3 ms·
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, b
by 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 agoIt 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 agoMIDI 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoI'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 ago2.0 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