3 ms·

Well I'm really looking forward to MIDI Capability Inquiry. (well and all the high resolution bits too). Having a midi device be able to describe and name its

Well I'm really looking forward to MIDI Capability Inquiry. (well and all the high resolution bits too). Having a midi device be able to describe and name its parameters and then be able to ... let me quote soundonsound - https://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/introducing-midi-20 https://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/introducing-midi... """MIDI‑CI will allow DAWs to discover a lot more about external gear than they can at the moment, and might even allow editing panels to be built automatically.""" I have a lot of gear that will never speak midi 2.0 but my assumption is some clever person will make a proxy (with a big list of existing gear mappings) that would allow me to select that gear and then expose a midi 2.0 interface to the DAW or a keyboard controller that was midi 2.0 This would really be huge for me and just make life a lot better around the studio.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
About 10 years ago, Digidesign bought a nice protocol that was really tightly engineered to allow DAWs to build interfaces with control surfaces in an incredibly deep way. The DAW and the surface could negotiate based on their capabilities and needs. It looked really promising. It has gone nowhere. There are a number of reasons why, but I would wager that the most important is that people simply do not need this kind of complexity. It is the kind of thing that OEMs can use to build cool devices, rather than the kind of things the overwhelming majority of users ever wants to deal with. Note that the MIDNAM specification also does a significant part of what you describe above, and although it's not true to say that it has gone nowhere, the industry essentially abandoned it rather than push it forward. I apologize for sound cynical or skeptical about MIDI 2.0. MIDI 1.0 was a technical and social engineering miracle. But having been around the audio tech industry for 20+ years, I'm not optimistic that the MMA's processes are capable of replicating what was so good about MIDI 1.0 or avoiding the screw-ups they've been involved with since then.
- WhatIsDukkha 6y ago
  Some things come too early and/or are underspecified. Midi 2.0 seems like its about a sweet spot that will solve real problems. I'm looking at the midnam files that come with Ardour... It seems like these are focused on just named patches? I see the spec can do more like parameter names but it doesn't seem like that's been the focus? Is there a bigger pile of work somewhere? Thanks, I might poke at this a bit and see what I can get working in Ardour.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

About 10 years ago, Digidesign bought a nice protocol that was really tightly engineered to allow DAWs to build interfaces with control surfaces in an incredibly deep way. The DAW and the surface could negotiate based on their capabilities and needs. It looked really promising. It has gone nowhere. There are a number of reasons why, but I would wager that the most important is that people simply do not need this kind of complexity. It is the kind of thing that OEMs can use to build cool devices, rather than the kind of things the overwhelming majority of users ever wants to deal with. Note that the MIDNAM specification also does a significant part of what you describe above, and although it's not true to say that it has gone nowhere, the industry essentially abandoned it rather than push it forward. I apologize for sound cynical or skeptical about MIDI 2.0. MIDI 1.0 was a technical and social engineering miracle. But having been around the audio tech industry for 20+ years, I'm not optimistic that the MMA's processes are capable of replicating what was so good about MIDI 1.0 or avoiding the screw-ups they've been involved with since then.

WhatIsDukkha 6y ago
Some things come too early and/or are underspecified. Midi 2.0 seems like its about a sweet spot that will solve real problems. I'm looking at the midnam files that come with Ardour... It seems like these are focused on just named patches? I see the spec can do more like parameter names but it doesn't seem like that's been the focus? Is there a bigger pile of work somewhere? Thanks, I might poke at this a bit and see what I can get working in Ardour.