5 ms·

> no possible option for any standard negotiation between devices. While I agree for ease of designed use, I also think that’s one of the fantastic features of

> no possible option for any standard negotiation between devices. While I agree for ease of designed use, I also think that’s one of the fantastic features of MIDI, because it makes it possible to use participating devices in novel ways, never anticipated by their manufacturers. For example, I sometimes use note pressure messages (a.k.a. polyphonic aftertouch) as a second set of 127 control change messages, rather than their documented design intent.

ilyt 4y ago
Right but you wouldn't need that hack in the first place in MIDI2.0 It does look pretty overcomplicated, but then the variety of use cases might be excusing it. Also the fact it has some kind of negotiation doesn't preclude doing clever things with it, just the fact you don't need to rename knobs differently for every single device you connect
- noizejoy 4y ago
  > Right but you wouldn't need that hack in the first place in MIDI2.0 Yes indeed, but one of my favourite pastimes over the last while has been to buy inexpensive used (and no longer manufactured) midi controllers and use them together with ultra-modern software (DAW, virtual instruments and fx). My kind of hacks (and numerous others) will hopefully continue to extend the useful life of older MIDI capable hardware and lessen the burden of landfills a tiny bit. I’ve been very relieved and excited to read, that MIDI 2.0 is supposed to be very backwards compatible, so hopefully I can use my old hardware with ultra modern software for a long time. > Also the fact it has some kind of negotiation doesn't preclude doing clever things with it. In theory yes, but unfortunately I’ve seen too many cases of this type of simplification for straightforward use cases also preclude the facilitation of other use cases. If we make developers think and work too much about use cases, rather than just the power of the naked protocol, they often neglect the latter in favour of the former.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    >Yes indeed, but one of my favourite pastimes over the last while has been to buy inexpensive used (and no longer manufactured) midi controllers and use them together with ultra-modern software (DAW, virtual instruments and fx). I should probably dig that MIDI dashboard project out of pile of abandonded projects someday, once upon a time I bought cheapo midi matrix controller (Midiplus smartpad) then kinda... not really using it for much so I mapped which MIDI command lights what light and wanted to make a dashboard of various stuff out of it... I do like how trivial 1.0 is; implementing it on a microcontroller has been a breeze. >> Also the fact it has some kind of negotiation doesn't preclude doing clever things with it. >In theory yes, but unfortunately I’ve seen too many cases of this type of simplification for straightforward use cases also preclude the facilitation of other use cases. > If we make developers think and work too much about use cases, rather than just the power of the naked protocol, they often neglect the latter in favour of the former. That does worry me a bit with 2.0, it is absolutely "and the kitchen sink" of protocols and considering how even 1.0 implementations can be janky we might see a bunch of pretty badly designed 2.0 implementations
- pishpash 4y ago
  If MIDI is like serial port, is MIDI 2.0 USB or Bluetooth? If USB then it's about right. If it's Bluetooth it's over-engineered and will never get off the ground properly.
  - brudgers 4y ago
    Midi is a serial protocol. It has been implemented over serial, FireWire, usb, Bluetooth, http, Ethernet, 802.11, proprietary buses, etc. The DIN 41524 / IEC/DIN EN 60130-9 connector is a common way of connecting MIDI devices. It is often referred to as “DIN MIDI” and “5 pin MIDI.”
    - debugnik 4y ago
      I think you missed the point of their comment, they're making a comparison.
      - brudgers 4y ago
        Maybe I did. Perhaps because serial is not a standard. Even Hayes AT commands (the closest thing to a standard at the scale of MIDI) required knowing baud rate, data bits, stop bits, and parity bits to establish a serial connection. For me, Bluetooth works much better than MIDI because there’s no setting channels or sending all-notes-off because something hung up. I didn’t see the comparison because it didn’t make sense to me. YMMV.
        ilyt 4y ago
        Bluetooth is not a protocol, it's a 50 protocols under a trenchcoat, all implemented on the very complex base. I think they're basically saying "if it is as much mess as BT protocols it will be a nightmare"
        brudgers 4y ago
        MIDI over Bluetooth works pretty seamlessly.

