Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

On 12/7/02 7:09 PM, "David DeciBel" <spec@...> wrote:

> I started thinking about these things today.  My question is this:  Midi is
> a slow interface.  Why are we still using it?  Why doesn't someone come out
> with MIDI 2?
> 
> hmmm
> 
"MIDI 2" is already here!  Its just buried inside your computer sequencer
when it is using software instruments, or inside your hardware sequencer
like the XX-7 when it is "talking" to the internal sound engine.  In both
cases the speed of the MIDI interface does not enter into the equation
because the internal commands move at "the speed of software".

MIDI suffers two problems, one easy to fix, one less so.  The easy one is
its raw data rate.  31.5KBaud is really slow by today's standards.  And we
see the ill-effects when cramming too many simultaneous MIDI events down one
cable.

Unfortunately simply speeding up the interface will not necessarily improve
the performance and latency response of your MIDI devices.  Handling a
higher data-rate interface require additional and sometimes dedicated
communications processing power.  Even with that addition the internal OS's
in instruments still have to manage this along with all other internal
time-sensitive tasks.

Many current sound modules and synths are actually more at fault for latency
and timing variation then MIDI's data rate.  So additional improvements will
be needed throughout before you will see all the benefits.

Already Yamaha, Korg, Apple, and others are trying to position M-Lan as a
successor to MIDI.  This runs at 200Mb/s rates for audio and MIDI so it has
more than enough bandwidth.  To date this has been slow to be adopted,
primarily I believe because the extra complexity of the interface
significantly complicates the MIDI device design.

MIDI was originally successful because it was very cheap and easy to
implement within the current popular synthesizer technology.  They could
have made it better from the start but chose instead to make it attractive
to add, something the business guys wouldn't veto because of the added
product cost or delays in development.

Many have tried to get MIDI 2 off the ground and I attended meetings back in
87/88 where MIDI was discussed.  Market conditions more than anything are
preventing it.

Finally, as an aside, I believe the true problem with MIDI is the logical
protocol and not the speed per say.  The protocol is heavily prejudiced
towards music which relies on discrete note events.  It lacks adequate
capabilities (without relying on non-standard escape mechanism) for true
fine control of multiple parameters in real-time on a continuous basis.
This makes its utility quite different from say the analog synthesizer
standard of voltage control.  MIDI is a wonder enabler for the industry and
has fundamentally changed the way we make music.  But it has also moved us
collectively into a far more narrow range of possibilities.  It is almost
tragic that software sequencers have failed to overcome this limitation now
that software instruments are a reality.


drk

www.delora.com/music
www.mp3.com/zdrk
drk.iuma.com