fbpx


The MIDI Forum

  Sunday, 06 March 2022
  10 Replies
  6K Visits
17
Votes
Undo
  Subscribe
Why STILL no MIDI 2 ion products? Cubase 12 out today and STILL no sign of MIDI 2. NO hardware except one keyboard??? Is this all a bag of wind? Fed up with waiting.

Z
5 months ago
·
#14051
0
Votes
Undo
Please remember that it's up to the manufacturers to design/finance/market the devices, and this takes money and they need to be sure that the market is there before they will invest.

I guess it's still not clear what the market will be, and the situation right now (Covid, War, etc) doesn't help.

Which specific aspects of MIDI-2 are you pining for? How many others are also pining for the same features?

I for one am still exploring the MIDI-1 boxes I already have. I'm not looking to buy anything MIDI-2

Geoff
5 months ago
·
#14055
0
Votes
Undo
One reason there's little to nothing is that the standards are not yet complete.
For one, the MIDI file standard hasn't yet been published.
How can a DAW creator create a sequencing program when they don't know what the standard will be for data storage?

There's still, as far as I'm aware, only the USB standard published for interconnect.
That's pretty limiting if you're setting up a studio with a MIDI patch panel or attempting to connect several devices on stage.

Will I have to update all my software to take adavantage of it, e.g. Finale, CbB, all my orchestral VST's, etc.
How much is that going to cost?

It won't ever be compatible with my PX560, nor my EWI4000s, nor my AN1x, nor my VL70m, .etc. etc.
I couldn't afford to replace them even if they were remade MIDI 2 compliant.

So for me it's completely irrelevant.
MIDI 1 does me just fine.
4 months ago
·
#14221
0
Votes
Undo
While floating about on the web just now, I got hit by some adverts (pop-ups) from Roland, relating to their Fantom 0 series of synths.

I assume these are fairly new? The images, and the specs, seem to suggest so.

I looked through the various bits of info, and while there is reference to MIDI, I see no mention of MIDI-2. Maybe there IS something there that does support, maybe as an option, MIDI-2, but I'd have expected a mention of this. But no, nothing.

The keyboards do seem to have normal MIDI connectors. Also various USB options. But no mention of MIDI-2.

Is this significant?

Geoff
4 months ago
·
#14249
0
Votes
Undo
Hi Geoff,

I was about to reply, yesterday, to your post but paused and then asked the question to Craig Anderton (MMA President) on his Music Player Network forum.
He's responded saying he's not sure either and has written to Roland to get more information.

His reply is as follows:
Good question, so I've written Roland for an answer. I did notice the following:

"Some players like levers or wheels, while others prefer external pedals. With FANTOM-0, you can use any of them—or all of them. And there’s even a dedicated USB device port to extend your workflow with your favorite USB MIDI controller."

MIDI 2.0 already has a definition for sending 2.0 data packets over USB, so perhaps this is intended to allow future compatibility with various MIDI 2.0 functionality. My guess (in the immortal words of Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back this up") is that it has the hooks needed for MIDI 2.0, but they're not promoting it because there's still nothing to hook into that's available to the public.


I'll let you know when I get a further response.
JohnG
4 months ago
·
#14262
0
Votes
Undo
[*]Well, that all a pretty poor response. They have had enough time considering how long the hype has been out. January 2020, the MIDI Manufacturers Association,
, announced the release of MIDI 2.0.
4 months ago
·
#14264
0
Votes
Undo
Having worked on a few International Telecomms committees in the past, I know just how long it can take to get agreement on standards.
Often several years.
What I also learned is that it's folly to announce something, and to start advertising, well in advance, or "hype" as you so succinctly put it, Steve.

When all the appropriate standards are in place, then is the time for all parties, the standrds body and invloved manufacturers to start building customer expectations.
Otherwise we're in danger of getting "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing!" by the people waiting for products.

With regards to the new Roland kit, I'm guessing that its controllers don't work in 16 bit mode or anything better, so there's perhaps little point in advertising that anything is MIDI 2.0 capable yet. It would just add to the hyperbole.
Hopefully there'll be an operating system upgrade sometime in the future to implement MIDI 2, even if it's just to respond to the CI with "this device is MIDI 1.0 compliant"!

We'll see. ;-)

JohnG.
Hi,

Sorry for the slow reply, but we wanted to get a complete response so we took some time.

There is a good deal of misinformation here that we would like to clear up.

“Hopefully there’ll be an operating system upgrade sometime in the future to implement MIDI 2, even if it’s just to respond to the CI with “this device is MIDI 1.0 compliant”!


Much progress has already been made that you may not be aware of because the information is targeted to developers.
Apple’s Monterey operating system already announced support for MIDI 2.0 and MIDI-CI.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coremidi/midi_messages
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coremidi/midi_capability_inquiry

If you have the Monterey OS on your Apple computer, internally it is running MIDI 2.0 hi-resolution protocol messages and translating back to MIDI 1.0 when you plug your MIDI 1.0 device into a USB port. The first major test of backwards compatibility is already happening and working.

Just in the last two weeks, Google announced developer support for MIDI 2.0.

https://developer.android.com/about/versions/13/features#midi-2-0

Yes, there is something of a chick and egg problem with MIDI 2.0.
It’s hard for major companies to support MIDI 2.0 until there is support from all the major Operating Systems, but Apple and Google are pretty big chickens .

The reality is that we are still in the developer stage of MIDI 2.0 growth. First the OS companies need to support it, then applications and hardware need to be developed and this all has to be done in middle of the lingering effects of the pandemic.

The MIDI Association is aware of these challenges and have been meeting them head on.
Several months ago, we agreed to help fund the development of the Amenote ProtoZoa USB MIDI 2.0 Prototyping Tool.

