19 Jan
2019
19 Jan
'19
11:27 p.m.
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019, Will Godfrey wrote:
I've just been told about this.
https://www.midi.org/articles-old/the-midi-manufacturers-association-mma-an…
Looks like we might have quite a lot of work to do :/
While the 5pin din may be gone (not really, musicians like vintage gear), MIDI
1.0 is not dead. It apears it has taken a sledge hammer to get people to use
VST3 and the MMA doesn't really have the same power. I think that MIDI 1.0 is
going to be around for a long time yet and that all new controllers will have
the abillity to send MIDI 1.0. In my experience as a musician, I meet a lot of
piano players for whom the difference bewteen MIDI 1 and MIDI 2 is just a
number (like 192k ADC) and would not affect their performance. However, I have
not met very many keyboard artists aside from those who work from their bedroom
and who's music I only hear on youtube, soundcloud, etc. I do not know how much
difference MIDI 2 would make for most of these people either. Epecially
concidering how many of them use either their qwerty kb to enter notes or a one
or two octave unit without even velocity...
In fact MIDI 2 seems to be a thing mostly for non-kb instruments or computer
generated material (most of which is probably using CV instead of MIDI anyway).
MIDI 1 was huge, My DX7 supported MIDI before the spec was complete. It is easy
to show off in the music store and sell. I expect the switch to MIDI 2 will be
a much longer road, very hard to show off from a keyboard.
Well thats my opinion anyway.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
19 Jan
19 Jan
11:40 p.m.
New subject: Potential MIDI headaches?
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 13:26:55 -0800 (PST)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
<snip>
In fact MIDI 2 seems to be a thing mostly for non-kb
instruments or computer
generated material (most of which is probably using CV instead of MIDI anyway).
MIDI 1 was huge, My DX7 supported MIDI before the spec was complete. It is easy
to show off in the music store and sell. I expect the switch to MIDI 2 will be
a much longer road, very hard to show off from a keyboard.
Well thats my opinion anyway.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
More details
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDyXDeLbmeE
I watched this earlier. It seems the MMA have indeed done their homework. MIDI
1.0 is definitely not going away. The new system will be fully backward
compatible, and will negotiate for the improvements, falling back to 1.0 if no
response is seen.
--
It wasn't me! (Well actually, it probably was)
... the hard part is not dodging what life throws at you,
but trying to catch the good bits.
11:43 p.m.
New subject: ?==?utf-8?q? Potential MIDI headaches?
Am Samstag, 19. Januar 2019 22:26 CET, Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> schrieb:
In my experience as a musician, I meet a lot of
piano players for whom the difference bewteen MIDI 1 and MIDI 2 is just a
number (like 192k ADC) and would not affect their performance. However, I have
not met very many keyboard artists aside from those who work from their bedroom
and who's music I only hear on youtube, soundcloud, etc. I do not know how much
difference MIDI 2 would make for most of these people either. Epecially
concidering how many of them use either their qwerty kb to enter notes or a one
or two octave unit without even velocity...
In fact MIDI 2 seems to be a thing mostly for non-kb instruments or computer
generated material (most of which is probably using CV instead of MIDI anyway).
Well, it all depends :-)
I my world there's a group of users for whose field standard MIDI just does'nt
work: teaching
and researching professional piano playing. The main obstacle is (the missing)
velocity/volume/attack speed
resolution. So our teachers and researchers need to use the partly-proprietary Yamaha
Disklavier.
So,for them, a modern MIDI 2 is appreciated.
Cheers, RalfD
11:55 p.m.
New subject: Potential MIDI headaches?
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 13:26:55 -0800 (PST) Len wrote:
While the 5pin din may be gone (not really, musicians
like vintage
gear)
i would not even denote the 5-pin DIN as "legacy" - it is still
the de-facto standard by the fact that nothing else has replaced it
within its niche (USB is a generic standard) - if you buy any of the
cheap-o MIDI controllers from amazon, walmart, ebay, etc, (i just did)
they come with a USB plug on one end of a 6-ft cord, and (2) 5-pin DINs
(in and out) on the other end
20 Jan
20 Jan
12:40 a.m.
New subject: Potential MIDI headaches?
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019, Ralf Mattes wrote:
Well, it all depends :-)
I my world there's a group of users for whose field standard MIDI just does'nt
work: teaching
and researching professional piano playing. The main obstacle is (the missing)
velocity/volume/attack speed
resolution. So our teachers and researchers need to use the partly-proprietary Yamaha
Disklavier.
