JohnG11
-
Posts
111 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by JohnG11
-
-
Thank you SynMike for your response.
It is possible for the 5 pin DIN connectors to carry the new UMP format. But we have not written a specification for it yet. All specifications are written by members who volunteer their time, usually according to the market interest. If there seems to be sufficient market interest, then specs will get written. Some work has been done in this particular area and there seems to be some ongoing interest. I can't guarantee the future, but I suspect a spec for this will be written in the next year or two.Yes, of course it's possible to rewrite the code that processes messages over the DIN interface, but not (I believe) with backward compatibility with MIDI 1.0. So a total rewrite which wouldn't work with older devices (like my AN1X).
(I used to be a data protocol programmer/analyst. My last job, before retirement, was working for InMarSat (freelance) a major satcomms provider.)
Many members of the MIDI Manufacturers Association discussed and researched all possible ideas and features (include that one) over the course of 15 years to come to this new MIDI 2.0 specification. I am pleased with the final design (but I am clearly biased) that offers new features while never forgetting the importance of backward compatibility.Your proposed design does not provide a B Flat, a B Sharp, and a B Natural (3 states for each note). I think the goal should be to allow all of those, otherwise certain musical accidentals are only available in certain key signatures. In an ideal world we would also want to support double flats and double sharps.
It doesn't have to. B natural is already note 59. Append a bit, as described, and It's altered value becomes B#. C altered value becomes Cb.
We alreadt have note 58 C#, its altered value would be Bb. Note 61, C#'s altered value becomes Db.
Here, for example, is Wendy Carlos' 24 note scale using the well known Scala system
! carlos_alpha.scl
!
Wendy Carlos' Alpha scale with perfect fifth divided in nine, in two octaves
24
!
78.00000
156.00000
234.00000
312.00000
390.00000
468.00000
546.00000
624.00000
702.00000
780.00000
858.00000
936.00000
1014.00000
1092.00000
1170.00000
1248.00000
1326.00000
1404.00000
1482.00000
1560.00000
1638.00000
1716.00000
1794.00000
1200.00000
This could all be described (as already done using Scala) using the MIDI Tuning Standard (suitably modified?) in a 17 note scale (just the accidentals) or a 24 note scale including B, C, E & F.
(Please see the attachment showing Peter Preleur's diagram from The Art of Playing the Violin.)
However, what is the underlying goal? I assume a primary goal (but certainly not the only one) is to allow for Just Intonation as an audio result. MIDI 1.0 already has the MIDI Tuning Standard which allows devices to perform with Just Intonation. Then MIDI 2.0 also supports this while adding several notable new features related to tuning. I am optimistic that MIDI 2.0 will prompt more devices to support more flexible tuning capabilities.The goal would be, for those who want it, to be able to play with tune in fixed key instruments. Not with only octaves in tune (2:1 ratio) and all other notes out of tune to a greater or lesser degree as is the case with E.T.
MIDI 2.0 has a lot of room for expansion and we are starting to work on the connection between traditional musical notation (with key signatures and musical accidentals) and MIDI messages. I expect that future MIDI 2.0 specifications will allow declaration of a key signature (so you will know whether that black key just above Middle C is a C Sharp or a D Flat) and notation details about each note. It might be a year or two before such a specification is released.MIDI 1.0 already allows the specification of key signatures using meta data.
From the SMF 1.0 document.
FF 59 02 sf mi Key Signature
sf = -7: 7 flats
sf = -1: 1 flat
sf = 0: key of C
sf = 1: 1 sharp
sf = 7: 7 sharps
mi = 0: major key
mi = 1: minor key
Although they are not transmitted across the MIDI interface.
All MIDI Association work is done by volunteers. We really appreciate your great support on the forum.Thank you,
JohnG.
-
Thanks very much indeed for the response, Craig.
Actually I asked the question here because I seem to get a very (very) delayed response on the MMA forum (if at all).
You seem to be SO much more pro-active. To which you receive much Kudos from me!
As some might say, over here on the other side of the pond, "good on yer, mate!" (Cockney accent obligatory.) ;-)
1a) I wonder whether, from people with little or no knowledge of MIDI, this section (2:30 -) might be taken too literally, and they rush out to buy a YC61 (or MG10) with too high expectations?
Ditto with the DIN sockets. My understanding (from reading the specs.) is that they will never carry the new UMP's. Could be wrong tho'.
Could including them in the video again lead to false expectations? Just a thought.
Thank you for the section about encoders. I will wait (without bated breath) to see what the future brings.
Regarding true sharps and flats, it would have been really good (IMHO) to have addressed this as an optional but easy to implement feature in MIDI 2.
