Oops. Well, I did say "if I understand correctly..." ;)
Nevermind... ;)
--PBr
> -----Original Message-----
> From:alt-mode [SMTP:alt_mode@...]
> Sent:Friday, August 11, 2000 2:37 PM
> To:motm@egroups.com
> Subject:RE: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)
>
> Paul,
>
> You are confusing TCP/IP with Ethernet. Ethernet is a CSMA/CD technology
> (Carrier
> Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection). A shared Ethernet does
> allow other
> nodes to "hear" each other on the same wire but the backoff and retransmit
> mechanisms are quite fast. You can also solve congestion problems with an
> Ethernet
> switch.
>
> The Internet Protocol (IP) doesn't care whether it is run on a shared
> network or a
> point-to-point network. When you dial up to your ISP, you are running a
> point to
> point link. If you have a cable modem you are on a shared network. IP
> works the
> same in either case. The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) runs on top
> of IP and
> provides reiliability, windowing, and "sessions" or "connections". When
> you load a
> web page, you are creating a TCP connection to the server over IP. It is
> likely
> that your TCP/IP connection runs over a variety of shared and
> point-to-point media
> to get from your home PC to the server. [Sorry if this is basic stuff
> unrelated to
> synths but the Internet has gotten big enough that misinformation about
> how it works
> spreads too freely and I kinda feel obligated to explain this stuff when
> it gets
> twisted.]
>
> Additionally, the configuration problems can be fairly easily solved. You
> don't
> need to worry about the Ethernet MAC addresses, they are resolved with the
> Address
> Resolution Protocol (ARP) that is fairly simple. When it comes to
> assigning IP
> addresses to devices, that can be a bit more complicated but it can be
> automated
> with DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). [You think synths had
> acronym
> overload, just get into a room with a bunch of networking geeks and you'll
> get TLA'd
> to death ;)]
>
> Besides, a toaster controller for my MOTM might have some interesting
> creative
> possibilities...when the bagel is done, the EG fires and the 700 switches
> the 320
> LFO shape... ;^}
>
> Eric
>
> --- "Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" <noise@...> wrote:
> > What I don't understand is why you'd ∗want∗ to make MIDI act like
> TCP/IP...
> >
> > TCP/IP messages are, if I understand / recall correctly, broadcast to
> all
> > machines on a network. You send a packet with a target address, that
> > message gets sent to ∗every∗ other machine connected to the net, and
> ∗each∗
> > machine must figure out whether it cares about the message. And if
> there's
> > a collision-- throw your hands up and try again after a random delay has
> > passed. And every machine on your network having a unique ID (which is
> > handled by the network card at present)...
> >
> > I can just see it! You get your brand new Korglandsoniq Groteous2000,
> and
> > you want to have it control that old Memorymoof machine in the corner...
> but
> > damnit! What what the 'moofs ID again? {285a-829b-dc9a}? Or was it
> > {82b9-285b-dc9a}? (And you thought setup was a hassle NOW!)
> >
> > MIDI is point-to-point. No collisions. No IDs. If a messages reaches
> a
> > target, it was intended to get there. You have a MIDI box to route
> messages
> > to targets. Its MUCH easier to centrally configure.
> >
> > The big problem with MIDI isn't that its not distributed like TCP/IP--
> its
> > that its ∗slow∗. Damned slow. Slow enough that it uses those crappy
> serial
> > interfaces on your computer. A faster version of MIDI is what's called
> > for-- still no collisions to worry about, and you could route to more
> > machines than possible today.
> >
> > Besides, I don't want my toaster talking to my Waldorf Pulse. ;)
> >
> > --PBr
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:The Old Crow [SMTP:oldcrow@...]
> > > Sent:Friday, August 11, 2000 9:31 AM
> > > To:motm@egroups.com
> > > Subject:Re: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Analog control woes notwithstanding, the main reason I view MIDI
> with
> > > some considerable criticism is that for a networking protocol, it
> ∗blows∗.
> > > I never will understand why they didn't go with some Manchester scheme
> to
> > > provide collision and drop error handling. It is not that difficult
> to
> > > implement: the Apple Desktop Bus used on Macs to this day (and nearly
> as
> > > old as MIDI) achieve it.
> > >
> > > These days, (starting in 1990 or so) plenty of sources of cheap MII
> > > transcevier chips to fashion ethernet connections exist: it would cost
> > > next to nothing to cram one in a keyboard and use a ∗real∗ network
> > > protocol like TCP/IP to run the show. You don't even have to abandon
> the
> > > MIDI message structure--just encapsulate it in the IP packets.
> > >
> > > I hope that one day a true network physical layer like ethernet
> makes it
> > > into new instruments. And for the millions of old instruments--an
> > > ethernet to MIDI-hardware adapter (which are cheap and easy to make,
> look
> > > at the dinky little thing from www.picoweb.net!) is no problem.
> > >
> > >
> > > --Crow, dreaming of the day they put real LAN hardware into the gear
> > >
> > > /∗∗/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>