Slashdot Mirror
MIDI Association Announces MIDI 2.0 Prototyping (hackaday.com)
MIDI was introduced at the 1983 NAMM show as a means to connect various electronic instruments together. Since then, our favorite five-pin DIN has been stuffed into Radio Shack keyboards, MPCs, synths, eurorack modules, and DAWs. The standard basically hasn't changed. Now, ahead of the 2019 NAMM show, the MIDI Manufacturers Association (MMA) in conjunction with AMEI, Japan's MIDI Association, are announcing MIDI 2.0.
From a report: The new features include, "auto-configuration, new DAW/web integrations, extended resolution, increased expressiveness, and tighter timing." It will retain backwards-compatibility with MIDI 1.0 devices. The new initiative, like the release of the first MIDI spec, is a joint venture between manufacturers of musical instruments. The company lineup on this press release is as follows: Ableton/Cycling '74, Art+Logic, Bome Software, Google, imitone, Native Instruments, Roland, ROLI, Steinberg, TouchKeys, and Yamaha.
MIDI hasn't been updated in over 20 years, and even then it was incremental type updates. The spec itself hasn't really changed since...1983? It's kind of impressive that the music industry is still entirely reliant on 35+ year old tech that hasn't changed, but at the same time, what modern tech hasn't evolved in that timeframe? We've even done away with BIOS at this point, I'm trying to think of something else that's deeply computer integrated and has remained largely unchanged in the past 20 years.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
I can remember reading about the possibility of adding microprocessors to electronic keyboards someday. The article mentioned the problem companies will have with compatibility. That was a LONG time ago. Anybody remember MIDI adapters for sound card joystick ports? I have one of those somewhere. Worked good.
Summary is incorrect when it says "MIDI was introduced at the 1983 NAMM show... The standard basically hasn't changed." The first half is true. The follow-on isn't.
MIDI received a major upgrade in 1991 in the form of General MIDI, which dealt with many of the things previously left open to interpretation by manufacturers, such as what order the instruments should go in the patch bank. That's the original MIDI 2.0, we just weren't quite as keen to use that particular notation (outside of software) yet.
I don't object at all to extending MIDI, but I think they should have called it Global MIDI or Universal MIDI or Modern MIDI or something in keeping with the General MIDI naming tradition.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
So, the reason why MIDI has served the test of time is because it's a relatively simple protocol that does one(ish) thing and does it well - it provides data from musical instruments that is easily readable by other things which understand this very-well-defined spec, and allows things to be daisy-chained so that data can be manipulated and the data altered as a function of its sequence on the bus. It's very well understood, and that data can be manipulated however the devices wish to do so. Its simplicity is why it has stood the test of time, it is well-documented and as such is easily implemented by anyone, and I'm unaware of any royalties required to pay anyone for its use, making it possible to use in everything from open source projects to multi-thousand-dollar DJ controllers and keyboard workstations. Let's see what they're going to replace it with...
auto-configuration
There is no real configuration needed in most modern MIDI implementations, to my knowledge. The configuration is primarily on how the software interacts with it, and let's be real - that's the sort of thing the user should be doing anyway.
new DAW/web integrations
Ehm...this sounds like code for "a protocol that can allow for things like Mainstage to run in a web browser rather than on the device", to which I'd generally say, "stop making a web browser into an operating system". I really don't see the point of web integrations otherwise, and I don't see how "DAW integrations" is a problem to be solved. A DAW that doesn't support MIDI is like a word processor that doesn't support printing - fails at its core purpose and thus generally doesn't exist. If the plan is to be able to connect DAWs to each other, that's already a solved problem with Rewire...or existing MIDI files...or bouncing tracks...or running a DAW as a VST plugin. I fail to see the unsolved problem here.
extended resolution
I mean, I guess...but that's like saying we need a new standard for smaller MicroSD cards. Sure it's possible, but usability starts being counterproductive. Is there really that pressing a need for a higher-res MIDI protocol such that its human interface justifies it? Current MIDI doesn't seem to be a problem for DJs on controllers or have note limits that extend beyond what human hands can accomplish; anything much more than that I'm pretty sure is already solved in data-to-data sorts of ways that don't require MIDI.
increased expressiveness,
What even does this mean?
and tighter timing.
Again...*maybe*...but I'm open to scenarios where current MIDI timing is an actual-issue. It's like saying that RS-232 serial at 115,200 is too slow. It is if the intent is bulk data transfer, but it's plenty quick for its most common contemporary use case - typing commands into Cisco routers and similar appliances; it's far faster than I can type commands or read output and its simplicity means I am not limited to a particular solution.
