4 ms·

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]