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

The MIDI protocol. I hate it.

I think MIDI is sometimes unstable and slow. Anyway, those are my problems. And that is my point of view. Maybe you find it great but

MIDI is getting quite old now, and I haven't seen anyone developing, nor have I heard of a new kind of protocol that is better or something. Do you think it is going to change? It hasn't for years. It never did I think.

Since you have no choice, nor an alternative, i must say i love MIDI.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle Since you have no choice, nor an alternative, i must say i love MIDI.

Right-o.


You can't complain about something unless you can offer a viable solution.

Since bazillions of people use it everyday without problems, I'd suggest re-thinking your computer / studio setup and trying out some better gear that might work appropriately. I'm not sure how midi can be 'slow'. maybe its your computer / buffer setting that are killing you.

I DO think it's long overdue for V2.0

What? So my complaints are invalid? I'm complaining because I think there's a better way to do this.

Everything is working like it should, but I think it could be better. I mean, midi channels, not being able to use two midi outputs at once blah blah, scanning for midi channels, midi thru, 16 chanksf and so on.

For instance, recieving patches is taking ages when I recieve them from my Virus synth. Wouldn't this be much faster if they used something else, like USB 2.0?

Anyway, let's not start a MIDI war here, what do you think about midi? What do you like, what could be better and so on.

Also, transfering a whole bank takes a lot of time. And if you interupt the midi signal in some way, like doing stuff on your computer, the whole bank is destroyed. Also, you'd have to set down the BPM or else it won't catch it.

Do you get me now? I'm not saying it's slow.. Well, I am, but there's some things it's really slow at. Like that ^

quote:

Originally posted by AuxiliaryInput Wouldn't this be much faster if they used something else, like USB 2.0?

:P

they do.

If you're talking about keyboards using USB cables, it's still MIDI. It's just that it uses another type of cable, and the computer translates it to MIDI.

quote:

Originally posted by AuxiliaryInput What? So my complaints are invalid? I'm complaining because I think there's a better way to do this. Everything is working like it should, but I think it could be better. I mean, midi channels, not being able to use two midi outputs at once blah blah, scanning for midi channels, midi thru, 16 chanksf and so on. For instance, recieving patches is taking ages when I recieve them from my Virus synth. Wouldn't this be much faster if they used something else, like USB 2.0

I'm not hearing you on the Virus Bank transfer... I can dump and receive a whole bank on my Virus in a matter of 20 seconds. When it does come to raw data transfer, yes it is slow. Agreed. Updating the firmware on my PodXT Pro takes significantly longer over MIDI than usb. its an old protocol, oh well.

Regarding the 16 channels thing... lets look at it this way:
In software, every instrument only uses is one channel each, so there's no limitation there. My Virus is the only multi-timbrel instrument I own.. and the internal processor will max out WAY before you ever got 16 parts all rocking on the virus.

MIDI's just a standard, not a specific technology. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's broken - how long has TCP/IP been around for (and how [un]successful has the push to IPv6 been)?

I personally do not want to see a whole bunch of offshoot technologies. It's really, really hard to get manufacturers to agree on a standard and the amount of support MIDI has is almost unprecedented in any technological industry. Anything new is bound to just fuck it all up.

Anyway, it really sounds like the problem is your hardware, because MIDI as an interface isn't inherently unstable or unreliable. With any standard, you will always find several people who have done a crappy job of implementing it (i.e. Microsoft with JavaScript/ECMAScript and CSS, to name a well-known example). In particular, a lot of software and hardware just has really shitty MIDI timing because they don't bother with a decent real-time clock. Try a different controller or an external sync, maybe you'll have better luck.

quote:

Originally posted by A1C I DO think it's long overdue for V2.0

It was released in 1999

From Wikipedia:

HD-MIDI

Development of a major modernization of MIDI is now under discussion in the MMA. Tentatively called "High-Definition MIDI" (HD-MIDI�), this new standard would support modern high-speed transports, provide greater range and/or resolution in data values, increase the number of MIDI Channels, and support the future introduction of entirely new kinds of MIDI messages. Representatives from all sizes and types of companies are involved, from the smallest specialty show control operations to the largest musical equipment manufacturers. No technical details or projected completion dates have been announced.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut MIDI's just a standard, not a specific technology. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's broken - how long has TCP/IP been around for (and how [un]successful has the push to IPv6 been)? I personally do not want to see a whole bunch of offshoot technologies. It's really, really hard to get manufacturers to agree on a standard and the amount of support MIDI has is almost unprecedented in any technological industry. Anything new is bound to just fuck it all up. Anyway, it really sounds like the problem is your hardware, because MIDI as an interface isn't inherently unstable or unreliable. With any standard, you will always find several people who have done a crappy job of implementing it (i.e. Microsoft with JavaScript/ECMAScript and CSS, to name a well-known example). In particular, a lot of software and hardware just has really shitty MIDI timing because they don't bother with a decent real-time clock. Try a different controller or an external sync, maybe you'll have better luck.

I never said it was broken. It works, I'm just saying that it could be better.

HD-MIDI sounds interesting. I hope it'd be backwards compatible with MIDI. It probably is. Just like USB 2 and USB 1

quote:

Originally posted by AuxiliaryInput I never said it was broken. It works, I'm just saying that it could be better.

You're complaining that you find it slow and unstable. I'm telling you it's your hardware. No changes to an interface will fix a poor implementation.

I know Yamaha was looking at "mLan"; though not really taking off.

The main problem would be the general consensus required amongst manufacturers all pushing their idea of the latest standard.

Similar to the old VHS vs Beta, and CD vs SCD vs HDCD etc

The main thing is the backward capability; your old hardware gear is not going to be redone to any new standard, and think about the level of available (ie: existing) hardware versus new available gear.

Me personally, I have no problems with the midi standard.

Sure it could be better, and a distinct new level midi for the 21st century could be cool, but I'm fine with what I've got.

Might of been said already but transfering a bank of 127 sounds takes like 1 second on the TI with usb.

I'm lucky if my Virus Classic lasts an 8 minute song without drifting out of time. I doubt if this happens to every Virus B/Classic user, so it's my interface and/or software. Lot's of people have midi timing issues, it's a crap system and needs changed to two way cables that stay in fucking time.

Couldn't USB be easily used to replace MIDI for just about everything it does?

quote:

Originally posted by camsr Couldn't USB be easily used to replace MIDI for just about everything it does?

On future products, why not. On the loved and praised classic synths used all over the world, no It's a standard used everywhere.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You're complaining that you find it slow and unstable. I'm telling you it's your hardware. No changes to an interface will fix a poor implementation.

It's not my poor setup. It takes 20 seconds or more to transfer a bank for me. Like it should do. But 20 seconds is quite much I think. Also, having a long transfer like that can cause interuptions. And it's been happening to me a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by CReddick I'm not hearing you on the Virus Bank transfer... I can dump and receive a whole bank on my Virus in a matter of 20 seconds. When it does come to raw data transfer, yes it is slow. Agreed. Updating the firmware on my PodXT Pro takes significantly longer over MIDI than usb. its an old protocol, oh well.

Gah, I just woke up, and when I look at this thread, I see myself overreacting. I don't really hate it, I don't like it. And I think it could be better.

I think all future synths will have USB connection, in addition to MIDI.. so it is changning, for the better.

OSC was supposed to be the next thing

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 -

Ferrys made non-crap? Are you sure?

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