KVR Audio

enCiphered · Post by **enCiphered** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:09 am

The MIDI 2.0 initiative updates MIDI with auto-configuration, new DAW/web integrations, extended resolution, increased expressiveness, and tighter timing — all while maintaining a high priority on backward compatibility. This major update of MIDI paves the way for a new generation of advanced interconnected MIDI devices, while still preserving interoperability with the millions of existing MIDI 1.0 devices. One of the core goals of the MIDI 2.0 initiative is to also enhance the MIDI 1.0 feature set whenever possible.

Now this is something I really look forward to see!!
But what could be behind the auto-configuration?

nix808 · Post by **nix808** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:13 am

Where is this quote from mate?
Thanks for the heads up

edit: here's one link->
https://www.midi.org/articles-old/the-m ... rototyping

simmo75 · Post by **simmo75** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:38 am

Will this mean Ableton Live will finally have to get their shit together with MPE etc?

acYm · Post by **acYm** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:46 am

^ sure they'll get around to it, when Live 13 is released, in '28.

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:20 am

Other thread: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=518702&hilit=MIDI+CI

enCiphered · Post by **enCiphered** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:24 am

pljones wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:20 am Other thread: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=518702&hilit=MIDI+CI

Strange, I couldn´t find this thread in the search section.
Thanks, this one can be deleted then.

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:41 pm

Yeah, I had a job finding it, even though I posted in it!

jonljacobi · Post by **jonljacobi** » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:11 pm

I think MIDI 2.0 will have a slight advantage when it comes to adoption, simply because of the name and the heritage. Because MPE is not a dot standard, it doesn't have the same cachet with the public. On the other hand, the public will be looking at MIDI 2.0 as the latest standard and will never quite as happy buying something that only supports an older standard. Whether they need it or not. MIDI 2.0 is so overdue, it's ridiculous.

Jace-BeOS · Post by **Jace-BeOS** » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:34 pm

I don’t think the electronic music equipment buying market has much of any influence here. It’s all on the hardware developers, and they have had no incentive to go beyond the bare minimum. As pointed out, MIDI 1.0 is barely supported. How much equipment and software do you own that lets you use MIDI 1.0’s 14-bit CC resolution? Any at all? I can’t even get a clear explanation on how to use it, should I have a controller that supports it (and I can’t determine if I do, so, probably I don’t??).

It has taken 30 years for MIDI 2.0 to get to the prototyping stage because of zero manufacturer interest. Manufacturers usually tell us “what we want”, and rarely give us what we ask for... because only a tiny segment of the already tiny musician population has been complaining about this stuff (me being part of that tiny segment). We who give a shit about these “meaningless details” have zero impact on hardware sales and therefore zero influence on product development.

If a thing sells well, another company will try to copy it, including maybe the desirable controller features. It’s like the stock market (gambling). They’re more interested in continuing to sell the same thing every couple of years, not inventing or investing. Certainly not investing. That’s up to smaller and younger companies.

Look how long it took individual fringe developers to push MPE, supported by fringe users, and it’s still barely supported.

Music equipment is not a big market to begin with, so the few of us who actually care about these details enough to voice our opinions about MIDI’s decades long lack of controller resolution and timing/bandwidth issues have exactly zero impact on what corporations produce.

Not to mention the traction of the status quo due to the infuriating infighting in the online musician communities. I.e. the trolls/luddites on forums who tell us how wrong we are to demand better, when “it works just fine” for them the way it is. Because one size fits all, and new things are bad. Etc.

Shoulder, meet chip. I’ve been waiting for some actual progress in this realm for ages, just like waiting for high-PPI displays to finally became a thing (Luddites were ready to slam that need as well, because “reasons”). So I’m not putting any hope into this MIDI 2.0 thing having any positive impact on my music making any time soon. Probably I’ll be shuffling off the mortal coil by the time the 2.0 standard is a norm... and will hardware and software even actually fully support the features of it by then???

machinesworking · Post by **machinesworking** » Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:44 pm

I think Abletons involvement in the spec is the most bizarre part of this whole thing. Problematic might be a better word. I've used Live since v3 but in no way are Ableton leaders in MIDI integration, no NRPN, SysEx, MPE, Polyphonic Aftertouch support etc. etc. They don't even fully support 1.0, so their involvement unfortunately doesn't give me any massive vote of confidence in 2.0 being some amazing new thing that changes the game.

teilo · Post by **teilo** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:47 pm

machinesworking wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:44 pm I think Abletons involvement in the spec is the most bizarre part of this whole thing. Problematic might be a better word. I've used Live since v3 but in no way are Ableton leaders in MIDI integration, no NRPN, SysEx, MPE, Polyphonic Aftertouch support etc. etc. They don't even fully support 1.0, so their involvement unfortunately doesn't give me any massive vote of confidence in 2.0 being some amazing new thing that changes the game.

