# MIDI 2.0



## Me No Sum (Jan 19, 2019)

MIDI 2.0 is coming soon !! Who else is excited about this?

Main hits for me are auto-configuration and extended resolution.


----------



## JPQ (Jan 19, 2019)

Little i dont know it epect i heared little time ago this.


----------



## Me No Sum (Jan 19, 2019)

JPQ said:


> Little i dont know it epect i heared little time ago this.


Yoda... is that you? I knew you had to have something to do with this incredible update !!


----------



## JPQ (Jan 19, 2019)

Me No Sum said:


> Yoda... is that you? I knew you had to have something to do with this incredible update !!


I not yoda. i dont have anything do it but i wait what we get.


----------



## Guffy (Jan 19, 2019)

I tried to google this but i left quickly


----------



## Me No Sum (Jan 19, 2019)

Guffy said:


> I tried to google this but i left quickly



Try this one. Straight from the source: https://www.midi.org/articles-old/the-midi-manufacturers-association-mma-and-the-association-of-music-electronics-industry-amei-announce-midi-2-0tm-prototyping


----------



## wst3 (Jan 19, 2019)

it is about time. A successor to MIDI has been talked about since around 2000, maybe even before that.

Props to the folks that brought us MIDI V1 - it has been a very difficult act to follow<G>!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 19, 2019)

2000? It was talked about in the mid-80s!

For me personally, extended resolution and auto-config sound like a wonder... except that I'm quite resolved, my studio is already configured, and I like the equipment I have now + what little money I have a lot more than I like the idea of buying stuff all over again.


----------



## ptram (Jan 19, 2019)

Suddenly, all our expensive gears are obsolete.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 19, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> 2000? It was talked about in the mid-80s!


That was my original thought, but time has become somewhat blurry. Thanks for setting me straight.

And I agree, I can't imagine replacing anything just yet.


----------



## Ben H (Jan 19, 2019)

ptram said:


> Suddenly, all our expensive gears are obsolete.



It will be backwards compatible with the orignal MIDI spec. So all your old gear should still function properly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 19, 2019)

Ben H said:


> It will be backwards compatible with the orignal MIDI spec. So all your old gear should still function properly.



Right, and if a new synth is responding to MIDI 2 over, say, USB from a computer, it should be better - especially if you're playing a lot of simultaneous voices that are quantized together, because that's when MIDI actually can have issues (it's a serial protocol - one command after the next). But if you're playing or sequencing parts from a regular MIDI keyboard controller, the timing and resolution aren't going to make a huge difference.

Also, we already have sample-accurate MIDI timing in software - for example in Vienna Ensemble Pro - and most interfaces have very tight timing. So I doubt that'll be a big selling point.

Anyway, I'm all for progress, but the reason there hasn't been a MIDI 2 spec since MIDI came out in 1983 is that it hasn't been a high priority.


----------



## brunodegazio (Jan 20, 2019)

Most interesting new features to me are:

- 32-bit resolution for continuous controllers (compared to 7-bit for MIDI 1.0) - no more digital grunge when playing EWI ppp !
- 16-bit resolution for note velocity
- *per-note* pitchbend with 32-bit resolution
- *per-note* articulation with 24-bit resolution (i.e. over 16,000,000 articulations addressable)
- over 64,000 addressable continuous controllers + registered controllers
- 256 channels per data stream
- lots of room for future expansion/customization in the unused message space


----------



## ptram (Jan 20, 2019)

Ben H said:


> It will be backwards compatible with the orignal MIDI spec. So all your old gear should still function properly.


Yes, but you will no longer look at them with the same eyes!

Paolo


----------



## Saxer (Jan 20, 2019)

Are notes still divided in singular NOTE ON and NOTE OFF events?
I think a new MIDI protocol should have time information like ARA so that plugins could have information about their relative position in a song. That way DAWs and plugins could interpret musical content (recognizing phrases) or have the right modulation point (like bounced audio of a modulated source) and work a little more intelligent than only triggering what just now passes the time line.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 20, 2019)

brunodegazio said:


> - 32-bit resolution for continuous controllers (compared to 7-bit for MIDI 1.0) - no more digital grunge when playing EWI ppp !



