Future Enhanced External MIDI Synth Recording Features?

[Resonant Serpent]

I'm reading here on the forum about the external effect updates, and what's in development.

Is anything like this planned for external MIDI synths? The use of MIDI hardware seems like it could be improved. 

[Glenn Stanton]

check out https://midi.org/midi-2-0 sign up for the newsletter. it's taken many (like eons in internet years) to begin getting traction [snark removed] it still has some ways to go to sort out 

oh, i still have my Alesis MIDI 8-track recorder....

 

Edited July 28 by Glenn Stanton

[Craig Anderton]

58 minutes ago, Glenn Stanton said:

like any largely bureaucratic approach with many committees made up of competing vendors (plugins anyone?) it still has some ways to go to sort out who will dominate

To be fair, The MIDI Association is an all-volunteer group with representatives from large and small companies. No company can steamroller through a proposal because the power to make changes is distributed uniformly among the members. There is no inter-company "competition" because like MIDI 1.0, the expectation is that the most universal/compatible standard possible will have the greatest benefits for all concerned. There aren't any bureaucrats in the sense of being paper-shufflers. Company representatives are almost all software/hardware engineers, or product designers. Their responsibility is to make sure that any changes or additions to the standard are rock solid. That takes a concerted group effort. 

There are several reasons why MIDI 2.0 has taken so long to reach fruition. The basics were ratified just before covid hit. Also, the spec accommodates far more complex technology than MIDI 1.0. Just trying to come up with universal profiles for instruments and effects is a challenge, as is making sure the spec will work with new controller technologies that aren't yet in general use - let alone anticipating the functionality of ones that don't exist yet. Finally, because of MIDI's reliance on computers, nothing substantive could be done with DAWs until Apple, Microsoft, and Google incorporated hooks for MIDI 2.0 in their operating systems. Then, there's the lag while companies come to grips with those kind of deep OS changes.

It's also important to remember that MIDI 1.0 took multiple decades to reach where it is now. For example, MPE is a fairly recent addition that was not in the original 1.0 spec, as are USB data transports and other aspects we take for granted. 

Like MIDI 1.0, MIDI 2.0 will roll out a piece at a time. Already, there are keyboard controllers that are MIDI 2.0-compatible. When DAWs start being compatible with MIDI 2.0, these keyboards will be able to communicate. But bear in mind that MIDI 2.0 is backward compatible with MIDI 1.0 gear. MIDI 1.0 is just a language, as is MIDI 2.0. MIDI 2.0 devices can query MIDI devices to find out whether they speak MIDI 2.0 or not. If not, the communication proceeds using MIDI 1.0, and uses MIDI 1.0 features. I expect that people will add MIDI 2.0 gear to existing systems over time, if they need the advantages MIDI 2.0 offers. Otherwise, they'll keep using MIDI 1.0 gear, or a mix of the two.

FWIW I was President of the MIDI Association (also a volunteer position) for two years while covid was in full swing, so I'm well aware of all the frustration that companies had as they tried to move the spec forward despite restrictions on being able to meet, trade show cancellations, and economic uncertainty. The process has been back on track for a while, but there was a lot of ground that had to be made up first. I'm still kept up to date on the latest additions to the spec and work of the Technical Standards Board, and there is a lot going on behind the scenes. However, traditionally the MIDI Association doesn't talk about what's coming up until it's actually working. 

[Glenn Stanton]

1 hour ago, Craig Anderton said:

To be fair, The MIDI Association is an all-volunteer group with representatives from large and small companies. No company can steamroller through a proposal because the power to make changes is distributed uniformly among the members. There is no inter-company "competition" because like MIDI 1.0, the expectation is that the most universal/compatible standard possible will have the greatest benefits for all concerned. There aren't any bureaucrats in the sense of being paper-shufflers. Company representatives are almost all software/hardware engineers, or product designers. Their responsibility is to make sure that any changes or additions to the standard are rock solid. That takes a concerted group effort. 

 

...

 

FWIW I was President of the MIDI Association (also a volunteer position) for two years while covid was in full swing, so I'm well aware of all the frustration that companies had as they tried to move the spec forward despite restrictions on being able to meet, trade show cancellations, and economic uncertainty. The process has been back on track for a while, but there was a lot of ground that had to be made up first. I'm still kept up to date on the latest additions to the spec and work of the Technical Standards Board, and there is a lot going on behind the scenes. However, traditionally the MIDI Association doesn't talk about what's coming up until it's actually working. 

thanks Craig, as an enterprise architect for many years - when you factor in all the variables and if you're trying to make it real, then the bureaucracy seems to build on itself however the best of intentions and dedications. just the nature of organizing people, institutions, external forces, and then the communication complexities, in way all can understand and [co]operate. i've been eagerly following the work since early 2020. 

Edited July 28 by Glenn Stanton

[Craig Anderton]

I sure know what you mean about bureaucracies, but the MIDI Association is somewhat different. There are a lot of small working groups where there aren't enough people in the group to create a viable bureaucracy. Things slow down a bit when trying to integrate what's happening in Japan with what's happening in the US and Europe. But a lot of that is reality checks for hardware keyboards like electric pianos and workstations, because most of those manufacturers are Japanese. 

As one example of non-bureaucracy at work, once there was a question about how to handle time/date labels. We found out that there's already an international standard, and adopted it. IIRC it took about ten days from start to finish to hammer it out. If it had been General Electric, it probably would have taken a year or two   

[Glenn Stanton]

no, GE would have taken 10 years with 40 revisions ? each requiring contract extensions, new purchases, and more training on soon-to-be legacy revisions LOL. cheers! now, Boeing on the other hand...