I rather dissapointed that nobody thought of it.
I had another thought regarding the MIDI note number.
Keep the current MIDI 1.0 allocation of note numbers (as planned) but utilise the top bit in MIDI 2.0 to indicate whether to sharpen of flatten the note concerned.
So, for example, note 59 with zero top bit is still B, press a pedal thus switching the top bit on, and it indicates B#.
Similarly note 60 with zero is C, with top bit on equals Cb. And so on for E & F.
For accidentals, note 61 would be C~# without the top bit, but Db with it.
It came to me over the weekend and isn't patented ... yet!
Actually I am an MMA member and a forum moderator. (I spend most of my time there getting rid of spam.)
JohnG.
-
A most enjoyable video, thank you Craig.
I hope you won't mind if I ask a few questions of clarification?
1a) From about 2:30 we see a succession of devices 'communicating' using MIDI 2.0. As we see no cables is it safe to assume they're using WiFi or Bluetooth? Or are we to assume the cables are not visible?
Are the profiles defined yet?
b) I notice that the YC61 and the MG10 are two of the devices shown. Are they already MIDI 2 capable? Will they be?
2) At 3:59 we see MIDI DIN and USB sockets. Will MIDI 2 run across the former? My understanding was that it wouldn't. Has there been a change of mind?
3) Not associated with the video. I currently have a MIDI controller keyboard that has 'rotary encoders'. As I turn these, one click at a time, they change e.g. the MIDI CC that they're assigned to one bit at a time. To go from zero to 127 takes five full turns of the encoder.
If I change the CC being controlled to 16 bit, i.e. with values from zero to 65,535 just how will that be achieved using encoders, to the same degree of accuracy?
I can't see myself, of anyone else for that matter, rotating such a controller more than 2,500 times to go from one extreme to the other. (Perhaps one for the MMA engineers?)
Will we, for example, need three controls; coarse, medium and fine, for each parameter?
I have absolutely no idea how they intend to similarly implement 32 bit CCs. (Zero to 4,294,967,295.)
4) The last, which has nothing to do with the video nor how MIDI 2 is implemented, concerns the shortcoming of keyboards in that sharps and flats have to be enharmonic unlike, for example, a violin.
Why, I wonder, wasn't a mechanism included with MIDI 2 that allowed an effect that split the accidentals if needed? In the 18th, or was it the 19th century, afew keyboards were built which had split black keys.
This allowed, e.g. C# and Db to play their true tuning. I understand the MIDI tuning standards and how that can be set up.
It seems to me that a simple two bit switch could use 00 for ET, 01 for true sharp, 10 for true flat. A simple switch would make it straightforward to play.
Such an opportunity for change and sadly, it seems, missed from the spec.
Thanks,
JohnG
Confused of Wellingborough.
-
Indeed, Audacity does go as low as 8kbps ... but ... Audacity uses the LAME encoder which goes further than the ISO standard, AFAIK.
I believe, officially, 32kbps is the lowest rate.
Does it also not vary depending whether you use ABR, CBR or VBR?
-
There's quite a good article on wikipedia about MP3.
It seems to imply that the following rates are allowed.
"32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256 and 320 kbit/s".
So that 32 kbits/s would be the minimum.
-
This is a problem I had a good while back, starting in the mid-nineties.
With every diagram I created I then embedded a transparent "authored by" item where it couldn't easily be extracted without damaging the content.
I found that something as simple as MS paint was able to create it.
Later on, when I had created a number of Powerpoint presentations I found individuals copying some detailed technical slides (in this case about satellite telecoms).
I locked the presentations with a password so that they were read only, and put a by line on every slide.
The satellite company I'd created the courses for weren't to amused but weren't prepared to pay for breach of copyright.
It seems, today, that if people can plagiarise content they will.
See the ongoing dipute where Australia are going to make Google pay for plagiarised news content.
So the rule is make sure your copy or diagrams are marked so that they refer the reader back to your own site.
But there again, it ain't new, Mr Handel in his later years 'nicked' a lot of tunes from other composers.
The Internet just makes it easier.
-
On the positive side, A UK based company has just developed a CoVID testing system that takes just 90 minutes to detect traces of the virus from just a simple saliva swab.
The prof. who invented it (?) was on the box this morning explaining just how it worked.
The fightback is beginning to offer results.
JohnG.
-
A few more that turn this "old man" into a grump are:
"Epic", used to describe something that's slightly better than average,
and "ultimate", e.g. the ultimate guide to ... whatever.
Replace ultimate with basic and you're probably there!
Q. If this is the ultimate guide, what is the next guide that goes one, or several steps further?
old man>
Oh! And whilst I think of it;
"Almost, or nearly, unique. (No explanation necessary.)