Hah. I never noticed that. What instruments are you triggering?

Also, do you have a 3020m? If so, I'm curious - does MIDI In work on yours? It doesn't on mine, and I've always assumed that was just the way it is, but recently it occurred to me that I could also have been wrong about that all these years!


----------



## robgb (Jan 20, 2019)

So, am I the only one who worries that this will result in having to buy all new equipment? Or will this be a backward compatible kind of thing?


----------



## Ben H (Jan 20, 2019)

http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2...lution-tighter-timing-backward-compatibility/



> 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.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Jan 20, 2019)

:emoji_salad:BUT I"M TO OLD TO CHANGE


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 20, 2019)

robgb said:


> So, am I the only one who worries that this will result in having to buy all new equipment? Or will this be a backward compatible kind of thing?



It will, but the questions are whether DAWs will support it, whether it'll connect via USB or require new interfaces, what compelling MIDI 2 instruments come out... and I suspect that'll be self-perpetuating either way.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 22, 2019)

Yes of course you will need to buy a device which can support those higher resolution streams, but your current MIDI devices will work with any future MIDI 2.0 I/O box or whatever.


I'm not sure though if the 5-pin DIN port remains or is it even specified as a transport for this new MIDI 2.0 spec.


----------



## DANIELE (Jan 22, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> Yes of course you will need to buy a device which can support those higher resolution streams, but your current MIDI devices will work with any future MIDI 2.0 I/O box or whatever.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure though if the 5-pin DIN port remains or is it even specified as a transport for this new MIDI 2.0 spec.



Well USB is a general purpose connection and I think it should be capable of this higher resolution stream.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 22, 2019)

Yes, it's also a serial packet-based protocol which means that even though it's fast, it inherently has higher jitter, which ain't that cool.


----------



## brunodegazio (Jan 22, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Hah. I never noticed that. What instruments are you triggering?
> 
> Also, do you have a 3020m? If so, I'm curious - does MIDI In work on yours? It doesn't on mine, and I've always assumed that was just the way it is, but recently it occurred to me that I could also have been wrong about that all these years!



I used to use the Yamaha VL1m and VL70m exclusively, but now it's become mainly the SWAM and Sample Modelling instruments on a Mac laptop. 

But to be clear, the problem I'm referring to isn't with the instruments but with the MIDI 1.0 spec, which allows only 128 steps for dynamics. So when playing very softly, say in the controller range of 1-10, there are only a few steps available, which results in audible stepping between adjacent steps. 

Modern software synths smooth it out a little s it doesn't 'tick' but there are still distinct jumps in dynamics. The MIDI 2.0 spec allows for literally tens of thousands of steps between these MIDI 1.0 steps. That _should_ mean extremely smooth control - if the synth developers implement it!

About the EWI 3020, sorry, I never played it, only the 4000 and the 5000.


----------



## brunodegazio (Jan 22, 2019)

Saxer said:


> Are notes still divided in singular NOTE ON and NOTE OFF events?



Hard to say, because as far as I can see on their website, the MMA hasn't released a detailed specification, just the promo material quoted above. Maybe after NAMM?

But I would guess that distinct NOTE ON and NOTE OFF events are still very much a part of the spec. They are essential to a realtime-performance-oriented protocol where the note-off timing is unknown when the note starts (unlike in a sequencer when it is known in advance).


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 22, 2019)

I'd be most interested in 2.0 if it allowed some form of look ahead communication with a DAW, so keyswitching could be much more easily automated depending on playing style. If the instrument could see the upcoming few notes, it could theoretically switch intelligently. Any possibility of this, does anyone think?


