TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- The MIDI protocol. I hate it.
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by DeZmA If you own or have seen the virus TI in action I highly doubt there will ever be a new generation midi. Vst integration makes you wonder how you dealt with CC and sysex (especially the latter one) commands for all those years. I do believe that it will be implemented for years to come for compatibility reasons. In fact, with all the new fancy gear and synths these days, you can't understand how much crap music there is on the trance market (remember the old days with ferry corsten and mike for example before they decided to start making crap) - but that's another discussion -

Yeah, that's all good, but there's a limited market for VAs among professional producers. Most of them hunt down the classic synths for their unique sounds, whereas you can essentially swap out one VA for another, or for a computer. And all those classic synths use plain ordinary MIDI.

Yeah, I know, I'm going to get 71 TI owners jumping on me about how it's not just another VA. Whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just telling you, MIDI isn't going anywhere, and USB isn't going to replace it or even come close to matching it as a standard. USB doesn't even indicate any specific protocol - USB itself is a standard but the data you're sending back and forth to the TI is completely proprietary.

If any new standard takes hold, it will be precisely because it is 100% backwards compatible with MIDI. Same reason every new version of Windows has sold so well while OS X and all the Linux flavours are still relegated to obscurity.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja Ferrys made non-crap? Are you sure?

Ferry rocked like hell.

And how can u sit there with a JP, and bash the "inventor" of the supersaw trance himself ?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Yeah, that's all good, but there's a limited market for VAs among professional producers. Most of them hunt down the classic synths for their unique sounds, whereas you can essentially swap out one VA for another, or for a computer. And all those classic synths use plain ordinary MIDI.

-offtopic-
I'd dare to say that there's not much on the market that combines the things the ti does. (being classic oscs, digital wavetables, unison saws, fm, graintable and formant). That makes it kinda unique in its own way.
-/offtopic-

So why would you think the new analog synths will never implement vst or audio over usb, in addition to usb?

quote:

Originally posted by DeZmA So why would you think the new analog synths will never implement vst or audio over usb, in addition to usb?

"Virtual Analog" is not "Analog". As far as I know, there aren't any new analog synthesizers. And as I thought I pointed out quite clearly in the last post, there's no such thing as "audio over USB"; the TI uses a proprietary protocol with proprietary drivers. A standalone hardware box can't just "implement VST" - it needs a way of interacting with the computer hardware first.

quote:

Originally posted by DeZmA -offtopic- I'd dare to say that there's not much on the market that combines the things the ti does. (being classic oscs, digital wavetables, unison saws, fm, graintable and formant). That makes it kinda unique in its own way. -/offtopic- So why would you think the new analog synths will never implement vst or audio over usb, in addition to usb?

that sounds like about every virtual analog synth made in the last 10 years.

OSC has some potential...

@ Diginut,
Moog is still making new analog synths, with the little phatty most recently so I was thinking that maybe they might combine the best of the two worlds someday. Don't know if that's possible or makes any sense since then basicly you'd have to convert the signal to digital first. You're the expert so I wouldn't know really but I would like to see the 2 worlds grow to each other.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV that sounds like about every virtual analog synth made in the last 10 years.

Sounds like someone who doesn't know anything about the synths that came out the last 10 years. None that I know implement all those types of synthesis. Sure roland had the supersaw, waldorf had the wavetables, yamaha had the fm synths and all other brands had the classic waveform synths, but none combined all the types.

Ferry isn't the inventor of the supersaw whether you put quotes around it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by DeZmA @ Diginut, Moog is still making new analog synths, with the little phatty most recently so I was thinking that maybe they might combine the best of the two worlds someday. Don't know if that's possible or makes any sense since then basicly you'd have to convert the signal to digital first. You're the expert so I wouldn't know really but I would like to see the 2 worlds grow to each other. Sounds like someone who doesn't know anything about the synths that came out the last 10 years. None that I know implement all those types of synthesis. Sure roland had the supersaw, waldorf had the wavetables, yamaha had the fm synths and all other brands had the classic waveform synths, but none combined all the types.

Waldorf Q
Novation SuperNova
Andromeda
Nord Lead 3
Nord Modular
Korg MS2000
tons of vst synth

i mean what you described is pretty much bread and butter synthethis tools that pretty much every modern synth will have. Not that i don't think the virus is a nice synth , i own one but its a pretty stock synth with stock features. IT sounds great sure , but i don't think there is anything that peculiar about it that gives it the sort of sound that is unmistakenly virus sounding. Maybe maybe you are right about me not knowing anything.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja Ferry isn't the inventor of the supersaw whether you put quotes around it or not.

Not really, but he is the mastermind behind the dutch supersaw trance, and one of the first to take usage of the JP`s famous waveform. So i suspect your just trying to be cool implying he never made anything good.

i woudln't say he invented but i would agree that his use of it was what made it what it is today.