So,for them, a modern MIDI 2 is appreciated.
Cool. I do wonder where the sample sets are that actually have 127 samples
per note. Certainly Pianoteq might have a full range but most of the
electric pianos I have heard sound more like in "Bennie" than anything
that actually came from strings. I am talking about the people who walk
into a music store and buy an electric piano or other stage keyboard.
Now any of those people would prefer to sit down in front of an acoustic
piano, but none of them can afford (or are willing to afford) an electric
stage/home piano which actually sounds real. Remember that "most" people
would never think about using a keyboard controller to get sound from
their computer.
In the case of keyboard synth combinations, where the signal path is
kb->midi->internal synth. MIDI 2 may show some improvements that even the
average person will notice. In time such an instrument may even be cheap
enough for "most" people. However, it seems to me that the synth in the
pianos I have seen does not even fully use the 128 velocity values
available now.
In terms of velocity vs. amplitude I would guess that 127 levels at 1db
per level covers more than most ADC's would show. At .5db per level the
range is still probably wider than the dynamic range available in a nice
quiet studio/sound stage... so I would hope that the range of timbre
differences makes a wider range of velocities worth while. I would like to
see a blind AB test where the same performance is rendered by the same
synth in both MIDI 1 and MIDI 2.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
1:12 a.m.
New subject: ?==?utf-8?q? Potential MIDI headaches?
Am Samstag, 19. Januar 2019 23:40 CET, Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> schrieb:
Cool. I do wonder where the sample sets are that actually have 127 samples
per note.
No, those people don't use samples - we are talking full-size grand pianos here.
Those Disklaviers record and play back performances on actual concert instruments.
Think of it as a digital version of a Welte-Mignon player piano (the company has it's
origins
here in Freiburg/Germany). The local museum does regular concerts with roles recorded by
famous soloist/composers from the first half of the last century.
IIRC the velocity resolution on those roles is higher than the 7 bits used by midi.
Certainly Pianoteq might have a full range but most of
the
electric pianos I have heard sound more like in "Bennie" than anything
that actually came from strings. I am talking about the people who walk
into a music store and buy an electric piano or other stage keyboard.
Now any of those people would prefer to sit down in front of an acoustic
piano, but none of them can afford (or are willing to afford) an electric
stage/home piano which actually sounds real. Remember that "most" people
would never think about using a keyboard controller to get sound from
their computer.
???
In the case of keyboard synth combinations, where the
signal path is
kb->midi->internal synth. MIDI 2 may show some improvements that even the
average person will notice. In time such an instrument may even be cheap
enough for "most" people. However, it seems to me that the synth in the
pianos I have seen does not even fully use the 128 velocity values
available now.
IIRC the Roli keyboards have better resolution and those are used quite often for
contemporary music performance.
Some Casio E-Pianos seem to have high-resolution velocity values (14 bit), see
https://support.casio.com/storage/en/manual/pdf/EN/008/PX760_860_1500_160_A…
In terms of velocity vs. amplitude I would guess that
127 levels at 1db
per level covers more than most ADC's would show. At .5db per level the
range is still probably wider than the dynamic range available in a nice
quiet studio/sound stage... so I would hope that the range of timbre
differences makes a wider range of velocities worth while. I would like to
see a blind AB test where the same performance is rendered by the same
synth in both MIDI 1 and MIDI 2.
Not what our piano teachers say ;-)
Cheers, RalfD
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
4:31 a.m.
New subject: Potential MIDI headaches?
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019, Ralf Mattes wrote:
I believe you... That is hardly blind AB testing though. Mr. young tells
us that remastering to 24bits/192k will bring out things in his earlier
recordings originally recorded on tape too.
What I find interesting (funny) is that the one thing in MIDI 2 that would
make the least difference to someone's performance is the one thing people
want. The good things about MIDI2 in my mind are things like being able to
have an untempered or variable scale. Being able to pitch change each
note separately. Having many more CCs. Just to name a few. Guitar to MIDI
can make good use of it. Some of the new stick like controllers might do
well too. But keyboards? subtle at best I think.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
In terms of
velocity vs. amplitude I would guess that 127 levels at 1db
per level covers more than most ADC's would show. At .5db per level the
range is still probably wider than the dynamic range available in a nice
quiet studio/sound stage... so I would hope that the range of timbre
differences makes a wider range of velocities worth while. I would like to
see a blind AB test where the same performance is rendered by the same
synth in both MIDI 1 and MIDI 2.