----------



## brunodegazio (Jan 22, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> I'd be most interested in 2.0 if it allowed some form of look ahead communication with a DAW, so keyswitching could be much more easily automated depending on playing style. If the instrument could see the upcoming few notes, it could theoretically switch intelligently. Any possibility of this, does anyone think?




Thats a question for DAW developers. 

As a low-level, realtime protocol MIDI doesn't _directly_ support that sort of thing, but instead provides tools that application developers can use to provide more sophisticated capabilities like what you describe. 

The DAW developer could easily do it using the low-level functions that MIDI provides. They just need to understand the problem.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 22, 2019)

Yes please.



Guy Rowland said:


> I'd be most interested in 2.0 if it allowed some form of look ahead communication with a DAW, so keyswitching could be much more easily automated depending on playing style. If the instrument could see the upcoming few notes, it could theoretically switch intelligently. Any possibility of this, does anyone think?


----------



## Ronny D. Ana (Jan 22, 2019)

Me No Sum said:


> MIDI 2.0 is coming soon !! Who else is excited about this?



I wish they would make it a parallel protocol.
AND: Making it backwards compatible means to arrest development.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 22, 2019)

brunodegazio said:


> I used to use the Yamaha VL1m



Yeah, I use it with a VL1 mainly, as well as the 3020m analog synth (which is much maligned, by the way).

At the press event at Yamaha when the VL1 was unveiled in... I think 1994, I asked whether MIDI's 128 steps were an issue when they were designing the instrument. And they aren't, as it turned out (at least not for me).

But the guy gave me a look like that jackass kid smirking at the Native American at the base of the Lincoln Memorial steps: "It doesn't sound like it, does it?"; obviously he didn't understand the background of the EWI analog synth!


----------



## K. Johnston (Jan 24, 2019)

I really hope there is a function for reading CC values back from the daw to the controller. Could finally solve the motorized fader CC dilemma for working with fader control surfaces for MIDI work.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 24, 2019)

Ronny D. Ana said:


> I wish they would make it a parallel protocol.



No, that is not a good idea at all.



Ronny D. Ana said:


> AND: Making it backwards compatible means to arrest development.



Incorrect. Read up on MIDI CI and why it's important.


----------



## miguelgoncalves (Jan 25, 2019)

Does this mean it's unwise to purchase a MIDI controller right now?
I wonder how long it'll take for DAWs and sample library companies to start taking advantage of 2.0 seeing as it would require all their customers to have compatible hardware


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 25, 2019)

It'll probably take some time.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 26, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> No, that is not a good idea at all.



And I don't see how it could be backward-compatible if it were parallel.



EvilDragon said:


> It'll probably take some time.



So far I predict it'll take over 35 years.


----------



## PaulBrimstone (Jan 26, 2019)

MIDI 2, huh? They must have spent a couple of million on a fancy ad agency to come up with that name.


----------



## ReelToLogic (Jan 26, 2019)

It's always bugged me that piano-roll notes in Logic only show up as sharps, rather than appropriate flats, and the excuse I've heard is that "MIDI was only designed to handle sharps". Now, there's no reason that Logic couldn't simply show flats instead of sharps RIGHT NOW (based on the key selected in the top menu bar), but I wonder if MIDI 2.0 was to be appropriately expanded if that would finally make it "OK" for the programmers at Apple to make this simple change. One can dream...


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 26, 2019)

MIDI doesn't know about note names at all. It only knows note numbers (0-127). Sharps/flats implementation is purely dependant on the software. Reaper has no problems in showing flats in a flat key and sharps in a sharp key. You can choose your own enharmonic spelling:


----------



## robgb (Jan 26, 2019)

I started this journey in the days of 4-track reel-to-reel recorders and have spent thousands of dollars over the decades keeping up to date. As much as I love progress—having witnessed many amazing changes in technology—I'm to the point where I don't want to spend another dime. And I suppose I don't really have to...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 26, 2019)

ReelToLogic said:


> It's always bugged me that piano-roll notes in Logic only show up as sharps, rather than appropriate flats



You mean the note names when they're highlighted? I just look at the darker and lighter lanes for black and white notes.

