OVERRIDING MIDI pt.II

[Don Tillman]

   Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 19:50:28 -0700 (MST)
   From: Llyal Gordon <frans at CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>

   Now as the dicussion goes into the second round...

The complaints against MIDI are certainly real issues, and I heartily
agree that dumping it can open up a world of musical expression.

But I have a big problem with your approach to the situation.  You
seem to be attacking a couple of specs without dealing with the whole
gestalt of the situation. 

[Apologies ahead of time -- the rest of this message can possibly
sound rude, but it's really not intended that way.  That which sounds
rude is meant in a joking manner, okay?  It's just fun to write like
that.]

   Thus far, i have learned that MIDI deals with data on a byte
   level. 

Wait a second, if you've been attacking MIDI without first learning
how it works, you're not going to get much sympathy.

   I theorize if i sent parallel byte data directly to the registers of the
   synth's CPU I/O and trigger its flag, I could feed the CPU data as fast as
   it can handle (maybe 1 MBPS or more)- and not at the MIDI 31.25 KBPS. 

Why are you suggesting a parallel interface instead of just speeding
up the serial bit rate.  Exactly what kind throughput improvement are
you talking about?  What do you think the microprocessor does when the
byte arrives?  How long do you think that takes?  What else do you
think the microprocessor has to do?  What kind of microprocessor do
you think this is?  A Pentium?  A microwave oven controller?  What
kind of synth?  What is it you're trying to do anyway?  

   It has been mentioned that VLSI chip manufacturing is often used in 
   synths, to where the MIDI interface and the synth's CPU are part of the 
   same chip. I did not think of this. Good point. 

Why do you think this matters?

   It has also been mentioned that the speed of MIDI is not the only
   bottleneck to contend with. The machine itself might be a mediocre
   performer. Possibly! I think the code in the synth might be written
   sloppy, or the synth was carefully designed to handle only the simplest
   amount of data. (I would be ashamed of myself to build an instrument to be
   used by a musician that promises all and cannot deliver.)

<snork>  

   Then again, if a synth (like the KORG PROPHECY) can make amazing sounds
   based on Fourier Transforms and Physical Modeling, which takes some decent
   chip power, why would it be slow to respond to byte data that i would send
   directly to the synth's CPU I/O? 

Why do you think both functions are handled by the same CPU?  (Okay,
that one's rhetorical.)

   I hope after reading this, you see that OVERRIDING MIDI is definitely a
   DIY topic. If what i have discussed is accurate, and what i propose is
   possible- is this OVERRIDE very difficult to make happen? What am i in
   for? 

Of course it's a DIY topic!  But the way you're presenting it isn't
making much sense to me.

For instance, I think the biggest problem with MIDI is that it treats
everything as note-on note-off messages, and for most types of real
musical expression, say for example a sax player wailing, that's a
pathetic representation of a musical event.

So I'm all for replacing MIDI, but there haven't been much in the way
of concrete proposals.

  -- Don