Sorry about that. ;-)
-
One word that has long been broken is "genius".
As in "(name the speakers favourite pop star) is a genius."
I always ask " what, like da Vinci or Einstein?"
The answer is sadly, too often, "who?"
So genius has become equal to moderatley talented.
-
Yes, ...
I dropped Chrome some time back, and all the others save one.
I stick with Firefox. Incrementally they sem to be making it more secure, rather than less so.
With it I installed uBlock Original (the original is important) and, with a bit of tweaking, I seem to be less and less bombarded with bl00dy adverts. :-)
After reading my gmail and yahoo mail i open the tools and in options/privacy and security, I "clear data, which wipes all the cookies and other rubbish.
Like others, I now use duckduckgo for searching.
Feeling mush more secure these days.
-
I'll never forget visiting a wildlife reserve in Uganda, many, many years ago where, as you got to the beginning of the park there was a large sign which read:
"ELEPHANTS HAVE RIGHT OF WAY"
As if you needed to be told!
-
Not so sure about good taste, but here's one you all know rewritten to suit the occasion:
[video:youtube]
With my refuse profologies.
JohnG
-
OK, yeah, I had the acronyms and numerals mixed up.
I thought MIDI 1.0 was GM, and GM2 was MIDI 2.0.
So, if I'm reading you correctly, MIDI 1.0 did not specify that Piano was PC 00 and Violin was PC 40 (or patches 1 and 41 respectively).
That came along in GM, correct?
Then GM2 added the additional 128 patches (which no one seems to know about or use!) and additional things like both Channel 10 and 11 (instead of only 10) would be used for Percussion, etc.
And all of that was done by MMA?
Quite right, you have it clear now. ;-)
MIDI 1.0 specified the MIDI Din interface and an initial design of the electronics to drive it.
The MIDI protocol, the various message types e.g. note of, note off, the controller structure, RPNs and NRPNs, SysEx, etc., and a definition of what some of those controllers did.
It also specified the structure of an SMF, e.g. timing messages, etc.
GM defined the assignment of voices to Program Change numbers and what notes on channel 10 would trigger which percussion sounds.
It also defined what minimum set of controllers should be available to be compliant, so manufacturers could label their products with the "GM" logo.
GM2 extended this set as you've set out plus various other things.
Both of the GM and GM2 specs are available to download on the MMA site.
You have to be a member to get them, but joining is free.
Those two documents are not too onerous to read, unlike some of the MIDI 1.0 specifications.
Sadly I mucked about and wrote a MIDI dump program back in the late eighties for the Yamaha HS organs, so paid for the various specs. :-(
But ... I consider it money well spent. ;-)
-
This is a stupid question but haven't they always been?
No, I believe you're thinking about General MIDI (GM) and GM2, which clarified for instance how the Program Change (PC) messages should be assigned, as opposed to MIDI 1.0 which defined the electrics of the DIN plug and the MIDI message structure, etc.
E.g. PC1 (Hex 00) assigned Grand Piano in GM.
GM2 extended this list assigning a further 128 'voices' by using 'Bank Select' messages (and percussion).
Thse are just two examples, there were quite a few other things.
I guess not since you're posting it, but maybe I'm confusing it with the Specs that have been available at MIDI.org over the years.No, MIDI 1.0 specs, and GM + GM2, have been available in printed form for ages, in pdf form for a few years only.
Maybe you can help me with this actually. I have so many questions.When someone wants to use, say the "Compact Disc" logo to show that a CD meets the specs for - I don't, say Red Book Standard from Sony/Phillips (or like S/PDIF) they have have to license that from Sony IIRC.
For devices to carry the GM logo, did they have to pay a licensing fee, or is it just meet specs and get approval?
Good question, I think, a registered member of the MMA with an assigned 'MIDI manufacturers number'.
Is Roland's GS included in that?No, Roland GS, like Yamaha XG, is the manufacturers' unique implementation of the MIDI 1.0 spec. but isn't GM or GM2.
It conforms to all the rules of the MIDI 1.0 spec but not necessarily to the voice assignement or the assigned use of the various MIDI 'Continuous Controllers (CC) messages.
A student in my class said "MIDI 2.0 is coming out" but I think they meant this - that the documentation was being released.But aren't we on the verge of 3.0? (or long overdue for it)
Yes, the release of the specifications on the 20th of Feb. No, MIDI 2.0 significantly updates the original MIDI 1.0 specification, it doesn't change GM2.
