[sdiy] MIDI output current and MIDI-driven gadgets

[Benjamin Tremblay]

I respectfully understand and agree. 
But perhaps this is a case where the maker community should beg for forgiveness and not permission. Modular formats evolve over time snd standards have emerged but strict adherence is less important than protecting jacks from having electrical characteristics that are harmful to self or others. Example: the delightfully weird nlc modules. 
On the other end of the spectrum there are digital modular units that have obligatory CV compatibility but are arguably really MIDI devices, like Mutable Braids. 
Fortunately modular has TRS MIDI, which is “just little patch cords”, with users who are already mindful of the concept of source jacks and destination jacks. For modular, the existing MIDI standard doesn’t seem that bad because usually a modular setup wouldn’t be receiving 16+ tracks of polyphonic, multitimbral data. But lots of sweeping digital LFOs, pitch bends, and various control changes plus a clock could be too much.
My Yamaha QY70 urges me to thin CC data after I capture it and let machines interpolate the signal. But what if we didn’t have to be so frugal?
I guess that’s where I’m going with this, modular users and modular designers will try things and sometimes they work. Jaron Lanier complained that MIDI was a failure because it only captured key presses and knob twiddles versus musical or sonic intent. I’m not sure if I agree but bandwidth and cpu speed were limiting factors, and we don’t have those limitations today.
Getting big manufacturers to agree on standards is so not happening. Getting manufacturers to add an inexpensive tweak that makes a cheap controller or tabletop synth fun is just a matter of showing them what’s fun. ( such as CV out on so many novelty keyboards ). 




Benjamin Tremblay

> On Jun 5, 2026, at 3:41 AM, Ben Bradley via Synth-diy <synth-diy at synth-diy.org> wrote:
> 
> The MIDI standard already 'suggests' a UART be used by setting the
> standard serial spec to 8-N-1. The only new suggestion I see here is
> to use a faster data rate, which I wholeheartedly endorse.
> 
> I might suggest something like RS422 or RS485, which are plenty fast,
> but neither of these have the isolation that is needed. Ethernet
> hardware is isolated, but the signal would need a more complicated
> data format to go through the isolation transformers. OTOH, I'd hope
> there are much faster optoisolaters now than when MIDI was spec'd,
> though the ones needed at the time were significantly faster than the
> jellybean ones back then.
> 
> MIDI 2.0 officially came out a few years ago, I downloaded and did a
> cursory read-through of the spec, there's much faster data transfer
> now but I forget if it's through USB (UGH!) or what.
> 
> I vaguely recall in the '80's or '90's a manufacturer made a synth
> with a "2x speed" option for its MIDI ports, so that at least when
> connected to other units of that brand there was the option to go
> twice the standard MIDI speed. No doubt the MIDI association frowned
> heavily on that, and may have made them stop doing that.
> 
> I actually watched the first half of this video a few days ago, it's
> all about the pains of MIDI in the first years. I didn't even watch
> the rest to see his solution:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm3ThKXABJ0
> 
>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 at 02:30, Michael E Caloroso via Synth-diy
>> <synth-diy at synth-diy.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Because there are too many cooks in the kitchen.
>> 
>> MIDI originally specified inexpensive components which add about $25 to the BOM cost (1983 economy).  It was also the easiest solution to prevent interface problems.
>> 
>> The biggest barrier to acceptance of MIDI was getting the manufacturers in agreement and on the same page.  Adding a UART to a new protocol would invite all kinds of complications.  A UART-based protocol would not only invite disputes on low level programming algorithms, there would be an endless dispute over which UART.  Or which microcontroller or CPU with onboard UARTs.  Not only are UARTs not inexpensive components, but they go obsolete.  The MIDI organization mandated the components that will not go obsolete while mandating the optoisolator but not the specific type (the spec does not mandate 6N138/9 or PC900).
>> 
>> In 1983 at the birth of MIDI, there were about 10 member manufacturers on the MIDI committee,  Today there are over a hundred of them (https://midi.org/partners).  The organization would have to get tenfold more members to agree on any UART-based proposal, which is a very very tall order  Dave Smith had said even getting ten to agree back in 1983 was a major headache that he cares not to repeat.
>> 
>> Ain't gonna happen.
>> 
>> MC
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Tremblay via Synth-diy <synth-diy at synth-diy.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why can’t we just develop a new protocol based on cheap UARTs and passive components that runs I dunno 25x faster and works like patch cords instead of hubs, isn’t gated by some consortium, and is backward compatible if you add a cheap adapter?
>>> 
>> ________________________________________________________
>> This is the Synth-diy mailing list
>> Submit email to: Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
>> View archive at: https://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/
>> Check your settings at: https://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>> Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> This is the Synth-diy mailing list
> Submit email to: Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> View archive at: https://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/
> Check your settings at: https://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org