Why MIDI? (was Re: Why DIY? (was Re: [sdiy] Another new hard to find part....))

[cheater]

My broken one and a half pence:

I'm a newcomer to the synth world, and one thing I always pretty much hated was:

*MIDI*


It's the most awful, crude, proprietary, stupid, unimaginative, handicapped, etc
standard that I've ever seen.

It's a relict of the past, and was made in the times and possibilities of computers
the kind of Atari and Spectrum. We're a bit above that now, aren't we?
(Disclaimer: anyone firing off with nostalgic paranoia towards old computers may be
flamed. YMMV.)

And it all was pretty much *forced* into a world of musicians. Where musicians should
be all of the above, negated.

Midi requires you to be, pretty much, a programmer to understand it. Sure,
I'm in Mensa, but I don't think I can be f?cked with understanding just another
piece of trash information that's required to play a keyboard (d'oh!).
Midi specification sheets anyone? *puke*


Or, take a comparison between an "analog" knob and an "encoder midi knob":
continuous versus 127 discrete settings? *puke*

How about velocity? 127 settings? *puke*

Or let's take on non-standard scales. *puke*

How about taking a softsynth (like the tasty Arturia Moog Modular) and making a
patch between that and another softsynth (like Rebirth). Can you do that with
analog? Yes. With software? *puke*

How about running 100000 cables from a single keyboard to something else:
take a Kurzweil 2xxx - s/pdif connector cables, input cables, midi, usb, ethernet
(no idea if in Kurzweil, but some do have that), then come time sync cables, ADAT,
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, *puke*, etc, etc. Again, *puke*

How about non-standard patch memories? Everyone has a kink of their own. And managing
that is just a big pain in the ass. Come to think of a sound which you stored and
forgot what synth it was created on - *puke*

MIDI timing issues? *puke*

Sending samples down through Midi? *puke*

Interfacing synths with eachother at all? *puke*

Midi2CV converters? What the hell is that crap supposed to be? *puke*

  |
  |
  |
\ /
  V

All in all, I think it's easily visible what I'm pointing at.
If we want the usability of digital to even remotely compete with the ergonomics
of the analog (note, I'm talking about *ERGONOMICS*, *EASE OF USE*, not
"hey that prophet vst JUST DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT, aww")

WE NEED A NEW CABLE.

Remember, kids: Midi = *puke*


So maybe we could talk about the possibilities of this, hm? :o)



On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 23:25:59 +0200, jbv <jbv.silences at club-internet.fr> wrote:

>
>
> john mahoney a *crit :
>
>>
>> You know what's annoying, JB? To have a remark taken out of context and used
>> in a way that contradicts your larger message -- and that's what you did to
>> me, there. Did you read the last paragraph of my post, or did your attention
>> give out before you got there? (That's where I mentioned that people are
>> doing new work.)
>>
>> You don't get into synth DIY by inventing and building, say, a new type of
>> frequency shifter as your first project. You need to build the equivalent of
>> a "Hello, World!" program; then you build some more existing circuits;
>> finally, you may try to develop something new and different. Besides, most
>> synths have a set of standard modules. Are you suggesting that we should all
>> build everything from scratch? I think that I'm missing your point.
>>
>
> OK OK folks. calm down please.
> didn't mean to attack anyone, just tried to shake the coconut tree a bit while
> making a short pause in the middle of weeks of coding - nothing to do with
> sdiy, unfortunately [sigh]
>
> I've been on this list since spring 1997, and if I've always been (pleasantly)
> amazed by the terrific skills of most members, I've also regretted that most
> of them seem happy to refine a very limited range of skills and applications...
>
> Just like vinyl collectors who explore to death recordings by Elvis between
> 1954 and 1960... or entomologists who specialize in reproduction of a very
> specific kind of worm that lives only on a specific kind of tree in the south-
> west rainforest of Costa-Rica...
>
> and BTW why is the discussion always dying in the "analog vs DSP"
> bottleneck ? Because marketing campaigns of big manufactors focuse on
> this issue since the early 90's ? That's not an valid excuse IMHO...
>
> Just off the top of my head (sorry I'd like to spend days & days discussing
> those issues, but I really lack time these days), here are a couple of topics
> regarding mixed / hybrid technologies & projects that could be discussed
> here (AFAIR they appeared on the list during the past 12 or 24 months, but
> didn't live very long - and of course, these are just examples of how to
> escape the (sterile IMHO) "analog vs DSP" topic; many others are possible
> of course, just put your imagination at work) :
>
> 1- realtime 3D GUI running on a PC and used to program / drive an analog
> modular (not just emulation of modules front plates & patch cords, I mean a
> totally new kind of 3D GUI to design & control sounds & musical processes)
>
> 2- several distant modulars (with their own ISP) connected over the net...
> what kind of applications (beside remote maintenance), musical collaborations,
> concepts, new kind of modules, etc ?
>
> 3- a continuous realtime stream of data available on the web, on which anyone
> could connect a soft-synth or an analog modular and participate to / interact
> in
> an online performance, eventually influence the data stream according to
> certain
> rules (biological, evolution)...
>
> 4- new modules including NN, GA, but not in a soft-synth : real modules with
> switches & knobs to be included in a modular...
>
> etc etc.
>
> these are examples of mixed technologies that IMHO could create a synergy
> between existing (but still isolated) technologies, would perhaps lead to new
> and really cool concepts, and would certainly leave the "analog vs DSP" topic
> on the side of the road for good.
> Last but not least, some technologies developped for cellular phones could
> probably be borrowed for some of these projects...
>
>
>>
>> Back to my original point: Richard keeps talking about Reaktor, which is not
>> SDIY. His other remarks seem anti-DIY.
>>
>
> not sure... being interested in soft-synths can make you want to learn more
> about what's inside the beast, and pretty soon you find yourself coding in C,
> just like 30 years ago I found myself soldering trannies because I felt the
> irresistible need to know more about the way those great new electronic devices
>
> worked...
> and coding your own soft-synth on your laptop IS s-diy (although this is
> brillantly covered by the music-dsp list, which is not only about DSP chips,
> but more generally about digital signal processing and associated technologies
> applied to musical concepts...
>
> JB
>
>
>