5 ms·

An even more noteworthy protocol is MIDI[1], which has been virtually unchanged since its introduction in 1981, and is still the way that electronic musical ins

An even more noteworthy protocol is MIDI[1], which has been virtually unchanged since its introduction in 1981, and is still the way that electronic musical instruments and software talk to each other. MIDI-over-USB has been popular for a while, but we're seeing a resurgence of "classical" MIDI over serial with the current synthesizer renaissance. And of course it's all the same on the software side. Note on: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI

ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
Bad timing, MIDI 2.0 has been officially published (almost exactly) 2 years ago. https://www.midi.org/specifications/midi-2-0-specifications https://www.midi.org/specifications/midi-2-0-specifications
- SeanLuke 5y ago
  I'm not sure this counts. Their similarity in name notwithstanding, MIDI 2.0 is explicitly a different protocol from MIDI 1.0. It's not meant to replace it, but to exist in parallel with it. Which is good because I suspect it's doomed. Anyway, MIDI 1.0 is still a standard protocol.
  - ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
    It will take some years. As of now no bigger DAW supports MIDI 2.0 AFAIK, which is also because almost no 2.0 devices exist (Roland's A 88 MKII is the only one I know of).
  - speed_spread 5y ago
    MIDI 2.0 is the IPv6 of synths. The installed base of original MIDI is huge and the advantages of 2.0 are not immediately obvious, unless you have very specific needs such as microtonality. It might take 10 years for 2.0 to reach critical mass, if all vendors adopt it _en masse_, but there is no reason for it to "fail" outright.
    - SeanLuke 5y ago
      I can think of many reasons why MIDI 2.0 might be advantageous. But microtonality? Why? MIDI 1.0's MTS supports everything Scala can throw at it, doesn't it?
      - speed_spread 5y ago
        I used microtonality as an example. Yes, it can be done with MIDI 1.0 but it's a hack whereas with MIDI 2 it's built-in. Actually, you could probably emulate much of MIDI 2 functionality using MIDI 1 but it would just become a new protocol over an old one at some point.
        SeanLuke 5y ago
        I'm confused. MTS is quite exhaustive on MIDI 1.0. How is microtonality in 1.0 a hack compared to what's being provided in 2.0? There are obviously a number of 2.0 features that are much more advanced than 1.0 (MIDI is primitive). But MTS is actually pretty good and not a hack.
    - anchpop 5y ago
      2.0 is already supported by Logic and I suspect that Midi 2.0 support will be a good marketing item for midi controllers. So we’ll see but I think its prospects better than IPv6
SeanLuke 5y ago
Actually, this kind of a collective lie perpetrated in the synth community. MIDI's version number never changed from 1.0, but it has had numerous revisions, including LSB+MSB CC values, NRPN and RPN, General MIDI definitions, MIDI Show control, MIDI Machine control, MTC, MIDI file formats, etc. etc. And of course recently MPE. The original version was quite primitive. I'm looking at the so-called "1.0 Specification" circa 1995, and it's document version 4.2.
rcarmo 5y ago
"noteworthy", ha. I see what you did there :)

ReleaseCandidat 5y ago

Bad timing, MIDI 2.0 has been officially published (almost exactly) 2 years ago. https://www.midi.org/specifications/midi-2-0-specifications https://www.midi.org/specifications/midi-2-0-specifications

SeanLuke 5y ago
I'm not sure this counts. Their similarity in name notwithstanding, MIDI 2.0 is explicitly a different protocol from MIDI 1.0. It's not meant to replace it, but to exist in parallel with it. Which is good because I suspect it's doomed. Anyway, MIDI 1.0 is still a standard protocol.
- ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
  It will take some years. As of now no bigger DAW supports MIDI 2.0 AFAIK, which is also because almost no 2.0 devices exist (Roland's A 88 MKII is the only one I know of).
- speed_spread 5y ago
  MIDI 2.0 is the IPv6 of synths. The installed base of original MIDI is huge and the advantages of 2.0 are not immediately obvious, unless you have very specific needs such as microtonality. It might take 10 years for 2.0 to reach critical mass, if all vendors adopt it _en masse_, but there is no reason for it to "fail" outright.
  - SeanLuke 5y ago
    I can think of many reasons why MIDI 2.0 might be advantageous. But microtonality? Why? MIDI 1.0's MTS supports everything Scala can throw at it, doesn't it?
    - speed_spread 5y ago
      I used microtonality as an example. Yes, it can be done with MIDI 1.0 but it's a hack whereas with MIDI 2 it's built-in. Actually, you could probably emulate much of MIDI 2 functionality using MIDI 1 but it would just become a new protocol over an old one at some point.
      - SeanLuke 5y ago
        I'm confused. MTS is quite exhaustive on MIDI 1.0. How is microtonality in 1.0 a hack compared to what's being provided in 2.0? There are obviously a number of 2.0 features that are much more advanced than 1.0 (MIDI is primitive). But MTS is actually pretty good and not a hack.
  - anchpop 5y ago
    2.0 is already supported by Logic and I suspect that Midi 2.0 support will be a good marketing item for midi controllers. So we’ll see but I think its prospects better than IPv6

SeanLuke 5y ago

Actually, this kind of a collective lie perpetrated in the synth community. MIDI's version number never changed from 1.0, but it has had numerous revisions, including LSB+MSB CC values, NRPN and RPN, General MIDI definitions, MIDI Show control, MIDI Machine control, MTC, MIDI file formats, etc. etc. And of course recently MPE. The original version was quite primitive. I'm looking at the so-called "1.0 Specification" circa 1995, and it's document version 4.2.

rcarmo 5y ago

"noteworthy", ha. I see what you did there :)