If it gets it wrong in the Score Editor, it's easy enough to select a bunch of notes and move them to their enharmonic equivalents in one swell foop.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 26, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> I'd be most interested in 2.0 if it allowed some form of look ahead communication with a DAW, so keyswitching could be much more easily automated depending on playing style. If the instrument could see the upcoming few notes, it could theoretically switch intelligently. Any possibility of this, does anyone think?



What they could do is basically timestamp midi events better. Then it would still function as a real time streaming thing as it does now, but if events are timestamped in the future...then a DAW could theoretically send midi events ahead of time and the receiving device could queue up the events based on that timestamp. This would require devices to be synchronized also, which would make it much more complicated then it is now, but ultimately that is what would provide the possibility for sample accurate midi synchronization between devices. Kind of like rewire, while also providing the ability for real time midi transmission without timestamps. All totally doable, but I doubt they will do that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 26, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> I'm not sure though if the 5-pin DIN port remains or is it even specified as a transport for this new MIDI 2.0 spec.



It wouldn't make sense to specify the electrical connections anymore. There is a USB MIDI spec, but these days you can send MIDI over WiFi (also a spec), of course Ethernet, and anything else.

(And yeah ED, I know you know, just expounding on that point.)

That aside, the DIN connector is the most annoying one ever invented. You can't put it in by feel without damaging pins. They stopped using it on stereo equipment in the '70s, and then it was rare on American devices (mainly a European spec).


----------



## Ben H (Jan 26, 2019)

I wonder if they finally defined/decided if middle C was C3 or C4 



PaulBrimstone said:


> MIDI 2, huh? They must have spent a couple of million on a fancy ad agency to come up with that name.



Actually the working title the last few years of it's development seems to have been "MIDI HD." I think it's only rather recently that they've started calling it MIDI 2.0


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 26, 2019)

Ben H said:


> I wonder if they finally defined/decided if middle C was C3 or C4
> Actually the working title the last few years of it's development seems to have been "MIDI HD." I think it's only rather recently that they've started calling it MIDI 2.0



What's interesting about that - joking aside - is that it was a difference between two Japanese companies' equipment (Roland and Yamaha).

That was when Japan supplied the cheap labor.


----------



## Ben H (Jan 26, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> What's interesting about that - joking aside - is that it was a difference between two Japanese companies' equipment (Roland and Yamaha).



Oh, ok. That _is _interesting.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 27, 2019)

Yamaha - C4, Roland - C5 (but these days they too are using C4). Europe/Germany - C3.


----------



## ThomasNL (Feb 4, 2020)

Let's bump this old thread now that it has officially been announced. Personally I'm curious how this will change working with midi in a DAW, as well as midi controllers like a breath controller.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Feb 4, 2020)

Just bought my first MIDI Fader Controller, an Icon Platform M+
This will do for MIDI 1.0. But are there any chances that this could be "upgarded" to 2.0 in the future, by an update, or doesn't the hardware of "old" devices like this allow such things?


----------



## EvilDragon (Feb 4, 2020)

You'd want to take that question to Icon.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Feb 4, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> You'd want to take that question to Icon.


That sure is correct, I was just wondering if anybody with a similar device by another brand has made experiences with such an update.


----------



## gst98 (Feb 4, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> Just bought my first MIDI Fader Controller, an Icon Platform M+
> This will do for MIDI 1.0. But are there any chances that this could be "upgarded" to 2.0 in the future, by an update, or doesn't the hardware of "old" devices like this allow such things?



I got an icon m+ few weeks ago too. By my understanding, there are still lots of features the device is capable of that as a logic user I cant use. Like bidirectional midi CC's. Logic doesn't allow for this but I've seen other people scripting in their daws to allow this.


