3 ms·
For me MIDI 1.0 served my needs. I may look into 2.0 if the need arises. It is however great to know that it will be backwards compatible: MIDI 2.0 will be bac
by tartoran 7y ago
For me MIDI 1.0 served my needs. I may look into 2.0 if the need arises. It is however great to know that it will be backwards compatible:
MIDI 2.0 will be backwards compatible, meaning all new MIDI 2.0 devices will be able to use and send MIDI 1.0 data. And if, in time, you create a hybrid setup of old 1.0- and new 2.0-equipped machines, your rig's MIDI 2.0 models will interact together with the fresh capabilities of the new spec, while the MIDI 1.0 models will continue to work as they always have.
- wwweston 7y agoThis is the most important feature. MIDI lives in a context where the computing world's conception of obsolescence would be even more hostile to owners than it is now; decades old hardware is still used and loved, keeping it part of the protocol is key.
- ptah 7y agoThis. I have switched to hardware and going DAWless purely because of the software culture of upgrading for upgrading's sake
- ptah 7y agofor me backwards compatibility would be the main priority for midi 2.0 any thing lessening it should be sacrificed
- zeeed 7y agoI remember people discussing the MIDI 2.0 standard back in 2005 and the arguments since then haven't changed. No one needed it back then and the idea that it would become a breakthrough 14 years later is beyond me because no one has needed it since. Wikipedia talking about that the protocol having been "researched" since then, that gave me a good chuckle. For reference in 2005 the iPhone didn't exist was two years away and people were wearing layered polo-shirts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI#MIDI_2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI#MIDI_2.0