ilyt 4y ago

Right but you wouldn't need that hack in the first place in MIDI2.0 It does look pretty overcomplicated, but then the variety of use cases might be excusing it. Also the fact it has some kind of negotiation doesn't preclude doing clever things with it, just the fact you don't need to rename knobs differently for every single device you connect

noizejoy 4y ago
> Right but you wouldn't need that hack in the first place in MIDI2.0 Yes indeed, but one of my favourite pastimes over the last while has been to buy inexpensive used (and no longer manufactured) midi controllers and use them together with ultra-modern software (DAW, virtual instruments and fx). My kind of hacks (and numerous others) will hopefully continue to extend the useful life of older MIDI capable hardware and lessen the burden of landfills a tiny bit. I’ve been very relieved and excited to read, that MIDI 2.0 is supposed to be very backwards compatible, so hopefully I can use my old hardware with ultra modern software for a long time. > Also the fact it has some kind of negotiation doesn't preclude doing clever things with it. In theory yes, but unfortunately I’ve seen too many cases of this type of simplification for straightforward use cases also preclude the facilitation of other use cases. If we make developers think and work too much about use cases, rather than just the power of the naked protocol, they often neglect the latter in favour of the former.
- ilyt 4y ago
  >Yes indeed, but one of my favourite pastimes over the last while has been to buy inexpensive used (and no longer manufactured) midi controllers and use them together with ultra-modern software (DAW, virtual instruments and fx). I should probably dig that MIDI dashboard project out of pile of abandonded projects someday, once upon a time I bought cheapo midi matrix controller (Midiplus smartpad) then kinda... not really using it for much so I mapped which MIDI command lights what light and wanted to make a dashboard of various stuff out of it... I do like how trivial 1.0 is; implementing it on a microcontroller has been a breeze. >> Also the fact it has some kind of negotiation doesn't preclude doing clever things with it. >In theory yes, but unfortunately I’ve seen too many cases of this type of simplification for straightforward use cases also preclude the facilitation of other use cases. > If we make developers think and work too much about use cases, rather than just the power of the naked protocol, they often neglect the latter in favour of the former. That does worry me a bit with 2.0, it is absolutely "and the kitchen sink" of protocols and considering how even 1.0 implementations can be janky we might see a bunch of pretty badly designed 2.0 implementations
pishpash 4y ago
If MIDI is like serial port, is MIDI 2.0 USB or Bluetooth? If USB then it's about right. If it's Bluetooth it's over-engineered and will never get off the ground properly.
- brudgers 4y ago
  Midi is a serial protocol. It has been implemented over serial, FireWire, usb, Bluetooth, http, Ethernet, 802.11, proprietary buses, etc. The DIN 41524 / IEC/DIN EN 60130-9 connector is a common way of connecting MIDI devices. It is often referred to as “DIN MIDI” and “5 pin MIDI.”
  - debugnik 4y ago
    I think you missed the point of their comment, they're making a comparison.
    - brudgers 4y ago
      Maybe I did. Perhaps because serial is not a standard. Even Hayes AT commands (the closest thing to a standard at the scale of MIDI) required knowing baud rate, data bits, stop bits, and parity bits to establish a serial connection. For me, Bluetooth works much better than MIDI because there’s no setting channels or sending all-notes-off because something hung up. I didn’t see the comparison because it didn’t make sense to me. YMMV.
      - ilyt 4y ago
        Bluetooth is not a protocol, it's a 50 protocols under a trenchcoat, all implemented on the very complex base. I think they're basically saying "if it is as much mess as BT protocols it will be a nightmare"
        brudgers 4y ago
        MIDI over Bluetooth works pretty seamlessly.