Not what our piano teachers say ;-) 
9:43 a.m.
New subject: Potential MIDI headaches?
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 18:31:29 -0800 (PST), Len Ovens wrote:
Being able to pitch change each note separately. Having
many more CCs.
Just to name a few. Guitar to MIDI can make good use of it.
I'm playing a Roland GR-55 guitar synth. It has got a MIDI input, but
it does not recognize note numbers. The rational for this might be
related to the way the synth is able to use the signals of the hex
pickup and that apart from the PCM tones, the patches could contain
modeling. Modeling doesn't just mean guitar and amp emulations, it's
also for modeling an analog synth. The MIDI output provides all MIDI
data, but that data can't compare to the data used by the synth. OTOH
the MIDI settings provide to turn chromatic output on and off, actually
it's turned off, but the output is chromatic, IOW I don't understand
this setting for the MIDI output. The chromatic switch for the PCM
tones is interesting. The tones are played in chromatic steps, even if a
string is bend, the pitch will change in semitones, when turned on. If
it's turned off, the PCM tones follow the real pitch of each string.
This is very cool, but hardly usable, since each noise a string does
produce has got impact, when turned off. Even the most accurate guitar
player can't avoid e.g. fret noise of new strings. IOW if the
sensitivity settings of the hex pickup are chosen to track nuances of
the guitarists playing, it requires to turn chromatic on, since if it's
turned off, it's nearly impossible to avoid unwanted notes. The current
generation of guitar synth does not allow practicable usage of all
provided abilities.
While MIDI 2 might be able to transmit the real data that is produced
when chromatic is turned off, it's not much usable and regarding
modeling MIDI anyway is the wrong interface.
To replace my keyboard by the guitar, MIDI 1 already does the job. At
the moment I play synth most of the times via a 12.9" touch screen,
usually just to produce regular MIDI 1 data. A touch screen could also
produce MIDI 1 incompatible data, but it's very seldom useful.
The MIDI we know has got several pitfalls and indeed some
improvements are very good, but all in all it already does everything a
musician does need. Yes, to control a mechanical monstrosity, such as a
robot piano MIDI isn't an adequate interface and I doubt that this
would change by a new MIDI standard.
A guitar synth does use the guitar as an input device, via a hex
pickup. It isn't a robot guitar, there are no stepper motors picking,
slapping, muting etc. the strings for playback.
It's not the MIDI standard that fails to play a robot piano, the
designers are idiots, if they use MIDI to control this kind of robot.
MIDI 2 could be useful for guitar synth, especially for guitar synth of
the next generation. A new MIDI standard could also be useful to get
rid of a few pitfalls, but it unlikely will become a robot interface.
--
pacman -Q linux{,-rt{-securityink,-cornflower,,-pussytoes}}|cut -d\ -f2
4.20.3.arch1-1
4.19.15_rt12-0
4.19.13_rt10-0
4.19.10_rt8-0
4.18.16_rt9-1
10:11 a.m.
New subject: Potential MIDI headaches?
PS regarding robot pianos:
A workaround for one issue would be to select different velocity curves
by a CC message, to fit to different parts of a song played by a piano
master class. Software even could transmit measuring probe data from
the robot piano to the software via MIDI 1 to determine an appropriate
velocity curve. Even within the limits of MIDI 1 the problem with
robots is that robots need a completely different approach. A better
MIDI standard would improve the situation for robots, too, but never
ever does solve the robot problem.
--
pacman -Q linux{,-rt{-securityink,-cornflower,,-pussytoes}}|cut -d\ -f2
4.20.3.arch1-1
4.19.15_rt12-0
4.19.13_rt10-0
4.19.10_rt8-0
4.18.16_rt9-1
11:41 a.m.
New subject: Potential MIDI headaches?
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 21:39:59 +0000
Will J Godfrey <WillGodfrey(a)musically.me.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 13:26:55 -0800 (PST)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
<snip>
Following on, I think our biggest problem is going to be actually getting the
data into a computer. I can't imagine a practical way either ALSA or JACK can
be modified to accept it.
OSC would only work if the data source was sending it, otherwise you'd still
need a translation level within the machine (in which case you might as well
work with the protocol directly). The big synth names are not likely to put any
effort into OSC support, as they have already thrown their hats in for MIDI 2.
