|
The MIDI protocol. I hate it.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| AuxiliaryInput |
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. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| Since you have no choice, nor an alternative, i must say i love MIDI. :) |
|
|
| CReddick |
| 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. |
|
|
| A1C |
:haha:
I DO think it's long overdue for V2.0 :p |
|
|
| 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?
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. |
|
|
| AuxiliaryInput |
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 ^ |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by AuxiliaryInput
Wouldn't this be much faster if they used something else, like USB 2.0?
|
:P
they do. |
|
|
| AuxiliaryInput |
| 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. |
|
|
| CReddick |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 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 ty 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. |
|
|
| Rusty O'Hara |
| quote: | Originally posted by A1C
I DO think it's long overdue for V2.0 :p |
It was released in 1999 |
|
|
| CReddick |
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. |
|
|
|
|
