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.

Comments

About time!

[aitikin]

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.

Re:About time!

[DNS-and-BIND]

Where'd the idea come from that "if it's old, it must suck"?

If it's lasted this long, obviously it's working fine. Too many working techs get "updated" for no reason other than to satisfy the egos of the people who get to put a new bullet point on their resumes.

Summary is in error.

[Mal-2]

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.

So much skepticism

[Voyager529]

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.

Re:So much skepticism

[Anonymous Coward]

Timing is definitely an issue, even in the early 90's. the bit rate is so low that you can hardly play multiple instruments without noticing serious lag in rythm. which is why daisy chaining doesn't actually work and why your need all your equipment connected to a sequencer with lots of separate outputs.

Re:So much skepticism

[Tapewolf]

More bandwidth is definitely a big thing - MIDI runs at around 31 Kbit/sec and it's fairly easy to swamp it, especially if you're chaining instruments on a single bus.

Increasing the resolution is Really Big Thing. MIDI is 7-bit, which means that if you do something like sweeping a cutoff filter, you only have 127 possible values which gives you very noticeable stepping artifacts (often called 'zipper noise'). Some manufacturers try to interpolate in software. Others bond two controller streams together so that you get 14-bit precision, or send custom NRPM values but since there are a number of incompatible ways of doing this, you have to have a controller keyboard which works the same way as your synthesizer. Setting out an actually standardised way of doing this would be really handy.

Re:uhm..

[Tapewolf]

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.