----------



## gst98 (Feb 4, 2020)

Are there features that anyone is really looking forward to? Personally I haven't seen anything that I thought would immediately be of use to me. Such as the increased velocity layers. Do we need more than 127? especially with only 2-5 dynamic layers that get recorded. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Bluemount Score (Feb 4, 2020)

gst98 said:


> I got an icon m+ few weeks ago too. By my understanding, there are still lots of features the device is capable of that as a logic user I cant use. Like bidirectional midi CC's. Logic doesn't allow for this but I've seen other people scripting in their daws to allow this.


Are you happy with it, otherwise? Won't be able to try it for myself before the weekend


----------



## gst98 (Feb 4, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> Are you happy with it, otherwise? Won't be able to try it for myself before the weekend



Yes and no. Hardware is great, I don't think you can beat it in the price range. I've had trouble with logic personally. I'm 95% sure it isn't an issue with Icon but with logic. If I try and customise the "logic" mode it gets confused and starts controlling random things. But putting it the "custom" mode, lets me use it fine. So I have to sue it completly custom (without volume automation) or int he stock mode, which is annoying, but I'm sure I'll figure it out soon. Pretty sure its logic misinterpreting the signals.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Feb 4, 2020)

gst98 said:


> Yes and no. Hardware is great, I don't think you can beat it in the price range. I've had trouble with logic personally. I'm 95% sure it isn't an issue with Icon but with logic. If I try and customise the "logic" mode it gets confused and starts controlling random things. But putting it the "custom" mode, lets me use it fine. So I have to sue it completly custom (without volume automation) or int he stock mode, which is annoying, but I'm sure I'll figure it out soon. Pretty sure its logic misinterpreting the signals.


Alright, thank you - I'm not a logic user so let's just hope and see how it handles FL Studio


----------



## EvilDragon (Feb 4, 2020)

gst98 said:


> Are there features that anyone is really looking forward to? Personally I haven't seen anything that I thought would immediately be of use to me. Such as the increased velocity layers. Do we need more than 127? especially with only 2-5 dynamic layers that get recorded. Or am I missing something?



Event timestamping is great, also additional properties being tied to note events (instant microtonalities), also having more CCs and their greater resolution is going to be stellar for synths.


----------



## ThomasNL (Feb 4, 2020)

Polyphonic cc data! This could change an "ensemble patch" to actually usable as final product.


----------



## EvilDragon (Feb 4, 2020)

I don't think I saw polyphonic CCs mentioned anywhere. There's just Registered and Assignable Controllers, both of which support up to 128 banks of 128 controllers.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 4, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> Event timestamping is great...


This could be a big thing! Imagine a DAW that knows when MIDI events will happen before they happen! For example the delay of legato transitions could be precalculated. Same for all risers and crescendos that could run into a point in time instead of starting somewhere triggered by a blind passing song position line. Also phrases could be recognized before they play and create an own behavior (like Noteperformer does with the one second delay). DAWs could become intelligent when they know what they are playing.


----------



## markleake (Feb 5, 2020)

Does MIDI 2.0 solve the annoying issue where using a controller in Mackie-compatible mode comes with all sorts of obsticles, and in MIDI CC mode doesn't do what Mackie mode does??

I gave up years ago trying to find/get MIDI controllers to work properly with a DAW in a way that was intuitive.

I'd love for something like a nanoKontrol2 to just work like it looks like it _should_ work.

Oh, this AND read-ahead or timed notes/CC/events would be great.


----------



## Vik (Feb 5, 2020)

ReelToLogic said:


> It's always bugged me that piano-roll notes in Logic only show up as sharps, rather than appropriate flats, and the excuse I've heard is that "MIDI was only designed to handle sharps". Now, there's no reason that Logic couldn't simply show flats instead of sharps RIGHT NOW (based on the key selected in the top menu bar), but I wonder if MIDI 2.0 was to be appropriately expanded if that would finally make it "OK" for the programmers at Apple to make this simple change. One can dream...


This is a limitation of Logic - one which should have been fixed along time ago. The event list, event like float, and note info for each note elsewhere all ignore that the user has told Logic that he is working in Eb major and not D# major. 