AmeNote is a new company formed by MIDI 2.0 WG chair Mike Kent and Michael Loh (who founded iConnectivity). MIDI Association members can use the device for testing and to facilitate and kick-start development of their own projects and products.

The goals of the Amenote ProtoZoa USB MIDI 2.0 Prototyping Tool is to encourage speedier adoption of MIDI 2.0 by:


  • Providing an affordable, flexible prototyping platform to enable all MIDI Association members to start testing and prototyping MIDI 2.0 UMP.
  • Providing a testing platform which connects via the Apple and Google USB MIDI 2.0 drivers recently released


We are planning in the next few weeks to ship Amenote ProtoZoa USB MIDI 2.0 Prototyping Tools all over the world to over 40 leading MIDI Association and AMEI (the Japanese MIDI organization) companies that are committed to prototyping MIDI 2.0.

It would have been sooner, but production of the boards was delayed when Shenzen was shut down by a CoVid outbreak.

We have already shipped 25 Groovesizer 2 devices that support MIDI 2.0 MIDI-CI Capabilities on 5 Pin DIN.

You have to remember that 2 of the three Ps of MIDI 2.0 can be done on a product that only has 5 PIN Din Plugs (if the device’s firmware is updated to support MIDI-CI Profile Configuration and Property Exchange.) That’s what we did with the Groovesizer whose firmware is Open Source.

You will probably see a few MIDI 2.0 products announced at the NAMM Show in June 2022 and shipped in 2022. Then more in 2023.

The first products are likely to implement Property Exchange features, then Profile Configuration, and then the new Protocol.

There are other companies like Embodme who have already implemented MIDI 2.0 internally.

https://youtu.be/W8hx3HPQFOI

https://www.midi.org/midi-articles/new-midi-association-member

Someone mentioned Cubase 12, But Steinberg already said that all developers need to do to get support for MIDI 2.0 is use the VST3 SDK because Cubase already has per note and hi-resolution capability.

DAWs don't need to wait for SMF2 (which we are already working on) because that is for file interchange only. They all store their projects in native formats. One of the specifications we have already adopted (Property Exchange Get and State Device State) will bring the same level of recallability of hardware instruments in DAWS that exist for Softsynths and we know of a number of well known companies that are currently prototyping this feature.

But it will take a few years of growth for the industry to update existing products and/or introduce new generations of products with various MIDI 2.0 functions until MIDI 2.0 is more widely enabled.

Everyone should be okay with that.

Why?

MIDI 1.0 was introduced almost four decades ago, yet MPE - another major extension to the MIDI 1.0 spec - happened only recently. That evolutionary process is what has allowed MIDI 1.0 to mature, remain backward compatible, and continue to add more features.

MIDI 2.0 is simply another step in this evolutionary process, to mark where MIDI changed from being a monologue from one device to another, to becoming a dialogue among devices.

MIDI 2.0 is really just more MIDI, not a fundamentally different kind of MIDI. It’s still a computer language that deals with musical expression, just one with a bigger vocabulary.

In the months and years ahead, as new products are introduced, more and more of them will adopt MIDI 2.0 features. Some are ready now, and simply await others to become available so they can “talk” to each other. And of course, this is a software/firmware driven industry. Just as early MIDI 1.0 products often added features over time, so will MIDI 2.0 gear.

One of the best parts of MIDI’s evolutionary pace is that it’s up to musicians to decide the pace at which they want to upgrade their setups, rather than having it dictated by manufacturers. The only reason users can do that is because of the deliberate planning that allows MIDI 2.0 gear to be backward-compatible with MIDI 1.0 gear.

Some people will buy MIDI 2.0 gear as soon as it becomes available, some will keep using MIDI 1.0 gear, and some will mix and match 1.0 and 2.0 gear. That way, nothing becomes a doorstop because it’s ‘obsolete.’ The MIDI language is constructed so it doesn’t lose part of its existing vocabulary, it simply gains a bigger vocabulary through MIDI 2.0.

Fortunately, prioritizing backward compatibility means that MIDI 2.0 can continue to evolve just as MIDI 1.0 did, and not only remain compatible with MIDI 1.0 gear, but remain valid for decades into the future.

THE MIDI ASSOCIATION (TMA)
The community of people who work, play and create with MIDI

3 days ago
·
#15431
0
Votes
Undo
Still nothing happening for the user? Nothing I can find at Namm.
1 day ago
·
#15459
0
Votes
Undo
It's very strange, I've just noticed that Craig Anderton is no longer listed as the MMA President.
Athan Billias of Yamaha is now listed with that title.
Wasn't he the President before, or is my memory playing up?

But there's been no announcement that Craig was standing down, that I've heard or read about.
1 day ago
·
#15461
0
Votes
Undo
I think it's partly because MIDI 2.0 doesn't do anything to modernize the DIN port protocol. This disincentivizes a lot of low->mid level controller manufacturers who would have to significantly upgrade their processors, which increases their price and prices them out of their current demographic. I don't think 2.0 gives enough deference to 1.0. It's possible to craft a protocol that can scale all the way from the DIN's modest abilities to USB's tremendous bandwidth. So 2.0 effectively ends up only supporting controllers made in the last 5-10 years since those are the only ones that have USB port. That's just lame and unnecessary. The protocol should be in service of the hardware AND THE HISTORY of the hardware. The hardware shouldn't be the one catching up to the protocol. They've done it completely backwards. This is a concern of economics and practicality. The protocol can effectively be anything and at comparably no cost.. The hardware has a 50 year history and billions->trillions of dollars invested into it already. I hope a 2.1 update addresses this problem or I see the adoption of 2.0 being very slow and painful.
  • Page :
  • 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!