I suppose it could be argued that a GM3 specification is now needed.
i wish GM would become a bigger thing now - back in the 80s, if you went in and looked at a synth, it was "Is it GM compatible" because if it wasn't you were out the door.Now even Roland buries their GM sound set and features - sure you can still turn it on and have a SMF play to it (unless someone made it on a Yamaha...).
I've also wondered, why won't Roland just make their really good sounding piano Patch 1 instead of the cheesy GM pianos.
I suppose because they want you to think of their patches as being better than the vanilla ones of GM or GM2.
Anyhoo, I could see a standardization for CC - 14-18 ish - those general purpose controllers, to be standardized for, for example, String patches to do CC15 for Pizz, CC16 for Marcato, and so on. It'd be cool if there were the same for various Trumpet techniques or other similar things on other instruments.Well, with the new Property Exchange capability in MIDI 2.0 it will be possible with new devices to pass across the concept of e.g. CC15=pizzicato, CC16=marcato, CC17=sforzando or whatever.
What's the story with Celeste, Phaser, and - there's another one up there I think - they seem to have been abandoned.Not sure about those, I'm afraid.
-
An interesting thread, here are a few:
One that I played a great deal after my father died - "Sérénade mélancolique" by Tchaikovsky. The recording I have is with Artur Grumiaux.
"Dido's Lament" from Dido & Aeneas by Purcell.
From Handel's Theodora, "With Darkness Deep."
From La Wally by Alfredo Catalani, "Ebben. N'andrò lontana".
Strangely, as I have no religion ...
The adagio from Bach's Easter Oratorio (BWV249) an amazing contrast to the sinfonia preceding it.
Parts of both the St.John and the ST.Matthew passions.
And others.
-
One of my favourite (UK spelling) pieces featuring regular moments of silence is a from J.S.Bach's cantata "Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten", BWV 93: the tenor aria: "Man halte nur ein wenig stille" (Man halts only a short time still.).
-
I suspect it's the vulnerability of the interface to DMA and Option ROM attacks.
Apparently it leaves the attached system wide open to low level attacks.
Read the Wikipedia article on Thunderbolt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
Maybe they haven't solved that issue yet?
-
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.
:wink: -
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.
-
Unfortunately a plug-in won't have the same effect as a real lava lamp. IMHO.
Why not?
Too much blue light from the modern screen, it's what keeps you awake if you e.g. spend too much time on a modern phone late at night.
It needs to have the blue light filtered out as done by the oil in the lamp.
Then the slow swirling of the oil will do its job.
So hang on to the lava lamp for a bit longer, I'd say.
Just my 2d worth.
JohnG.
-
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! ;-)
-
No wonder they call him "rotating Johann"!
-
It's a good point.
For instance would Jethro Tull be Tull without Ian Anderson and Martin Barre?
Just possibly without Martin, but without Ian puffing and grunting into his flute, especially with songs like Locomotive Breath, it just wouldn't be Tull. IMHO.
Are there any Tull tribute bands?
Can anybody else conquer the flute the way he does?
-
So, two MIDI messages per Note On, Note Off.
And that is exactly why CASIO gives you the option to turn it off.
Some software still can't deal with the Hi-Res (2 messages for on and 2 for off).
Thanks for verifying that for others to see!
As far as I'm aware the MIDI spec implies that if software can't handle a particular MIDI message then it should just ignore it?
The other implication of including another MIDI CC before the Note On or Off, is that those messages will be delayed by at least one millisecond.
So a good reason to switch it off if software is not using it.
:wink:
"Introduction to MIDI 2.0" Video
in Craig Anderton's Sound, Studio, and Stage
Posted
Aha! I'd quite missed the fact that the MIDI CI request was passed as a new class of Universal System Exclusive message. (Too quick a scan read I'm afraid.)
I've re-read the relevant section (5.3.1) of the M2-101-UM_v1-1_MIDI-CI_Specification and have (I think) understood.
Many thanks Mike.
The only trouble with my proposal is that the current MIDI tuning standard assumes that there are only 12 notes per octave.
What would be needed is an amendment, or perhaps an alternative, optional way of defining octaves with e.g. 17, 21 even 24 notes in it. I've also read of a 55 division octave!
(Alternate tunings one of the things negotiated in MIDI-CI?)
May I suggest the Association takes a look at the Scala mechanism as authored by Huygens-Fokker at http://huygens-fokker.org/scala/
There are, at last look, more than 4,500 tuning tables with alternate temperaments already defined.
The notes can be defined as cents to several decimal points or as true ratios.
Interestingly this mechanism is already used in the Garritan, Abbey Road, Yamaha CFX VST instrument. (12 notes/octave only)
It's certainly extremely interesting to try tunings like quarter comma meantone when playing early baroque music for instance.
Again very many thanks for your response, Mike.
JohnG.