On 9/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">thomas fisher</b> <<a href="mailto:studio1@commspeed.net">studio1@commspeed.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Friday 31 August 2007 23:52:33 david wrote:<br>> thomas fisher wrote:<br>> > On Friday 31 August 2007 01:09:07 david wrote:<br>> >> Steve McConville wrote:<br>> >>>> I am curious - has there been any move to modernize the MIDI
<br>> >>>> connectivity standards to include USB or Ethernet?<br>> >>><br>> >>> There has been - there is a midi over usb standard.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Midi is a poor starting point for modernisation not just beacause of
<br>> >>> the pragmatic compromises mentioned above but also because it is<br>> >>> wholly unlayered (the spec covers everything from the physical up to<br>> >>> the presentational layer),
<br>> >><br>> >> That could be separated fairly easily, I'd think.<br>> >><br>> >>> and has it's expansion room squeezed into<br>> >>> the SysEx ghetto.<br>> >>
<br>> >> That's a big problem.<br>> >><br>> >>> Midi over ethernet would be even less pleasant, and<br>> >>> less logical, than doing RS-232 over ethernet.<br>> >><br>
> >> Only reason I mentioned Ethernet is that there are analog musical<br>> >> instruments around already that can transmit their audio via Ethernet<br>> >> (instead of analog audio cables).<br>
> >><br>> >>> OSC has fixed these problems and should have been built into<br>> >>> everything since the mid-90s but so many people have invested time in<br>> >>> learning MIDI that they wouldn't countenance working with anything
<br>> >>> else. It looks like RESTful web services may eventually replace both,<br>> >>> however.<br>> >><br>> >> I suspect that MIDI won't be budged. It is a standard in the music
<br>> >> world, and I doubt that many musicians care about it's limitations. They<br>> >> may not even be aware of them. MIDI certainly keeps time in a lot finer<br>> >> increments than I'm able to play - that's why sequencer programs have
<br>> >> quantization functions!<br>> ><br>> > How does the " XG " extension play into this? How proprietary is it?<br>><br>> I don't know - and each week I play a Yahama PSR-740 keyboard with
<br>> Yamaha's XG. I've recorded some MIDIs using it, and they open just fine<br>> in Rosegarden and play in fluidsynth. Or maybe you're talking about<br>> something else?<br><br>I do not know either, and was asking in the context of the MIDI discussion. I
<br>have always assumed that XG was an extension to the standard MIDI<br>specification. And again I always assumed that an interpretative function<br>existed somewhere in software layers either within a driver or in a filter.
<br>As with your Yamaha PSR-740 XG are all functions / prsets & ?? interpreted by<br>the Linux MIDI? I am only guessing how all of this works.<br>Tom</blockquote><div><br>You could have a look for yourself, the spec seems to be freely available:
<br><a href="http://www.yamaha.co.uk/xg/reading/pdf/xg_spec.pdf">http://www.yamaha.co.uk/xg/reading/pdf/xg_spec.pdf</a><br><br>Chris <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
_______________________________________________<br>Linux-audio-user mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org">Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user">
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user</a><br></blockquote></div><br>