And of course - a new MIDI standard could allow for interesting new stuff, like making Apple's Articulation ID a part of the MIDI standard, or tag each note with info about which key it originally has been recorded in. 

Will or has this been implemented in the MIDI standard? I don’t know, but in general, both Apple and the music industry is more mass market oriented than ever. Record a lot of different, simple triads into Logic and a lot of them will look plain wrong, after circa 30 years after Logic started its development. I’m not optimistic about anything related to score/notation, composition, or displaying harmonies in Logic anymore. But I’m pretty sure Ali gif will support the new stuff in MIDI 2, once Apples Core Audio and Audio Unit teams have done what they need to do.


----------



## EvilDragon (Feb 5, 2020)

Saxer said:


> This could be a big thing! Imagine a DAW that knows when MIDI events will happen before they happen! For example the delay of legato transitions could be precalculated. Same for all risers and crescendos that could run into a point in time instead of starting somewhere triggered by a blind passing song position line. Also phrases could be recognized before they play and create an own behavior (like Noteperformer does with the one second delay). DAWs could become intelligent when they know what they are playing.



There's nothing about lookahead in MIDI 2.0 spec (nor can it happen because that would break the laws of causality - MIDI is a realtime protocol). Timestamping is simply a means to eliminate jitter.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 5, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> There's nothing about lookahead in MIDI 2.0 spec (nor can it happen because that would break the laws of causality - MIDI is a realtime protocol). Timestamping is simply a means to eliminate jitter.


Ah, rats!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 5, 2020)

Well technically midi1 has no timestamp in the protocol sent over the wire and so jitter is inherently there. The old protocol sends midi serially and without any timestamp whatsoever. It’s only inside software that midi1 has often, but not always, been enhanced with time stamping such that once a midi event arrives into a usb midi interface it can be timestamped there and thus eliminate software-induced jitter. But anyway the wire protocol itself does not include timestamps so the only way to synchronize anything before was with midi clock.

midi2 brings timestamps into the actual transmitted wire protocol. That is a big change but it won’t be useful until all devices find a way to work together with it. It has the potential to be much tighter then say midi clock sync situations and to eliminate entirely jitter, but it’s going to be years before we see any progress as many people are perfectly content with their existing midi1 devices.

years ago emagic and motu came out with time stamping in their midi interfaces and used to market that fact that they felt their interfaces were accurate to sub millisecond using timestamps generated in the interface. Before that most interfaces had awful timing especially when operating systems such as windows2000 beame true multitasking.

but most people didn’t Pay attention to that and now you can’t even find mention of the word time stamping in device marketing materials to know for sure if some $50 usb midi device is even adding timestamps. In Mac, coremidi adds timestamps even if the device doesn’t but of course that would introduce just a bit more jitter then if the device did it. But nobody knows if any of them are and I’m kind of doubtful that they are I think it’s being done now purely with drivers at the software level which inherently adds jitter. Yet nobody really seems to care everyone is just making their music and not too worried about it, and the time stamping effort made by motu and emagic is not even mentioned anymore. And a lot of software ignores timestamp in many cases, treating mid input to tracks like a purely real time serial protocol that it has been.

so we shall see what comes out of midi2. I think it will require some manufacturers to make some devices that make use of it fully while connected with wires and build up some interest but I suspect most people are going to just shrug and say they use software instruments so who cares


----------



## jononotbono (Feb 5, 2020)

I'm looking forward to the future deluge of threads that will look a lot like... 

"Which piece of shit Midi 2 controller do you recommend? Do any of them make you want to play actual music yet or do they just have more wobbly faders and flashing lights that don't work over VEPro?"


----------



## lastmessiah (Feb 17, 2020)

In regards to resolution of controllers - am I wrong that DAW/host automation already has infinitely higher resolution than MIDI?