Where are you seeing anything about Ableton having input into the MIDI 2.0 spec?

One of the key figures in the 2.0 spec is Mike Kent, the same guy who wrote the MIDI-over-USB standard. He wrote the MIDI-CI protocol which enables 1.0 fallback, as well as the ability to automatically configure a controller with pre-defined profiles based upon the type of device it is talking to.

teilo · Post by **teilo** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:57 pm

I am actually hopeful regarding MIDI 2.0. Let's remember that the MIDI spec has not changed since the beginning. Yeah, the specs for how to use the events for certain cases has changed, but everything still speaks the same protocol. Until now, there has been no path forward that would extend MIDI in any significant way while keeping backward compatibility. So when complaining that MIDI has taken so long to get this far, just remember that until now, there hasn't really been any further to get. This is the first top-down major proposal we have had since the 70s.

With MIDI-CI and automatic 1.0 fallback, there's very little reason that manufacturers won't start adopting it rapidly. They can adopt the new protocol without breaking anything.

We probably won't see anything released for, at minimum, 2 years, and probably 3, but that's not surprising. The standard only just entered the prototyping stage, with manufacturers only now getting access to the spec. No major changes are expected, and the spec is complete except for minor tweaks.

machinesworking · Post by **machinesworking** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:09 pm

teilo wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:47 pm Where are you seeing anything about Ableton having input into the MIDI 2.0 spec?

https://www.midi.org/about-the-mma

Reps on the Executive board even...

I'm a Live user, love it, but it's not a good representation of MIDI 1.0, they use about 80% of the MIDI 1.0 spec, but are helping to shape the 2.0 version. It's just kind of baffling that's all.

teilo · Post by **teilo** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:15 pm

machinesworking wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:09 pm
teilo wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:47 pm Where are you seeing anything about Ableton having input into the MIDI 2.0 spec?
https://www.midi.org/about-the-mma

Reps on the Executive board even...

I'm a Live user, love it, but it's not a good representation of MIDI 1.0, they use about 80% of the MIDI 1.0 spec, but are helping to shape the 2.0 version. It's just kind of baffling that's all.

Having a rep on the governance board does not mean they had any input into the standard. It just means they have a rep on the board. It's not baffling at all. You'll find that the board of an organization has little to do with the day-to-day running of said organization. I'd be surprised of they meet more than once a quarter.

They are not on the Technical Standards Board, which would be the chief gatekeepers of the standard. And even the TSB is not the architects of the MIDI standard itself. The people doing the 2.0 work know what they are doing, and have a good track record.

Could it all blow up? Sure. Even good standards can fail to gain traction. But it's looking pretty good to me.

machinesworking · Post by **machinesworking** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:04 pm

teilo wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:15 pm Having a rep on the governance board does not mean they had any input into the standard. It just means they have a rep on the board. It's not baffling at all. You'll find that the board of an organization has little to do with the day-to-day running of said organization. I'd be surprised of they meet more than once a quarter.

They are not on the Technical Standards Board, which would be the chief gatekeepers of the standard. And even the TSB is not the architects of the MIDI standard itself. The people doing the 2.0 work know what they are doing, and have a good track record.

Could it all blow up? Sure. Even good standards can fail to gain traction. But it's looking pretty good to me.

I'm gonna have to just respectfully disagree with you here. We all have different ideas on what is a good MIDI standard, and we're obviously not worried about the same things. Just looking at your list of DAWs not one of them fully supports SysEx messages for instance.

To me anyway the fact that Ableton and Apple are both in any sort of governing position at all, whether you think they have no influence or not, is not a good sign.

Midi 2.0