Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update to 37-year-old MIDI

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 105 posts

Re: An update to 37-year-old MIDI

#41

Post by mhh__ »

robbrown451 wrote: post #33
kyriakos wrote: post #30

Why not just use USB? Standardise all instruments on USB and use adaptors for backwards compatibility.

Most MIDI seems to be done over USB already. MIDI 2.0 is mostly unrelated to the actual connectors and such, it's more about the protocol.

"MIDI" on your Desk may well be done over USB but MIDI as a hardware protocol is absolutely rock solid and is the only choice for live music. Speaking as an occasional backstage gremlin, I minimise the USB proportion of the signal path because reduces the amount of testing required (MIDI is generally well implemented on the hardware side, but not all USB midi interfaces are made equal).

That and a lot of MIDI is instrument-to-instrument rather than to a PC (Or more realistically a Mac, because you have to have a Mac to be a creative, right...)

Re: An update to 37-year-old MIDI

#43

Post by travbrack »

kazinator wrote: post #36

By the way, seems that MIDI playback support in operating systems and browsers is petering out. About nine or ten years ago, I had little trouble playing back MIDI files on various platforms. Recently, I sent an old .mid file that I produced almost a decade ago to someone (at Google!) and they couldn't play it. After trying it myself, I was shocked. Browser after browser, system after system; no dice. I ended up conv…

VLC is a pretty good cross platform solution. You do have to load a soundfont, though.

Re: An update to 37-year-old MIDI

#44

Post by orangefarm »

Is there any reason why music production in the cloud isn't the standard yet?

High-quality VSTs requiree a lot of CPU power. Even my 16-inch MBP easily heats up once I add some more advanced VSTs.

I would rather pay X$ per month and have my music production work station in the cloud and interact with it from any old device with a fast internet connection.

Working with a buffer size of 512 samples, I currently have a latency of 11.6ms in Ableton. Adding another 10ms latency through the internet connection wouldn't be a drama for me.

Working in the cloud would allow me to easily upgrade or downgrade my system based on my needs, better collaboration with others, automatic backups, one-click access to new VSTs and samples, etc.

This set up would probably be less ideal for people who actually have to record a lot of 'real' instruments but a lot of music is only created in the box today with VSTs.

But I'm surely missing something here. Why hasn't this been a trend yet?

Re: An update to 37-year-old MIDI

#45

Post by lend000 »

orangefarm wrote: post #44

Is there any reason why music production in the cloud isn't the standard yet? High-quality VSTs requiree a lot of CPU power. Even my 16-inch MBP easily heats up once I add some more advanced VSTs. I would rather pay X$ per month and have my music production work station in the cloud and interact with it from any old device with a fast internet connection. Working with a buffer size of 512 samples, I currently have a…

Sounds like a business waiting to be born.

Re: An update to 37-year-old MIDI

#46

Post by vortico »

orangefarm wrote: post #44

Is there any reason why music production in the cloud isn't the standard yet? High-quality VSTs requiree a lot of CPU power. Even my 16-inch MBP easily heats up once I add some more advanced VSTs. I would rather pay X$ per month and have my music production work station in the cloud and interact with it from any old device with a fast internet connection. Working with a buffer size of 512 samples, I currently have a…

Audio over internet would be at least 300ms latency, not sure where you're getting "10ms". Anything over 10ms is annoying, and 50ms is nearly unplayable.

Re: An update to 37-year-old MIDI

#47

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

orangefarm wrote: post #44

Is there any reason why music production in the cloud isn't the standard yet? High-quality VSTs requiree a lot of CPU power. Even my 16-inch MBP easily heats up once I add some more advanced VSTs. I would rather pay X$ per month and have my music production work station in the cloud and interact with it from any old device with a fast internet connection. Working with a buffer size of 512 samples, I currently have a…

Adding another 10mS of latency makes keyboards and sample pads unplayable for anyone who can actually play - especially if that latency is variable.

Re: An update to 37-year-old MIDI

#48

Post by rewgs »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #7

imho MIDI 2.0 hits the low hanging fruit but doesn't go far enough at fixing the biggest problem in professional audio. Deterministic rendering. Basically same input makes the same output, which doesn't happen even in totally digital systems - doubly so with live (or recreated) midi events. I'll give an example - you have your PC with $DAW_OF_CHOICE running and plug in $MIDI_2_CONTROLLER to USB and enable a track and…

> I'll give an example - you have your PC with $DAW_OF_CHOICE running and plug in $MIDI_2_CONTROLLER to USB and enable a track and hit record, play your stuff, and stop. When you play it back, unless the cosmic forces are exceptionally on your side, it will not sound the same as when you played it. It's subtle and sometimes ignored or even desirable, but it's there.

I'm sorry, but...what?

I'm the rare non-professional-programmer on this site. I'm a professional composer -- I spend my days writing/producing/mixing music on a computer.

Can you go into more detail of what you're talking about here? Because, no offense, but if you were right, I think I would have noticed by now.

Re: An update to 37-year-old MIDI

#49

Post by orangefarm »

vortico wrote: post #46
orangefarm wrote: post #44

Is there any reason why music production in the cloud isn't the standard yet? High-quality VSTs requiree a lot of CPU power. Even my 16-inch MBP easily heats up once I add some more advanced VSTs. I would rather pay X$ per month and have my music production work station in the cloud and interact with it from any old device with a fast internet connection. Working with a buffer size of 512 samples, I currently have a…

Audio over internet would be at least 300ms latency, not sure where you're getting "10ms". Anything over 10ms is annoying, and 50ms is nearly unplayable.

Why would it be at least 300ms latency?

Re: An update to 37-year-old MIDI

#50

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

v-yadli wrote: post #40
core-questions wrote: post #25

> In MIDI 1.0, all data was in 7-bit values. That means musical qualities were quantized on a scale of 0 to 127. Features like volume, pitch, and how much of the sound should come out of the right or left speaker are all measured on this scale, with 128 possible points. This is not a lot of resolution. For some really sophisticated listeners, they can clearly hear the steps between points. This is extremely misleadin…

> This is extremely misleading. Sure, the velocity input into your synth is going to be at 7-bit resolution, but at soon as the synth has it, it can play anything it wants at whatever volume it wants to based on how you have configured it. There's nothing about the external 7-bit implementation that is really limiting the dynamics of the synth itself. I don't agree. Musical sounds are evolving, so one should not be s…

There are very few patches where the difference between static filter settings of 64 and 65 is audible and it's literally physically impossible to set a typical panel knob with that level of precision. (It's easier on a medium-sized slider and definitely possible on a long-throw fader, but most synth panels don't have those.)

And it's incredibly easy - and fairly standard now - to add a little interpolation to continuous parameters that are varying.

MIDI 2.0 won't make anything feel more "analog" because virtually no one cares about those kinds of performance possibilities, so most manufacturers won't implement them.

Many of the changes in 2.0 have been driven by the ROLI people. I love my Seaboard, but it's very much a minority instrument for a tiny minority of players, and there's no reason to believe any of the changes to the spec going to make a transformative difference to mainstream music.

They're mostly relevant for edge cases where people have already been getting by with 1.0 without extreme pain, but some enhancements may be welcome.

Post reply on HN