I was actually surprised that the MMA managed to get both Apple and Microsoft on
board.
I've now watched that vid. a second time (very much recommend looking at it if
you haven't already) and I'm even more impressed with the way they've
designed
the new extensions. Also, to some degree they've split the more 'engineering'
aspects away from the more musician/performance focused ones.
My guess is we've got about 2 years to get up to speed before source instruments
become mainstream. Although I'd like to be involved myself, I really don't think
I've the skills to add anything useful :(
--
It wasn't me! (Well actually, it probably was)
... the hard part is not dodging what life throws at you,
but trying to catch the good bits.
In fact MIDI 2 seems to be a thing mostly for
non-kb instruments or computer
generated material (most of which is probably using CV instead of MIDI anyway).
MIDI 1 was huge, My DX7 supported MIDI before the spec was complete. It is easy
to show off in the music store and sell. I expect the switch to MIDI 2 will be
a much longer road, very hard to show off from a keyboard.
Well thats my opinion anyway.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
More details
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDyXDeLbmeE
I watched this earlier. It seems the MMA have indeed done their homework. MIDI
1.0 is definitely not going away. The new system will be fully backward
compatible, and will negotiate for the improvements, falling back to 1.0 if no
response is seen.
21 Jan
21 Jan
12:30 a.m.
New subject: Potential MIDI headaches?
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019, Will J Godfrey wrote:
The video does not add to much of what I was aware of. Not too long ago,
the MMA were much more open than they are now and I could browse (without
login) where MIDI2 was at and the format of commands. I have forgotten the
specifics :) and so the video was a good refresher.
Jackd is a data pipe, so is alsa for that matter. Audio is 32 bit (float)
MIDI 2 is 32 bit as well. ALSA (so far as I know) doesn't "mix" or combine
MIDI. Jackd does and so it would still need to know event breaks. I would
think the way forward for both ALSA and jackd would be to use MIDI 2
internally and convert to MIDI 1.0 at the port if needed. That is stream
MIDI as 32bit words and let the applications deal with negotiations with
the other end. 32bit midi works well with aes67 or avb as well, it is just
a different data type. So even though aes3 streams are not included in the
aes67 standard, many of the aes67 boxes will deal with them just fine.
MIDI2 is bdirectional, jackd and alsa are not but they don't disalow it
either. in both cases there would need to be two channels to handle
that... but the reality for a lot of MIDI 1 applications has been
bidirectional since day one. Even with my slightly pre midi 1, midi gear,
there is the idea of the two talking with each other just with two cords
(for speed more than anything).
More details
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDyXDeLbmeE
Following on, I think our biggest problem is going to be actually getting the
data into a computer. I can't imagine a practical way either ALSA or JACK can
be modified to accept it. OSC would only work if the data source was sending it,
otherwise you'd still
need a translation level within the machine (in which case you might as well
work with the protocol directly). The big synth names are not likely to put any
effort into OSC support, as they have already thrown their hats in for MIDI 2.
I was actually surprised that the MMA managed to get both Apple and Microsoft on
board.
OSC as in the video was not sold well to the manufactures... I would say
the real reason is both OSCs strength and it's weakness... you can do
anything with OSC, it is wide open. OSC did not from the start come with
some standard ways of doing things (note on/off/etc. controllers) OSC has
every single use is custom, there are no standards at all, each
application has it's own standard. Quite the oposite to MIDI. I know of
only two DAWs that share the same OSC map and that is Ardour and Mixbus ;)
So there are no physical OSC control surfaces available and even the Glass
counterparts like touchOSC are limited and still require someone to create
a layout for everything they might control even though each application
might have the very same controls.
In many ways, if midi2 offers good standard ways of dealing with mixer
control, lighting, transport control and other automation, OSC may just go
away because MIDI 2 can offer more. It would be easy even now for me to
create a Mackie control protocol to OSC converter... or almost any midi
based controller out there. MIDI2 will only make this easier. MIDI2 is
also more compact by virtue of being streamed. While OSC may be self
documenting, for most controllers, each message/event/command requires a
whole network packet. I tried using "bundles" but found none of the
control surfaces I was trying to support recognised them. The feedback
stream from a daw is quite heavy, A bank change that the control surface
sends as one message requires the daw to send back as many as 1000
messages each one as it's own packet... udp chokes and many messages never
make it there unless a small delay is added between each message.
