Midi 2.0

[pljones]

How does one "fully support" SysEx messages, given that it's an extensible, manufacturer specific (non-)"standard"? You need to have a fully scriptable remote control API, really. And almost no DAW developers provide that. Supporting 14bit CCs, RPNs and NRPNs isn't exactly widespread. How many MIDI plugins are there that can manipulate them? (DAWs will happily pass the sequences through, unlike SysEx, which is problematic.)

It's not that hard to handle the non-SysEx extended controller values. That support is so very rare in a market place that has a huge number of small developers looking to carve a niche implies that ... there's almost zero demand, to be honest. The 7bit protocol messages aren't even fully utilised, generally. (Polyphonic aftertouch? Another rarity... And one I'd really like to have more support for.)

Of course, in an ideal world, MIDI CI would also support negotiating a standardised OSC API between devices. Then the flying pigs will turn sparkly pink, grow unicorn horns and sh*t glitter trails...

[teilo]

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.

I don't bother to list Logic Pro X, nor the fact that I use SysEx in Logic with organ consoles (to control stops, etc.). I also have occasionally gone so far as to use MIDI<->TXT convertors to hand-tweak MIDI directly, but that's also not something I'd list in my sig.

[machinesworking]

How does one "fully support" SysEx messages, given that it's an extensible, manufacturer specific (non-)"standard"? You need to have a fully scriptable remote control API, really. And almost no DAW developers provide that. Supporting 14bit CCs, RPNs and NRPNs isn't exactly widespread. How many MIDI plugins are there that can manipulate them? (DAWs will happily pass the sequences through, unlike SysEx, which is problematic.)

It's not that hard to handle the non-SysEx extended controller values. That support is so very rare in a market place that has a huge number of small developers looking to carve a niche implies that ... there's almost zero demand, to be honest. The 7bit protocol messages aren't even fully utilised, generally. (Polyphonic aftertouch? Another rarity... And one I'd really like to have more support for.)

Of course, in an ideal world, MIDI CI would also support negotiating a standardised OSC API between devices. Then the flying pigs will turn sparkly pink, grow unicorn horns and sh*t glitter trails...

In Digital Performer anyway, I can dump the actual patch I'm using on my ancient but SysEx capable Lintronics Memorymoog and Oberheim Xpander. In fact with the Xpander, SysEx is the only way to record most automation, besides poly aftertouch, and a few CCs. That synth is 30+ years old.

I would be surprised if most modern hardware synths like the DSI/Sequential Line, Deep Mind, etc. etc. didn't support SysEx for at the very least patch dumps, if not control of the hardware like you can with the Xpander and patch librarians like MidiQuest.

There are legitimate reasons to support SysEx, there are obvious devices that do support SysEx, and the DAW does not have to know what it's recording to be able to play it back.

New protocols should not be introduced by companies that do not bother to implement the ones we already have, it's a simple observation.

[pljones]

New protocols should not be introduced by companies that do not bother to implement the ones we already have, it's a simple observation.

Based on what? Your personal right to always be right?

[teilo]

New protocols should not be introduced by companies that do not bother to implement the ones we already have, it's a simple observation.

Even if you had a shred of evidence other than the presence of an Ableton employee on the MMA board, that Ableton was somehow influencing the new protocol, your argument is still non sequitur.

You would need to prove that Ableton is doing "bad things" on the board, tainting it, somehow, with their malevolent influence, sabotaging MIDI for the rest of us. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Show me the proof. And the current capabilities of Live are not proof of anything.

Live is what Live is. It was never meant to be a general purpose music workstation capable of "all the things." It began life as a clip launcher. It morphed into a DAW oriented toward electronic music production. It's big, and over time has developed itself into a corner. But even were its code base more agile than it is, every company markets to a target audience. That means making choices: What feature is more likely to sell the product? Support of a seldom-used protocol that will attract few new buyers, or... The people that make extensive use of SysEx are already invested in other products like Logic, Pro Tools, or Cubase. It's a hard sell to pull those people to Ableton. For this crowd, there's a lot more missing in Ableton than SysEx.

All of which is to say that the lack of a feature in Live has absolutely nothing to say about the future of MIDI.

[machinesworking]

New protocols should not be introduced by companies that do not bother to implement the ones we already have, it's a simple observation.

Based on what? Your personal right to always be right?

I shouldn't address this, but listen, if you don't have anything to add to the conversation except an ad hominem, then maybe rethink why you're even posting.