Let's just remember that MIDI isn't ment to send huge audio data. It takes time because it has to send everything serial. You can alter the pitchbend and the modulation wheel at the same time and record it. It seams like it is playing at the same time but the thing is that it sends 2 messages in very close proximity to eachother (1/384th second depending on your ppq (pulse per quarter) setting in your sequencer).

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV IT sounds great sure , but i don't think there is anything that peculiar about it that gives it the sort of sound that is unmistakenly virus sounding.

I think we're talking next to each other, you're talking about the earlier models, I'm talking about the TI, more specific the os 2.0 of the new virus. This implements graintable and formant oscillators. I have only seen those pop up occasionally on software like reason's malstr�m and logic's native synth EVOC (not sure if it was EVOC).
The ones you listed are only doing the standard analog oscillators. (except then for the Q who has wavetable oscillators but only with 2 waves, whereas the virus has about 100. The fact that you can combine all these things makes it pretty unique imho.

quote:

Originally posted by jobro Let's just remember that MIDI isn't ment to send huge audio data. It takes time because it has to send everything serial. You can alter the pitchbend and the modulation wheel at the same time and record it. It seams like it is playing at the same time but the thing is that it sends 2 messages in very close proximity to eachother (1/384th second depending on your ppq (pulse per quarter) setting in your sequencer).

Interesting. So, you'd get a more precise pitch bend and modulation if it was improved? I mean, a higher resolution pitchbend/modulation? Or does it work like portamento? let's say you've bound the filter to your MOD Wheel. and when you turn it all the way up, it'd send the data 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and so on untill you reach 127. Does it go like 1 2 3 4, or does it calculate that from 1 to 2 it'd go 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 and so on automatically?


Holy crap, my English just died.

Actually, the pitch bend uses two CCs so it's already pretty precise (16384 discrete values, usually over no more than a few semitones). Some other controllers do that too, and of course, any controller can technically be mapped that way with a little bit of fiddling.

MIDI controllers just send a single-byte (well, 7-bit) word value through the channel, although some signals, like notes, take 2 or 3 words. So yes, it's going to send "1 2 3 4 5 6 7" - it's up to the receiving host to interpolate between those values, and many do.

Also, the 1/384th of a second figure is not exactly correct. The MIDI spec is 31250 baud, using a start and a stop bit, so that's either 3125 or 3472 words per second (I'm not sure if a word is actually 9 bits or 10; since the value is only 7 bits it might be only 9 bits to include the start/stop bits). Therefore each word takes 1/3125 of a second to transmit, not 1/384. jobro may be confusing that with the score time resolution, which is 1/384 of a beat.

3125 words per second means each word takes 0.32 ms to transmit, so in a normal-to-high load situation (1 note and 2 controllers per channel, at all times, for all 16 channels would be a pretty high average), that takes 25.6 ms to transmit all of it. 1/64th note at 140 BPM is 26.7 ms, so there's still enough time to send it.

That's a lot of hand-waving of course - the actual data going through a MIDI interface is not so uniform, and you CAN run into bandwidth problems at extremely heavy loads, but it's just incredibly rare. It's much more common to have problems due to a garbage serial clock.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut That's a lot of hand-waving of course - the actual data going through a MIDI interface is not so uniform, and you CAN run into bandwidth problems at extremely heavy loads, but it's just incredibly rare. It's much more common to have problems due to a garbage serial clock.[/COLOR][/FONT]

On my atari (maxed to a whopping 4mb) running a midex+, giving 3 ins and 5 outs in total, it still takes a hell of a lot of sysex and cc messages to lock it or make it stutter.

It works, and as Digi said, any non-standard would only royally fuck things up. For this reason, I'd only make the shift to a system that is 100% backwards compatible. If the MMA can come up with that, then that's all well and good, but the fact that midi has some faults is no reason to even dislike it, IMO.

MIDI is lush man. Nuff said.

Positive

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja Ferrys made non-crap? Are you sure?

Positive

quote:

Originally posted by Freak On my atari (maxed to a whopping 4mb) running a midex+, giving 3 ins and 5 outs in total, it still takes a hell of a lot of sysex and cc messages to lock it or make it stutter.

Doesn't surprise me, Ataris had pretty much the tightest MIDI timing in history.

Also keep in mind that each in/out is parallel and has its own throughput, so 40 MIDI interfaces at a time are no more likely to lag than just one. One of the ways people get around the bandwidth limitations of MIDI is just to add a couple more interfaces so each individual one is loaded less.

But yeah, even without an Atari or an Amiga, I've just never seen MIDI get overloaded. It's physically possible but I think there are few if any producers on this forum who make tracks that are complex enough to make bandwidth a serious issue.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.