7 bits. i.e. 127 different positions.
(Oh! MIDI 1. Now why do I like that so much?) ;-)
A chord arriving with each note at a different time has little to do with PPQN OR scanning rate, providind it's fast enough.
MIDI is a serial data transfer not a parallel one. Notes in a chord will always arrive one after the other it's the nature of a serial interface.
It's made even worse by using a polled protocol such as that underlying the USB interface. All notes in a chord may not arrive within the same packet, so there may be even worse separation of the notes.
Could you explain how time stamping solves the problem of jitter in a live situation please?
I really do look forward to seeing how some of the above issues are resolved in actual product, if I live that long. I'm 75 now so I may never see it.
[/diatribe]
Still no response from Roland, I take it, on the question I asked in the other MIDI 2 thread.
Sorry, I'll make this my last diatribe about MIDI 2.
As a musical electrical engineer i foresee several issues which need ironing out and others that haven't been addressed.
The focus is IMV too much on the protocol and not enough on how one makes it work.
MIDI 1 was very practical, all praise to its inventors.
JohnG.
-
Fair point, Craig, now consider this:
I have two Yamaha MU1000-XG modules, each has 2 MIDI ins a midi out and a MIDI thru.
each has a variety of PLG cards in it from AN, DX, VL, PF and VH.
(Total 8 MIDI Din sockets)
I have a Roland SC-8850, same config. as the MU's no PLG.
(total 12 MIDI sockets)
I have a Yamaha VL70m synth MIDI in, out & thru
I have a Yamaha AN1x; inn, out, thru.
I have a Cheetah MS6 synth in, out, thru.
(total 21 ports so far)
Okay, I don't use MIDI thru, so knock off 6 ports, leaves 15.
I have an Akai EWI 4000s wind synth with a MIDI out.
I have a small controller keyboard with MIDI out.
BUT ... I have a MIDI patchbay with ins along the top row and outs along the bottom row. All labelled up.
I have this box alongside me and the synth kit is mounted over the other side of the room in a bookshelf. (How long can a USB cable be?)
Patching the EWI to any synth is one patch cable in a new socket, ditto the keyboard.
I can send SysEx messages or a set of patches via MIDI to any of the synths from the PC to configure it.
Now, to do this over USB I do ... what?
How many MIDI/USB adapters do I need to buy?
Do I need a computer in the network to control the USB protocol?
I replace my controller with a MIDI 2 controller. Will it give me more than ten bits of pitch bend?
How many times do I have to rotate my new control knobs to give me 16 bit accuracy?
(Current controllers are 25 clicks per turn, so from 0 to 127 is five full turns. So to go from 0 to 65,535 (16 bit) is more than 2500 turns. Or if not this way, how?)
Lastly, timing jitter was largely unheard of until USB was introduced.A polled protocol, by its very nature, tends to introduce timing issues.
Did we hear about timing problems over Din in the past? Not that I recall.
In my view there are a number of issues that don't seem to be being addressed.
JohnG.
-
19 hours ago, Anderton said:
As I understand it, MIDI 2.0 sends a data packet that can be understood by both MIDI 1.0 and 2.0 devices. If the MIDI 1.0 device can't identify itself as a MIDI 2.0 device to a Capability Inquiry, then the MIDI 2.0 device speaks to it using the MIDI 1.0 language. The MIDI 2.0 specification is available for download.
Sadly, not entirely true. (according to my interpretation of the spec.)
Reading the MIDI CI specification "M2-101-UM_v1-1_MIDI-CI_Specification.pdf" (which I downloaded and read when it first became available many months ago) it says, first of all, that the interface used has to be bi-directional.
(BTW, Craig, thanks for the repetition of the link.)
MIDI 1.0 via the DIN plug & socket is, for the most part, unidirectional. I.e. one end (out) sends commands to the other end (in).
There is no required response to these commands e.g. ACK or NAK from the receiving device.
Thus a single cable is all that is required to connect e.g. a wind controller to a hardware synth e.g. a VL70m.
The exception to this is when using a bidirectional link (two DIN cables, in and out) to implement MIDI "dumps" via exchange of SysEx commands.
(See the "MIDI Sample Dump Standard" starting on page 35 of the MIDI 1 spec.)
The MIDI CI command, as specified in section 5.3.1 of the MIDI 2 document above, defines a new Universal Non-Real Time SysEx message with a Sub ID#1 "0DH" not contained in the original MIDI 1.0 specification. (See Table VIIa in the MIDI 1 spec.)