[machinesworking]

New protocols should not be introduced by companies that do not bother to implement the ones we already have, it's a simple observation.

Even if you had a shred of evidence other than the presence of an Ableton employee on the MMA board, that Ableton was somehow influencing the new protocol, your argument is still non sequitur.

You would need to prove that Ableton is doing "bad things" on the board, tainting it, somehow, with their malevolent influence, sabotaging MIDI for the rest of us. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Show me the proof. And the current capabilities of Live are not proof of anything.

Live is what Live is. It was never meant to be a general purpose music workstation capable of "all the things." It began life as a clip launcher. It morphed into a DAW oriented toward electronic music production. It's big, and over time has developed itself into a corner. But even were its code base more agile than it is, every company markets to a target audience. That means making choices: What feature is more likely to sell the product? Support of a seldom-used protocol that will attract few new buyers, or... The people that make extensive use of SysEx are already invested in other products like Logic, Pro Tools, or Cubase. It's a hard sell to pull those people to Ableton. For this crowd, there's a lot more missing in Ableton than SysEx.

All of which is to say that the lack of a feature in Live has absolutely nothing to say about the future of MIDI.

I dunno man, I said right away we can agree to disagree. You and I have only a slight amount of evidence for either of our opinions on the matter.

It's not a non sequitur to think that any company on the boards of the MMA has influence over what gets added to MIDI 2.0.

It's not an illogical thought to believe that a company that doesn't support MIDI 1.0 fully will have different needs than one that does.

Now in the same sense, it's not illogical to also think that said company might not have influence at that level, or be interested in MIDI 2.0 without influencing it based on their past decisions.

^^^ IMO, that's more of a stretch, we don't agree about it. You can argue with me about it all you want, but it's pretty clear that we aren't privy to inside information and cannot fully know how this plays out.

I use Live all the time, since v3. Also use DAWs like Reaper and DP9 etc. Anyway I hope I'm wrong, it's just an observation that a clip launching workstation that got MIDI in chunks that leave a lot to be desired is a weird choice for a board member, and it worries me, that's all.

[Daags]

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.

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.

I don't see it as bizarre or baffling, at least logically speaking.

If a big player in the game, particularly one known for innovation, isn't using 100% of a certain spec ... maybe it would be useful to know why exactly they aren't using 100% of that spec when the 2.0 version is being developed. You know, they might have some valuable insight here ? This isn't bizarre or baffling ... it's pretty straight forward. I know if I was developing something, I'd really value the people who were pointing out all the problems and not rely solely on the people who are like 'this is great, nothing to report'.

What's bizarre & baffling is that you'd think an innovative company like Ableton would have nothing to offer in terms of developing a 2.0 midi spec, just because they - for whatever reason - chose to omit some features of the 1.0 spec from their own software. Can we really not give them the benefit of the doubt that there may be some good reason for this, despite the fact other developers in the same domain support those same features ?

[machinesworking]

What's bizarre & baffling is that you'd think an innovative company like Ableton would have nothing to offer in terms of developing a 2.0 midi spec, just because they - for whatever reason - chose to omit some features of the 1.0 spec from their own software. Can we really not give them the benefit of the doubt that there may be some good reason for this, despite the fact other developers in the same domain support those same features ?

Innovative sure, 15 years ago. It also colors everything else you write in defense of a company when you use that term. I use Live all the time, here's a short list of what they don't support in the MIDI spec as it stands: SysEx, NRPN, Polyphonic Aftertouch, more than 128 parameters of track or MIDI automation.. modern MIDI wise, MPE and note expression etc.

Look, I'm actually more baffled by the shear vitriol and loyalty people have to their DAWs than anything else here. I can name every shortcoming of any DAW I use, Live with it's legacy of being a clip launcher first just has a lot more in the MIDI area that's all. It's routing is near the best there is though..

I'm not even a Cubase user, never owned it, but they have a history of extensive support for the latest MIDI implementations, they make total sense to be a part of this whole process. I just don't get why what seems like an easy straight forward observation brings down people to this level where they can't just say, "Yeah that's a good point, but I'm not worried about it." Why is it always that we're sitting here "debating" opinions, about things that may or may not be true? You and others here are arguing over an observation that may or may not be true, but it's not solvable here, and even the outcome, when MIDI 2.0 hits is really going to be up to each of us to determine whether we think it was ruined or helped by XY or Z companies involvement.