----------



## brenneisen (Feb 17, 2020)

lastmessiah said:


> In regards to resolution of controllers - am I wrong that DAW/host automation already has infinitely higher resolution than MIDI?



not "infinitely" but higher, yes

however, this adds nothing since our virtual instruments can only read 0-127 anyway


----------



## EvilDragon (Feb 17, 2020)

Of course virtual instruments can read more than that, if parameters are automated via host automation rather than MIDI CC.


----------



## brenneisen (Feb 17, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> Of course virtual instruments can read more than that, if parameters are automated via host automation rather than MIDI CC.



how come? Kontakt (e.g) only have 127 velocity levels and cc tables don't offer more than that either (it actually does since "0" is a possible value, so, 128 cc levels)

doesn't this higher resolution automation gets converted to midi after all?

not trying to argue (who'd try to argue with you on this), I just want to understand it right


----------



## toomanynotes (Feb 18, 2020)

ptram said:


> Suddenly, all our expensive gears are obsolete.


Yep cos who the hell will buy em! four keyboards? Easy...$4


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 18, 2020)

I use an ancient DSP based system called Scope.
It’s Modular app is unique in that it allows all of its modules to accept audio as a modulation source.
So when you used a Behringer BCF/BCR2000 and Expert Sleepers Silentway Suite, each fader went from 0-127 to an insane 0-1,000,000+.

Folks claimed you wouldn’t hear the difference but turned out you could when using it on Portamento and Filter Cutoff.

If you ever noticed the resolution PBend uses, that resolution basically is applied to other parameters like Volume, LFO Rate, etc.

I noticed that Melda Rotary (Leslie) plug ins sounded terrible in STOP mode, which is what Jon Lord (Deep Purple) and Kieth Emerson (ELP) often used.
The developer was somewhat stumped but a bright user said to use the ultra high resolution LFO rate of .01 and it worked perfectly.

A resolution based on 0-127 would have been noticable.
Spec 2# CC88 was a 0-16,000 resolution which was plenty in this case, turned the Rotary Horn Speed so slow you couldn’t notice.

No clue why this was a factor but if you have the old plug it’s funny how effective the extra resolution is.

I think MPE would be more useful than MIDI 2.0.
But I’m a MIDI 1 geek with a Physis K4, so I’m naturally content with Spec 2# and MIDI 1.0.


----------



## kaisdevidasa (Jul 12, 2020)

After reading this thread...as someone who relies very predominantly on virtual instruments, I'm thinking I'm being far too hyped up on Midi 2. For example, I'm in the market for a $3k-$4k workstation...and I was thinking I should wait for options with Midi 2. What would I be missing out on by buying a Fantom today...what regrets might I have once Midi 2 is implemented in more products? And lastly, can we expect a Fantom level product with Midi 2 within a year?

Thanks!


----------



## VladK (Jul 12, 2020)

What concerns me about MIDI 2 is a lot of room for extensions. From my past experience this means one thing for sure: a lot of proprietary extensions and reduced compatibility between vendors. It will become much harder for small plugin builders to stay in business - you need a lot of resources just to keep up with different extensions from major hardware/software makers. And when you don't support those extentions from, say, major controller makes, buyers will switch to those who do, i.e. to big vendors. Market consolidation is almost inevitable IMO. This is exactly how Microsoft and Apple destroyed their developer tool competition - no third party was able to keep up with the speed they introduced new, and expanded existing API.


----------



## swampskeleton (Dec 7, 2020)

gst98 said:


> Yes and no. Hardware is great, I don't think you can beat it in the price range. I've had trouble with logic personally. I'm 95% sure it isn't an issue with Icon but with logic. If I try and customise the "logic" mode it gets confused and starts controlling random things. But putting it the "custom" mode, lets me use it fine. So I have to sue it completly custom (without volume automation) or int he stock mode, which is annoying, but I'm sure I'll figure it out soon. Pretty sure its logic misinterpreting the signals.


Any developments in the Platform + Logic bidirectional midi department? Looking into this a possible setup myself.


----------