If it's not defined as part of the specification to which a device was originally built, then clearly (IMV) an old MIDI 1 device is unable to respond.
The MIDI 2 specification goes on to say that if there is no response to a MIDI 2 CI message then just use MIDI 1. (my paraphrasing.) i.e. it falls back to MIDI 1 (over USB).
So, in summary, for a current device to be able to work with MIDI 2 it must have, at least, a USB interface (or any future bi-directional interface e.g. Wi-Fi, Ethernet, Bluetooth(?), etc.).
DIN will not do.
Here's the start of section 1.1 of the above MIDI CI document:
"MIDI-CI defines an architecture that allows Devices with bidirectional communication to agree to use
extended MIDI capabilities beyond those defined in MIDI 1.0, while carefully protecting backward
compatibility. MIDI-CI features “fall back” mechanisms so that if a Device does not support new features
MIDI continues to work as defined by MIDI 1.0."So MIDI 2 "falls back" to MIDI 1. (over USB)
But what about if my synth only has DIN, like my AN1x or my VL70m, or my CHeetah MS6, or ... ?
Reading the specification leads me to believe that none of these older, non-USB devices can even connect to a MIDI 2 device unless, that is, that device also sports DIN sockets.
19 hours ago, Anderton said:As far as zero product, that will take a while. It's not just about the pandemic and no trade shows, but also "gating elements." For example, Apple only recently added native MIDI 2.0 drivers to their OS. I don't think Microsoft has yet. So, there's not much incentive to show products that won't run on current platforms
Also, development tools that will expedite the design process are just starting to hit the world.
This is the old dilema, isn't it, of which comes first.
MS says "no point in implementing MIDI 2" there are no devices.
Device manufacturers say "no point in implementing MIDI 2, there's no OS support.
19 hours ago, Anderton said:Remember that the MIDI 2.0 spec is very much about being ready for the future. Look how long it took for MPE or USB transports to become part of MIDI 1.0. This is why it was so important to allow people to use existing MIDI 1.0 gear as the spec and products evolve. Besides, not all MIDI gear needs all of MIDI 2.0's capabilities. There's nothing "wrong" with MIDI 1.0, obviously it's worked well for decades...so there's no need to just throw it out, and for companies to say "okay, everyone has to get MIDI 2.0 gear now."
I accept your argument.
My only response would be (coming from the world of CCITT and IEEE) it's important not to start talking about something until it's almost ready to be, quite literally, "unveiled".
(My job, before retirement, was as a protocol analyst in the world of data communications both terrestrial and via satellite, working internationally. I began in the early seventies.)
19 hours ago, Anderton said:The hype about the protocol itself is justified. It's a very well-thought-out spec, and there's a huge amount of potential in there. It's designed to (hopefully) be relevant for decades, just like MIDI 1.0.
I agree about the quality of the specification. It certainly looks the part and, believe me, I've read a good number of specifications in my time starting way back with IBM 2780 and 3270 protocols.
I think the IEEE Q.921 was the one I struggled most with. (Data Link Layer of the ISDN D channel signalling protocol.)
My view, gained from experience in my field, is that it's not a good idea to announce something too soon before availability.
The trouble is that positive vibes can very quickly turn negative.
I love MIDI 1, I visit the MMA forum several times daily, as a moderator, getting rid of spam and answering questions here and there.
(I answered a lot on the original forum which is why, I think, Athan made me a mod. Dunno!)
I use a DAW almost daily to create orchestral acompaniments for my wife, an operatic mezzo.
But, at the moment, I remain to be convinced that we really need the extra complexity of MIDI 2.
And just how many manufacturers will implement it when they can't even get a 14 bit pitch bend to work properly?
Well, we'll see.
Sounds very skeptical doesn't it?
Didn't mean to do that.
JohnG.
-
But, as I understand the specification, it's not possible to send MIDI 2.0 messages across the DIN interface. Or am I wrong?
My AN1x will never be able to respond to a Capability Inquiry message; it doesn't have a USB interface.
So it's NOT backward compatible. As far as I can see. But I'm eager to be corrected. ;-)
5-pin DIN is capable of sending around a thousand three byte messages a second. (31,250 / 10 / 3)
I know I can't play and operate controls that quickly. So actually quite fast ... for playing music.
Extremely slow for audio or video, ii's true.