Welcome to the internet, where men argue about things on forums and women post duckface selfies on social media sites...

[Daags]

lolwut ?

most of that post of yours went wooooosh over my head. if you're entrenched in some neckbeard-wars with some other posters, please leave me out of it.

Alls I'm saying is there is nothing baffling or bizarre about consulting a major player in the development of a 2.0 spec, just because they didn't use 100% of the 1.0 spec .... because they may have good reasons not to have employed the features they didn't, despite the fact other developers did - these reasons may be useful in hammering out the technical aspects of 2.0. I really don't get why it's baffling or bizarre to you that Ableton's input may be valuable, and your reasoning for being baffled is logically flawed. People who spot the flaws in a system are often the most useful in revising the system. I, for one, don't raise an eyebrow over the fact Ableton have some tacit or even explicit role in the development of Midi 2.0 ... and citing their reluctance to employ 100% of 1.0 in their software isn't going to make me raise that eyebrow.

This is a logic thing, not a 'zomfg don't be mean to Ableton' thing. at least on my part.

[machinesworking]

lolwut ?

most of that post of yours went wooooosh over my head. if you're entrenched in some neckbeard-wars with some other posters, please leave me out of it.

Alls I'm saying is there is nothing baffling or bizarre about consulting a major player in the development of a 2.0 spec, just because they didn't use 100% of the 1.0 spec .... because they may have good reasons not to have employed the features they didn't, despite the fact other developers did - these reasons may be useful in hammering out the technical aspects of 2.0. I really don't get why it's baffling or bizarre to you that Ableton's input may be valuable, and your reasoning for being baffled is logically flawed. People who spot the flaws in a system are often the most useful in revising the system. I, for one, don't raise an eyebrow over the fact Ableton have some tacit or even explicit role in the development of Midi 2.0 ... and citing their reluctance to employ 100% of 1.0 in their software isn't going to make me raise that eyebrow.

This is a logic thing, not a 'zomfg don't be mean to Ableton' thing. at least on my part.

You're speculating that Ableton left out part of the MIDI 1.0 spec because it wasn't any good, flawed etc... so yeah, it's baffling to you that your speculation about the reasons they left it out aren't good enough for me? This is just getting beyond silly.

I'm sticking with what I know, I have no reason to think Ableton left it out because they're on to something. Cockos supports the entirety of the spec, and is an even newer company. Exactly why should your speculative good reasons Ableton left out 20% of MIDI 1 support be a valid reason for their contribution to 2? You're literally speculating on speculation. Which is more likely true, one level of speculation, or multiple levels? From what I can tell, the evidence I have, it all points to the likelihood that Ableton's code has gotten in their own way, a company literally formed out of their ex employees who wanted a leaner code base, integrated modularity etc.

It's a minor observation, hardly worth the ad hominem level you and others are generating over it. That whole schtick gets tiring BTW, if you need to add in comments like neckbeard etc. to make your point then maybe rethink your point.

[EddieLotter]

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

The core MIDI 2.0 specifications (https://www.midi.org/articles-old/details-about-midi-2-0-midi-ci-profiles-and-property-exchange) are now available for download.

[Cinebient]

Mmhh, these days i expect more the independent or small team developers adopting to it or a small app starts with it and the big major DAWs needs years.
Some major DAWs today even have still low midi resolution.
Even my most used DAW Logic is not on par with my iOS DAW of choice here, lol.
Just a little example. While there are 1000 options and features major developers just has to focus on making money. I guess it will take some years until midi 2.0 takes off.
Good thing is there are maybe a dozen 5 dollar midi 2.0 control apps next year, so i hold off to buy fancy hardware controllers
So does the new Osmose thing is already midi 2.0 or will it be another not further developed thing like the Seaboard Rise. O.k. i´m off topic now.
Of course all could just be a dream....
Or maybe it taking Apple so long because next major update of Logic gets midi 2.0.
I read somewhere that midi 2.0 is already integrated in the macOS Audio/Midi setup with Catalina. Not sure.

[jonljacobi]

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.

Read the spec. I was hoping for a mixed MIDI/audio file format but other than that they seem to have covered most bases. I can see no reason why Ableton’s involvement would have a negative effect and no evidence that it did.

I think their partial 1.0 implementation was unfortunate, but not evil or detrimental to Live’s main purpose.

[SuperG]

There's a need to update the SMF spec as well - would be nice to have a standard file spec for midi 2.0 data.