Whatever happened to system exclusive messages

[Theo Verelst]

EI was on the MIDI band-wagon since 1984, made voice and other parameter read and write software since I had an Atari ST in about '86, SYSEX-ed back and forth with a number of synths since.

 

Unless the use of all kinds of protocols is restricted machine-kinds I haven't dealt with, I'd say New Midi is trailing behind the curve.

 

Not that there are no software editors, but maybe they just send controller values, or

deal with simple single-sound protocols.

 

And then there is the Soundtower monopoly, for whichever reason.

 

Kurzweils with the "advancement" of a closed, unavailable Midi protocol, very late softeditor updates to match recent OS versions (apparently we're lucky to get anything at all), and extremely low full-sysex backup, etc.

[mate stubb]

All the SysEx messages are hanging around down by the river in the alley, smoking and throwing dice.

[Theo Verelst]

:|

[EscapeRocks]

All the SysEx messages are hanging around down by the river in the alley, smoking and throwing dice.

 

LOL!!!

[Baldwin Funster]

In this age of unrelenting tolerance, nothing can be exclusive anymore.

[Mogut]

only time I ever used sysex was for dumping DX7 patches

[JeffLearman]

Theo, what the hell are you talking about?

 

I bet you're talking about something interesting, but you haven't given us enough of a clue. You seem to expect us to know the subject you're commenting on. There's a "New MIDI"?

 

If you had commented on yet another clonewheel or what key Sweet Home Alabama is, we'd be right there with you.

[johnchop]

Well, yeah, indeed there's no "New MIDI," but it's true that system exclusive messages are dead/dying in a lot of new systems.

 

I say this as someone who knows ZERO about what the actual operating system of a current generation workstation really consists of, but I assume it's not some implementation of a rich, abstract programming model atop a "neat" hardware access layer.

 

More significant, why build or even spec out a data exchange layer for your relatively complex synthesis engine using the MIDI sysex protocol (yeeeearrrrrggghh)? Is there an incentive to do so? Because you're nice? Because it differentiates your product in the marketplace? Because 0.01% of your customer base would actually use it? In the end, it's something they would have to engineer and support for everyone using it. Nightmare.

 

That said, I hope the folks in Waltham give more consideration to a really tight software editor for the next iteration. Apparently the Soundtower issues were painful for some... I just used it for patch organization and inspection.

 

Meanwhile, if the FOSS folks want an open-source hardware synth, WELL, GET ON IT.

 

 

[miden]

Well actually there is possibly going to be GM3, however afaik going on things I have read, the MIDI group that oversees this is locked on various opinions on direction.

 

And SYSEX is most definitely still used as it is an essential part of the midi spec. That you don't see it as a lot of controls are internally mapped (via OS systems) to knobs and sliders, is probs why it can give the impression it has disappeared. But it is still there...just check out any SYSEX docs with keyboards you buy. If the manufacturer provides them. Some don't for reasons of prodcut software security (Korg Italy for eg)

[rien]

Want SysEx ? Buy Roland !

 

All their products are programmable using SysEx messages, exclusively SysEx. Even their drawbars send SysEx instead of CC, much to the dismay of every clonewheeler on this forum.

 

Roland gives a MIDI implementation chart, documenting the messages and their meaning. Of course, there are some omissions in the document, but you can really program your Roland gear based on this doc.

[MIDI2XS]

SysEx is alive, well, and living in Yamaha synths. If anyone wants to see lots of it, download a Data List for a Motif and take a look at the MIDI Data section.

 

I suspect the reason that SysEx isn't as visible as it once was has a lot to do with who is buying/using modern hardware. Many of us who got on the MIDI bandwagon early on were into the technology, but I think that's less the case today for most users. My experience is that when I'm asked how to accomplish something on a Motif (for example), and I reply with anything beginning with "F0", the enthusiasm often quickly wanes. "Hexadecimal, LSB/MSB, data bytes, what's all that?" seem to be typical responses. I guess instant gratification and SysEx just don't mesh well.

 

[Reezekeys]

When I used my old Edirol PCR-M80 controller with its non-zonable keyboard to play my old Roland JV1010 module, I used sysex messages to play multitimbral setups. Most sysex parameter change messages require checksumming. The Roland controllers do both Roland and Yamaha checksumming. I agree that sysex isn't needed much these days.

[johnchop]

Well dang, I stand corrected. The Roland spec is impressive.

 

So, yeah, in theory, having a synth manufacturer expose these things would allow for competition in creating editor software, but I can only assume Kurzweil had practical reasons :idk for excluding these from the PC3 spec/docs.

[miden]

As do Korg Italy...Korg USA also provide full sysex data. As well as Ketron, Roland, Yamaha, GEM (ooh there's one from the grave!)

 

Anyhoo, sysex is not only alive and well it is VITAL to anything MIDI, and it really is amazing what can be achieved, its depth of editing capability is massive. BUT.....it (hexadecimal) is so much of a p.i.t.a. to use and implement, most walk away from it.

 

All the 3rd party editors (Melas, Soundquest et al) would not be possible without it.

[stoken6]

Theo, what the hell are you talking about?

 

I must admit I was stumped by "EI".

 

It's not any of the usual suspects: his overclocked Linux PC, FFT, midrange averaging, 192kHz audio interfaces, another Kurzweil piano patch, how Open Source can save keyboards, or the poor quality of today's mastering.

 

Emulator One, perhaps?

 

Cheers Mike.

[Theo Verelst]

Come on, not even one comment on Soundtower ? I know for sure there have got to be people who'd be trilled to take on such a job for free. Maybe the interest for accessing synth date from a computer has disappeared, but interesting parameters combined with computer analysis and powerful effect and mixing equipment should be something cool to play with, like a vocoder around a Prophet 12, an automatic hall-adapter program per key of a rompler, and automatic sound-check with full auto master eq tool, and God knows what more (it then only starts to get interesting).

 

Probably the thrill is gone for most keyboardists, somehow, or maybe there's to much in the way of the intelligent kind of synthesizer enthusiast to really thrive on the technology. Those romplers make musicians weary of trying new sounds or something...