4 ms·

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 groun

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.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >I didn’t see the comparison because it didn’t make sense to me. YMMV. The comparison was between the compexity level. Also between MIDI and MIDI 2.0: whether 2.0 would be similar to its current serial MIDI 1.0 implementation, USB, or BT complexity wise. >For me, Bluetooth works much better than MIDI because there’s no setting channels or sending all-notes-off because something hung up. That must be a joke, right? Because BT is 10 times worse in this regard, getting the user to manually forcefully do a connect/reconnect cycle, not connecting and not knowing why, dropping the connection, and so on. MIDI once it's connected, it pretty much just works: which is why they do live shows with midi for 3+ decades, whereas they wouldn't touch BT for live show with a 100000000 long pole, even if latency wasn't an issue...
      - brudgers 4y ago
        So your milage varies.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
I used to play with hardware MIDI devices - at first without a PC (just a Q80 sequencer as the "hub") and then with a PC. MIDI isn't technically tied to a medium, but the only notion of addressing are MIDI channels (at least the classic v1 from the 80s) - you can target messages to any channel 1-16. It's up to you to set your devices to listen on the right channels. For example: If you have a keyboard set to transmit on channel 5, and two modules listening on channel 5, they'll both play when you press a key on your keyboard. Classic MIDI with the DIN plugs was a RS-232 wire protocol - devices typically had an IN, OUT and often a THRU port to forward all received MIDIs (some forwarded everything out of the OUT port). Latency was a problem with the older devices, but there were "MIDI hubs" that fixed that, and when computers started getting MIDI hardware (Atari ST had it built-in, and ISA MIDI cards for the PC were a thing), it got better. So as long as devices are connected via some serial-like communication method and can forward to each other, MIDI will work over it if all the devices involved can use it. I'm not too familiar with everything Bluetooth but I know that Bluetooth virtual serial/COM ports are a thing. MIDI speeds are low (33Kbit/sec). Classic MIDI will work just fine over that, without any additional engineering, as long as all nodes agree to send and receive MIDI over it.

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.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >I didn’t see the comparison because it didn’t make sense to me. YMMV. The comparison was between the compexity level. Also between MIDI and MIDI 2.0: whether 2.0 would be similar to its current serial MIDI 1.0 implementation, USB, or BT complexity wise. >For me, Bluetooth works much better than MIDI because there’s no setting channels or sending all-notes-off because something hung up. That must be a joke, right? Because BT is 10 times worse in this regard, getting the user to manually forcefully do a connect/reconnect cycle, not connecting and not knowing why, dropping the connection, and so on. MIDI once it's connected, it pretty much just works: which is why they do live shows with midi for 3+ decades, whereas they wouldn't touch BT for live show with a 100000000 long pole, even if latency wasn't an issue...
    - brudgers 4y ago
      So your milage varies.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

tenebrisalietum 4y ago

I used to play with hardware MIDI devices - at first without a PC (just a Q80 sequencer as the "hub") and then with a PC. MIDI isn't technically tied to a medium, but the only notion of addressing are MIDI channels (at least the classic v1 from the 80s) - you can target messages to any channel 1-16. It's up to you to set your devices to listen on the right channels. For example: If you have a keyboard set to transmit on channel 5, and two modules listening on channel 5, they'll both play when you press a key on your keyboard. Classic MIDI with the DIN plugs was a RS-232 wire protocol - devices typically had an IN, OUT and often a THRU port to forward all received MIDIs (some forwarded everything out of the OUT port). Latency was a problem with the older devices, but there were "MIDI hubs" that fixed that, and when computers started getting MIDI hardware (Atari ST had it built-in, and ISA MIDI cards for the PC were a thing), it got better. So as long as devices are connected via some serial-like communication method and can forward to each other, MIDI will work over it if all the devices involved can use it. I'm not too familiar with everything Bluetooth but I know that Bluetooth virtual serial/COM ports are a thing. MIDI speeds are low (33Kbit/sec). Classic MIDI will work just fine over that, without any additional engineering, as long as all nodes agree to send and receive MIDI over it.