The MIDI Forum

0
Votes
Undo
  1. Eddie Lotter
  2. Sherlock Holmes The Voice
  3. MIDI Specifications
  4. Saturday, 08 February 2020
  5.  Subscribe via email
Be sure to watch Mike Kent, Florian Bomers and Brett Porter present MIDI 2.0 at ADC19.
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
Thanks for this less...inflammatory (?) reply.


Infammatory? Perhaps.
Depends upon one's point of view, doesn't it, and how one responds to criticism?

Critical? Certainly.
Still, in my view at least, infinitely prefarable to boring.

As for it being an academic exercise -- we'll see, I guess? I'd like to think that the companies who've spent a boatload of money sending folks to working group meetings for the last bunch for years have done so for reasons other than purely academic.


I suspect for the same reasons I went to CCITT and BSI meetings as a company representative of a major mainframe computer manufacturer, with data communications protocols, etc.
To find out how much these things made sense and whether they might affect future products.
If decisions made there had no commercial sense to criticise and attempt to find agreement for appropriate implementable standards.
If the specifications make no sense or are far too costly to adopt, then to implement, maybe, a limited set of them.

Consider, if you will, why most manufacturers only implement 10 of the 14 potential bits of the most sensitive of MIDI 1 controls, pitch bend.
We have a potentiometer which is centered by spring pressure.
Beacause of its position within a typical MIDI controller keyboard, it has a relatively narrow range of movement.
Maybe 60 degrees in each direction?
The electronics which sense this movement is required to generate more than 16,000 values from this small physical displacement (+/- 8192).
Most companies, in my experience, find this level of accuracy far too expensive to manufacture, hence the restriction to around 1,000 values (probably 0 to 1023),
i.e. +/- 512.
As far as I see the manufacturing costs, implementing note on messages with values in the thousands makes no commercial sense at all.
And, 99.9% of customers have no need for this kind of accuracy. Nor will they be prepared to pay the excessive extra costs of manufacturing.

Look a the cost of the ROLI keyboards, they aren't MIDI 2 and they have no sound generator on board.

All the good old polyphonic aftertouch keyboards have disappeared. Why?
I suspect, too expensive to manufacture and sell at a price and in sufficient volume to make some profit from the development costs.

Hence my comment "a lovely, challenging academic excercise"! I stand by it.
(Actually, extremely simple compared to ISDN 'D' channel signalling at he 'S/T' interface.)

Time may prove me wrong, and It won't be the first time. I'll live with it.
But overall in the last 50 years I've been right more times than wrong with these issues.
And you're allowed to say "Nyah! I told you so!" ii I am proved wrong.
I've not survived into my seventies without taking some criticism, some pretty harsh, along the way.
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
Thanks for this less...inflammatory (?) reply.

At the time we presented that (last November) the standard had *not* been voted on, and the MMA requested that we not show too much detail yet. I ripped things out of my slides, and to be honest, probably left in a few things that they would have preferred I not.

At NAMM in January, the entire set of MIDI 2 standards were voted on and approved. As of this moment, not all of those docs are publication ready, the working groups are going through all of the text looking for ambiguities and contradictions. The expectation is that everything will be published soon, perhaps in 1Q.

Not sure it makes sense in the absence of the full spec doc, but a new Note On message on Gr2:Ch4 (middle C, velocity = 50000 (~97 in MIDI 1 velocity)) looks like this in hex:

Midi2Scope.png

The other questions about transport -- MIDI 2 is transport-agnostic. the USB transport spec is working its way through the USB-IF and seems pretty far along.

As for it being an academic exercise -- we'll see, I guess? I'd like to think that the companies who've spent a boatload of money sending folks to working group meetings for the last bunch for years have done so for reasons other than purely academic.