I code MIDI quite a bit. The spec could use some more modern updates, but at the same time it simply suffices because it is quite flexible. A much bigger problem is the lack of device specific documentation; most MIDI controller vendors fail to publish details on how to configure their products over MIDI and simply refer to OS-specific configuration software or don't even bother to do that and just rely on DAW vendors to fix it. That includes some big players like Korg, Novation and M-Audio (the latter being the company that's been selling a broken MIDI interface for years without even bothering to fix some major but easy to fix bugs).
0x or or snor perron?!
Pretty sure those were MIDI ports that we plugged joysticks into.
Back at the time of the IBM PC, these were dedicated game port, featuring 4 analog axis and for button (and thus usable for 2 players, with an analog stick and 2 button each, provided the correct Y splitter cable. Or much later more complicated 1 player peripherals, with the Gravis Gamepad being the first with such popularity).
It came on a dedicated separate expansion card.
IT way much later, once MIDI got added to the port that a few jostrick decided to use it for extra feature (I think Microsoft Sidewingers ?)
That’s why they were on your sound card... or was that a joke
The idea of packing MIDI + Game port together came from Creative.
Like I said before, the game port began as a dedicated expansion card under IBM.
This ate a whole expansion slot just for analog sticks.
So instead some manufacturer tried to make multi function expansions that packed together game ports with a few other functionnality (e.g.: my parents' 386 back hten had serial, parrellel, floppy and game all on a single expansion board, with a few extra headers to the ports that couldn't be held on the card's edge.)
Creative is the first one who had the idea of making cards for gamers, containing many functions on the same board.
The first one was Sound Blaster: an OPL2 FM synth popular with the then popular AdLib, a game port, a DAC to playback samples, and a MIDI interface (for external synths such as the then popular MT-32 from Roland).
Instead of needing 4 different expansion card eating basically every single available port, it's just 1 single card. A real space saver.
(or even more, when they also started putting CD-ROM controllers).
Given the limited amount of space on the side of the ISA slot, MIDI was routed through game port pins, and required one extra adapter cable.
That's the point at which a couple of manufacturer jumped in and decided to use MIDI as one possible way to expand the possibilities of joysticks beyond the 4 analog + 4 digital channel offered by the port. (While at the same time still retaining compatibility with games relying on the classic interface).
(The other strategies where using a completely different port : some complex joysticks used a serial connection, but this was at the cost of lost compatibility with older games.
Yet a different strategy was joystick communicating solely over the classic game port, but being able to switch into a proprietary protocole that send ditigal packets of data over the digital pins instead of straight 4 axis, 4 buttons - Logitech's ADI protocole is an example. This had the benefit of working with pre-MIDI game port, and still also be compatible with old games when the joystick isn't switched into ADI protocol mode).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Don't know why they still kling to the old DIN-port, USB(-c) was the way to go for MIDI 2.0, backwardcompatibility would be done through USB to DIN (which already exist and work perfectly).
Firstly, MIDI is opto-isolated. Without that, you get weird ground-loop effects like the data leaking into the audio, which happens quite a bit when using USB MIDI.
Secondly, MIDI is peer-to-peer whereas USB has a host and a guest. You cannot plug a USB MIDI keyboard into a USB sound module and expect it to work, you have to have a computer somewhere to act as a broker. With MIDI you can take two cables and link three machines together. USB1.1 doesn't work that way, and that's what the USB-DIN adapters are all using. USB-C might be better in that regard, I'm not sure.
You've also got a very large installed base (probably millions of machines) which are using DIN and USB1.1, switching to USB-C isn't going to. They bent over backwards to ensure that MIDI 2.0 is going to work with your $10000 OB-X with Kenton board.
ASCII is still king - over 95% of web pages are ASCII.
Wrong. Even back in 2012, 60% of the web crawled by Google was Unicode. That figure would have only gone up since.
https://googleblog.blogspot.co...
Slashdot is in a tiny minority of ASCII-only websites.
You've confused "ascii" with "ansi" and confused "unicode" with "utf8".
That's pretty damn impressive considering you only wrote three sentences.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
for a new Atari ST with midi 2.0 ports!
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Now if the DAW manufacturers could just come up with a similar standard for storing song data. Trying to share songs between DAWs is still a total pain in the ass involving stemming the audio, lots of time normalising MID then writing it off to new files etc.
Best of the bunch is Reaper as at least it's song file format uses plain text.
it really does sucks balls trying to collaborate on projects where you both have different DAW software.