There are ways around this: Bundles is one, if the surface understands
those. The X32 points to another: each channel only sends one message with
enough parameters for the whole channel... there goes self documenting
messages. I am thinking of offering both as options in Ardour BTW.
Then there is OCA https://www.ocaalliance.com/ (now aes70 I see) which is
much more tightly defined and also interactive like MIDI2. It allows the
surface to find out what the device controls are and create or asign
controllers to those functions. The setup expects to deal with more than
one device at a time. So for example an OCA surface might show an Ardour
strip with a preamp control section at the top that controls the alsa
device directly as if it was all one app being controled. Yes it is
possible to do this with OSC, but the setup is all manual and not all OSC
surfaces are willing to talk to more than one port. MIDI1.0 already
supports more than one channel internally and MIDI2 expands on that while
also offering control negotiation. There was work started on an OCA
library for linux... but the dev seems to have gotten a life (job maybe?).
I've now watched that vid. a second time (very
much recommend looking at it if
you haven't already) and I'm even more impressed with the way they've
designed
the new extensions. Also, to some degree they've split the more
'engineering'
aspects away from the more musician/performance focused ones.
My guess is we've got about 2 years to get up to speed before source instruments
become mainstream. Although I'd like to be involved myself, I really don't think
I've the skills to add anything useful :(
There are a number of "new" things that Linux is lacking. ALSA in
particular I suppose. I would list:
RTPMIDI - old code exists, but I can't make it work
AES67 - I believe there is something started
AES70 - See above
AVB - there are some linux bits of this (connect jack on two
machines)
Bluetooth (in alsa) - There used to be BT in alsa now only in
pulse
and now MIDI2 - spec not ready
a better way of dealing with HDMI audio in alsa would be nice
hdmi audio for many people does not work with even medium
low latency as it needs a 4k buffer.
a better way of dealing with HDA audio. Pulse does this well, but
jack and other audio applications that deal directly
with alsa do not. For example try opening an HDA device
in jack or Ardour with more ports than two (most support
6 or 8 output channels)
Just as a short list. USB2.0 audio has been a gift and a curse to linux
audio. It has allowed almost all audio interfaces to work with Linux out
of the box (Thank you Apple!). It has also taken away from Linux the push
to deal with new audio setups... linux audio is working no need to mess
with it. Linux needs a new generation of developers to catch up with this.
Either by adding these things to alsa, or with something new. Basically,
if no one works on MIDI2 infrastructure, midi2 will only be used as direct
usb drivers to applications. Honestly, Linux MIDI handling is kind of a
mess right now anyway... maybe midi2 is a blessing.
I sometimes wonder if all audio in Linux should be treated as if it was
network audio following either aes67 or avb as a standard even internally
and provide the library functions to do so. Set the base latency at 1ms
(works with aes67 and avb) and allow the library to give the application
whatever latency it wants. Because every application would be an endpoint,
jack like routing is almost there (jackd also allows mixing two streams
into one port) by default.
I also wish I was 30 years younger with todays knowledge...
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
8:12 a.m.
New subject: Potential MIDI headaches?
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:29:46 -0800 (PST), Len Ovens wrote:
I also wish I was 30 years younger with todays
knowledge...
In my opinion knowledge means less. More important IMO is the
motivation, the skills to use free time.
I wish I would be 30 years younger with the gear I own today. For
example, Floyd Rose and active Humbuckers already existed when I was 30
years younger, but I didn't had the money to pay for it. I was young,
highly motivated and a very good guitarist. Today I'm less motivated
and as a consequence, in relation to back then, I'm a lousy guitarist
today, but today I own this and other gear, some of what even didn't
exist that time.
For example, for some time the best synth "workstation" I owned was a
Roland MT-32, fortunately with software to program it, but since it had
only one MIDI in, data overflow that could cause a missing hi-hat now
and then was a serious limitation.
As for knowledge I could be 30 years younger, even without nowadays
knowledge, since as a consequence of my highly motivation, I was very
fast in learning. The issue today is motivation. I don't use my time as
good as I was able to use it, when I was young.
The young man was able to manage the time
for women
for a lot of friends
for programming audio software
for making music with a band
for making music on his own
to go to school or work
The old man is unable to manage the time just
for a few friends
to make music on his own
to go to school or work
1920
days inactive
1922
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
bill-auger -
Len Ovens -
Ralf Mardorf -
Ralf Mattes -
Will J Godfrey