You're right, this is going to take time for widespread adoption. Adopting the spec is the beginning of the process, not the end.
Attachments (1)
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
Blaming a presenter for technical problems of the venue they're presenting at is asinine, but to then assert it's a bad sign for a completely unrelated protocol is insane. :(

Well, I suspect that makes me both asinine and insane.
Having been a technical presenter for many, many years, I very soon discovered that not having one's material presentable (content and technology) has a severe impact upon one's credibilty.
(Subjects: early on-line transaction processing programming, ISDN D channel protocol, DSL rollout in the UK to some of the ISP's, CSMA/CD, structured cabling, TCP/IP, X.25 courses, data comms via satellite to Telco's worlwide, etc.)
Sadly, the more one struggles with the equipment, the more incompetent one looks.
It gets in the way of the message.
A quick test the evening before goes a long way to iron out any issues.

Just as my wife, when singing with an orchestra, does at least one rehearsal beforehand. Not to do so is asinine.

But, agreed, filling the presentation with jokes isn't the solution.
Maybe a few specific examples of usage would help.
E.g. "so if one is trying to send a 16 bit note on message, on channel 4 of the second group, the content might look as follows:-"
Slide with appropriate content.
Use a pointer (or have the area highlight) and explain the content.
Etc.

There are already devices on the market that claim to be MIDI 2 compliant.
If the spec hasn't been approved yet, how can they make that claim?
And just how much of the MIDI 2 spec do they claim to be conformant with?
What transport mechanism do they use? USB? What flavour?
Ethernet? Firewire? ???
How is the MIDI 2 protocol packetised into the packet structure of the mechanism being used for interconnect?
Data comms isn't only about protocols. But protocols within protocols and packets within packets.
e.g. HTML within HTTP within TCP/IP etc.
And, perhaps most importantly, electrical interconnects. Nothing of that to be seen in the whole presentation.
Where is the standard, e.g. issued by the USB standards committee, describing the packetisation of MIDI 2 into USB packet structure?

What happened to all of the polyphonic aftertouch MIDI 1 devices?
Why do none of the manufacturers I've tested use more than 10 bits of the 14 bit pitch bend message.
Maybe ten bits is enough? So why more?

A lovely, challenging academic excercise no doubt.
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
1. OUCH! I can tell you that having the AV crew struggle with getting the slides to show properly was zero fun as one of the presenters.
Blaming a presenter for technical problems of the venue they're presenting at is asinine, but to then assert it's a bad sign for a completely unrelated protocol is insane. :(

3. I'll be sure to include more jokes in my part next time, I guess?
Please don't. You presented a technical topic to a technical audience and I, for one, was riveted. ;)

4. We'll all see what happens, I guess.
There are already two MIDI 2.0 devices (that I'm aware of) on the market and the spec has not yet been published. I see that as a very good omen of more good things to come. :D
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
Hi --

1. OUCH! I can tell you that having the AV crew struggle with getting the slides to show properly was zero fun as one of the presenters. We discussed the problem with the ADC organizers afterwards. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what the deal with the projector hardware losing sync was, but the AV crew folks that I interacted with were pros.

2. A good question about the negotiation process. The real answer is going to be "it depends" -- each individual timeout and delay in the process are specified on the scale of 100-300 ms, so it's a good bet that doing the entire protocol negotiation is going to happen faster than a modern instrument takes to complete its boot up cycle.

3. I'll be sure to include more jokes in my part next time, I guess?

4. We'll all see what happens, I guess.
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
Talk about BORING!

What faith have I in MIDI 2 after seeing this?
Well, if they can't even get a projector working (in a lecture theatre), not a lot.

Question:
How long does a MIDI 2 device wait for a MIDI 1 device not to respond to its capability request?
A second, 5, 10, a minute?

No mention at all of how the standards are advancing, if at all, with MIDI 2 over USB (2?, 3?) firewire, Ethernet, etc.

As Shakespeare once said, or maybe paraphrased, "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing!"
I shan't hold my breath.
Yawn.
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
  • Page :
  • 1


There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!