"Whether the protocol is still in use, mostly through inertia, does not correlate with whether it has been updated technologically."
I NOW REPLY: From what I have read, there have indeed been improvements to the midi specs as well as the ways gear and applications use midi. I wasn't correlating anything, just making comments based on what I have seen. In fact, I recently was at a music event and attended a workshop that showcased a feature (I believe it was Ableton Live's Link feature) and specifically brought up how people doubted me that MIDI was not limited to 31.25kbps. The speaker who I considered an expert in these matters not only agreed but told me how fast midi was going these days. Sorry, I forgot the number but it was many time 31.25Kbps. Also, take a look at the specs for what has sometimes been called "expressive midi." While I used the concept of channelizing MIDI data but running CZ-5000 MIDI through a Commodore 64 and back into the CZ in the 1980, manufacturers expanded on this and MIDI spec writers at the end of last year either finalized or were finalizing extensions of the midi spec so people could make use of channelized midi data. In my opinion, both of these demonstrate updated MIDI technology.
YOU QUOTED ME SAYING:
"A few years ago, a VZ user even wrote a web-based/browser VZ editor. That could not be done in 1985. And last I checked, it worked on modern computers!!!!!! (Although with changes web browsers have been known to change web-based code."
YOU ASKED AND RETORTED:
"OK? This doesn't reflect on MIDI as a technology either, though."
YOU QUOTED ME COMPLIMENTING YOU AS OPPOSED TO OTHERS WHO GIVE OPINIONS BASED ON OLD INFORMATION:
"I am glad you acknowledged you haven't kept up. That speaks well of you and your input (in my opinion)."
THEN YOU CHALLENGED ME AS IF TO DOUBT MY COMMENT WAS INTENDED AS A SINCERE COMPLIMENT:
"Is this a sleight? Whatever. These lists tend to devolve into p*ing contests between small handfuls of people, and I can't be bothered with it."
I NOW REPLY: It was not intended as a slight to you, but rather to others (in general and in specific) who have posted and vociferously argued for erroneous opinions not necessarily based on demonstrable facts but on faulty assumptions. I had in mind a person years ago who insisted that the CZ couldn't keep up with modern computers because they were built in the 1980s etc. I believe I disproved this by documenting my experiments proving it false. I don't remember if that person (and maybe other who joined in) ever did their own experiments to prove they were right or acknowledged the merits and validity of mine.
But back to the present: It almost sounded like a previous poster was going in that same direction. (The CZ and/or MIDI is old/outdated, etc.) So I was genuinely happy to see that you acknowledged you did not follow more recent trends in MIDI. It was sincere on my part, though in the context of words on a screen in an open forum, I can understand how you might have overlaid a tone of sarcasm that I did not have. By the same token, I believe you genuinely misinterpreted my comment without an malice towards me. An honest mistake on your part.
Steve
PS: If you are inclined not to believe me and my sincerity, I would urge you to re-read my post. There is no sarcasm, no disrespect, etc.