Forgive me Craig, (I really don't mean to be rude), but there's a lot of hype around MIDI 2 (IMHO) and zero product. (No response from Roland yet I take it?)
My issue is that there are already aspects of MIDI 1 that manufacturers don't implement properly, or not at all.
e.g. Why do so few manufacturers implement all fourteen bits of pitch bend? Some well known ones not even 7 bits in their top end products.
How many polyphonic aftertouch keyboards are available?
Where is the MIDI 2.0 file specification?
Sorry to be so negative, but I'm rather disappointed.
JohnG.
-
On 4/13/2022 at 2:10 PM, Notes_Norton said:
MIDI. It's old and still works fine.
As a moderator of the MMA forum I just had to upvote this one.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Notes_Norton said:
The off-topic 'coffee-house' section has a few delightful and silly people to hang with.
Notes ♫
Yea, there's even some weird guy who keeps contributing his idea of humor (that's different from humour, which is funny) to the puns thread, and even starts threads with lame music cartoons in them.
Now, what's his moniker?
...
oh!
Whoops.
-
1
-
-
Well, shares in Tesla have just plummeted by over 100Bn$, so clearly his investors there don't think much of it.
The EU has reminded him that completely "free speech" has to be moderated to exclude all the "crazies"!
The new laws being passed there will make it mandatory, or up to 6% of global turnover could be forfeit for every breach.
-
Thanks for the update Craig.
1 hour ago, RABid said:With the spec still being in development and changes added monthly I would think that manufacturers would be waiting for it to finalize before implementing it in a new product.
I thought that the spec of the MIDI 2 protocol was complete, It's available to download from the MMA web site.
As too is the MIDI 2 over USB spec.
What we're still waiting for completion of is the file spec.
( please correct me if I'm wrong.)
So, it would seem to me that a keyboard/synth manufacturer could implement the protocol in the synth and its USB interface and announce it.
It's whether the workstaion function of the device can record and store the extra information and subsequently export it in MIDI 2 formatvia USB that's in question too.
(Thinking aloud.)
-
Roland releases information on its new Fantom "0" series but not a word about MIDI 2.0 support!
What are we to make of this, I wonder?
Any thoughts Craig ... others?
-
3 hours ago, pinkfloydcramer said:
What makes this even more amazing, is that bacon is bad for your heart- and yet pig hearts, which have been surrounded by bacon their entire lives, are still more durable than those of humans.
Did someone mention bekan?
The reason why bacon is good for a pig's heart is because it's been cured. (Sorry 😁)
-
Nothing About Music Making!
-
Er .. surely the pigeon is there just to check whether there's any food, isn't it?
"Hey man, you haven't fed us anything in days, What Gives?"
Aren't theoretical motives of compassion in a bird brain just a little far fetched?
Just my P.O.V.
-
Best "kazoo" ever.
[video:youtube]
Later, in the seventies, Spike Milligan and his friends remade the song.
Spike and "Neddie Seagoon" were expert raspberry blowers.
-
And then there's the tiny Anke Chen:
[video:youtube]
A real prodigy IMHO.
JohnG.
-
AFAIK the original organs had mechanical linkages which could be connected to a set of 'upper', 'lower' or 'pedal' pipes by means of physically "pulling out the stops".
The mechanisms available did not allow a 'split' along any particular manual, and so the practice of upper, middle, lower, pedals became commonplace as organists moved from church organs to more modern electrical then electronic variations.
So I suspect it all dates back to 17th(?) century mechanics.
JohnG.
-
So at the bar after work, I tell my buddies, laughing, that, yeah man, I'm totally the house N***** in this new job.
I don't even know what this means. I've never heard it used before. Perhaps it's unique to your side of the pond?
I'm afraid you'll have to explain what the word you shun to use is.
And none of what you do explain is self-deprecating.
It seems the first is a kind of boast, the second an attempt at humour.
That's the whole point of being backward-compatible.
Who Invented the I-VI-II-V-I-VI-II-V-I-VI-II-V-I-VI-II-V-I-VI-II-V-I-VI-II-V?
in The Keyboard Corner
Posted
There, FTFY. ☺️
But there are hundreds of other circulating temperaments dividing the Pythagorean comma in non-equal ways that allow all keys to be played.
E.g. Werckmeister, Temperament ordinaire, Neidhardt, Kirnberger, Kellner, Vallotti and Young, to name but a few! 😉
See here: https://huygens-fokker.org/scala/