MIDI-specs should be generally redesigned?

JoeKa · Post by **JoeKa** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 10:14 pm

Hi you all Pulsarians!

As I feel, MIDI control should be completely redesigned since long.
The new computers are massive powerhouses compared to the little amount of data that MIDI causes, I´m thinking about the idea of a new MIDI standard since years now, but nobody seems to care, or even spend his or her own thoughts on it, or just never spoke about it.

Having rotary controls on your software synths/fx (...) you might all have already seen the phenomenon of being able to set values much more precisely than it could be done by MIDI as is. What I´m wanting to say is: A new 16bit MIDI standard should be launched, to regain the smoothness in remote-controlling your gear. I´m doing a lot with MIDI, and I lately more and more often find, that these 128 steps that 7bit MIDI provides is simply no more sufficient for really smooth-sounding modulations. Take the BosFilthar (free-)device for example, set resonance to max, other modulations off, click on the cutoff knob dragging the mouse pointer far from its center, moving along the edges of your screen slowly and listen to the fine and smooth way the sound pitches, very softly and without annoying steps. Then try to smoothly control the cutoff via MIDI instead, you´ll get nothing comparable out of it anymore.
I mean, what sense does a precise and crystal clear sound engine like the one that pulsar provides make, if you can´t remote-control it in an adequate way to really have it rocking and singing like it easily could?
Even if all the hardware so far can´t be changed in this matter easily, well, the software at least could...

IMHO this would be the greatest advance in sound technology that pulsar could provide, if CW would program a software sequencer which is capable of a special MIDI standard to control pulsar devices with a complete new feeling and precision. They could be the banner-carriers for a new generation of sound technology, and we, the users of Pulsar, finally had the best reason ever to be really proud on our equipment, knowing what we spent so much money on, at least until the first hardware manufacturers will think about a new standard, too.

What do you think? This should be not the highest demand, it´s more a basic need for our generation of electronic music production.

MIDI "as is" is overaged! Having "virtual analog" synths and filters all around, then why is the control still so unprecise and digital?

JoeKa · Post by **JoeKa** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 1:21 am

Ok, calming down a little I´ve overthought this idea to some numbers.
12bit data resolution (4096 steps) at 1khz frequency should suffice to achieve the desired results.
Of course this would result in much bigger "MIDI" files than now, but it still is only a tiny percentage of the size of audio tracks, and it could replace them by far, at least for internally generated sounds, as it stays open for editing, unlike audio recordings.
A kind of data compression could also be applied, reducing filesize down to a minimum again.
And as USB 2.0 is just about to become a new standard, there´s the right dataport which would be suitable for future hardware interfaces for this purpose. Input controllers can also easily be done via USB 1.1, well, only for a limited number of control modulations at a time, but still faaaar more than a single person can handle at a time *g*

Where are the programmers among you guys? Any ideas on all this?
I really do believe, this is a way to go.
Imagine delaytimes being modulated without plops, imagine pitch and filtercontrols like in the analogue days...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JoeKa on 2002-03-31 01:24 ]</font>

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 3:10 am

I agree that Midi should be upgraded or redesigned to be easier, faster and more reliable. In these days that I'm able to capture digital video and audio in realtime via super-fast firewire connections, why can't I get tiny bits of data in through a wire correctly to let my external synth play in time with my computer audio? We need to buy expensive midi interfaces for that! Why not send the midi data via faster connections like USB and Firewire? I think it's rediculous that we still have to worry about timing these days, it shouldn't even be an issue anymore.
I wouldn't bet on CW making a new sequencer/midi standard though, I'm happy using Cubase with Pulsar and if anyone has to reinvent sequencing and midi, I'd prefer to let the big boys, Steinberg, Emagic etc. handle it. But of course, the gear manufacturers should first sit around the table and decide together to start implementing a new interface.

David · Post by **David** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 3:56 am

Here, here

I agree. Better midi params which would enable smoother contol is definately the way we should go. I too don't understand why there hasn't been a second Midi controller language. I'm sure it can't be too difficult. With other interfaces having revisions in their controller languages why not in Midi, it does seem strange. Is it because none of the technically minded musos who designed the midi format have modern equipment to play on? It makes you wonder. Come on CW set the example in this field. An easy idea that would be great for your publicity.

Adding this to my list of Pulsar wants

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 10:20 pm

Hell we can't even get a decent midi 16-step sequencer in ModV2 ! CW have a long way to go before they even catch up to everyone else let alone set new standards. An integrated - basic - midi sequencer is fundamental to most packages and systems even if it only functions as an ideas scratch pad.