Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

On 22 Aug, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 06:21:26AM -0000, fulfil_objective wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps  
>> and 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited  
>> to these old numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or  
>> thousands of times faster than these numbers. In fact, greatly  
>> higher speeds are touted as one of the benefits of a USB MIDI  
>> device (along with multiple streams).
>
> Bullshit.
>
> MIDI transfers data at 31250bps.  It doesn't matter how the  
> interface is connected to the host or device, MIDI data is by  
> definition 31250bps.  The interface may be able to talk to the PC  
> faster than that, but you cannot send it to the target device at  
> anything other than 31250bps.
>
> -- 
> Gordonjcp MM0YEQ

On 22 Aug 2013, at 09:28, Daniel Forró wrote:

>
> On 22 Aug, 2013, at 3:21 PM, fulfil_objective wrote:
>
>> High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for
>> example, in the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you
>> wanted to send 128 megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you
>> were restricted to 31250 bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the
>> sounds. USB MIDI devices enable higher speeds, and that speed is
>> encouraged.
>
> Yes, in the times when nobody used USB for MIDI, SCI used higher MIDI
> speed for the purpose of SDS in some of their instruments, but very
> soon this idea was abandoned and manufacturers started to use SCSI
> SMDI standard for sample transfers.
>
>>
>> 31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on
>> a good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times
>> faster than 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
>
> Yes, today's standard are today's standard. Nobody knew anything about
> them 30 years ago. Try to see it this way. It's easy to be a general
> after the battle.
>
>> So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can
>> send sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not
>> necessarily tied to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the
>> speed of the whole computer-USB system.
>>
>> You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial
>> Bus Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1,
>> 1999, which you cand download here:
>>
>> http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
>
> Yes, but transfer between the interface and the target MIDI device
> must follow MIDI standard, which is 31250 bps. Dot.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On 8/22/13, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> On 22 Aug, 2013, at 3:21 PM, fulfil_objective wrote:
>
>> High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for
>> example, in the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you
>> wanted to send 128 megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you
>> were restricted to 31250 bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the
>> sounds. USB MIDI devices enable higher speeds, and that speed is
>> encouraged.
>
> Yes, in the times when nobody used USB for MIDI, SCI used higher MIDI
> speed for the purpose of SDS in some of their instruments, but very
> soon this idea was abandoned and manufacturers started to use SCSI
> SMDI standard for sample transfers.
>
>>
>> 31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on
>> a good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times
>> faster than 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
>
> Yes, today's standard are today's standard. Nobody knew anything about
> them 30 years ago. Try to see it this way. It's easy to be a general
> after the battle.
>
>> So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can
>> send sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not
>> necessarily tied to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the
>> speed of the whole computer-USB system.
>>
>> You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial
>> Bus Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1,
>> 1999, which you cand download here:
>>
>> http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
>
> Yes, but transfer between the interface and the target MIDI device
> must follow MIDI standard, which is 31250 bps. Dot.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>

 From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordon@...>
To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 8:45
Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
 


  
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 06:21:26AM -0000, fulfil_objective wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).

Bullshit.

MIDI transfers data at 31250bps.  It doesn't matter how the interface is connected to the host or device, MIDI data is by definition 31250bps.  The interface may be able to talk to the PC faster than that, but you cannot send it to the target device at anything other than 31250bps.

-- 
Gordonjcp MM0YEQ


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 From: fulfil_objective <robot@...>
To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
 


  
Hi Steve,

I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).

High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example, in the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128 megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to 31250 bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices enable higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.

31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster than 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.

USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0 to 20 MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 5,120 times faster than 31250 bps.

So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can send sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily tied to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the whole computer-USB system.

You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial Bus Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999, which you cand download here:

http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lee Borrell 
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer


    
  I think if you talking about USB to USB transfer - or Firewire then you may have a point ,but as soon as any interface hits a MIDI DIN plug it HAS to be 31.25 Kb - this is the MIDI standard. No commercial interface with DIN plugs on it is going to do better than that baud rate,or face the equipment not getting the signal. In the case of pre-USB vintage machines,there is no way to go faster than 31.25kB.

  ________________________________
  From: fulfil_objective <robot@kasploosh.com>
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
  Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer


    
  Hi Steve,

  I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).

  High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example, in the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128 megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to 31250 bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices enable higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.

  31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster than 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.

  USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0 to 20 MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 5,120 times faster than 31250 bps.

  So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can send sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily tied to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the whole computer-USB system.

  You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial Bus Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999, which you cand download here:

  http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date: 08/21/13


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 8/22/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
> you could fit a lan midi port on the cz this is attached to the pre opto
> isolaters of the uart
>
> then you can use midi over lan
>
> but the midi protocol is still 31.25kb period thats the standard set
>
> but the problem lies with the usb and windows changing it from win98
>
> and since then midi timing has been sloppy
>
> now a parallel interface is much better and timing is much better
>
> so a opcode x64 which i still use and has xp 32 and 64bit drivers
>
> and i have never had any problems with sysex
>
> but i still use sound diver and changeit which is a great sysex sender and
> has a section for slowing down packets
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Lee Borrell
>   To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM
>   Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>
>
>
>   I think if you talking about USB to USB transfer - or Firewire then you
> may have a point ,but as soon as any interface hits a MIDI DIN plug it HAS
> to be 31.25 Kb - this is the MIDI standard. No commercial interface with DIN
> plugs on it is going to do better than that baud rate,or face the equipment
> not getting the signal. In the case of pre-USB vintage machines,there is no
> way to go faster than 31.25kB.
>
>   ________________________________
>   From: fulfil_objective <robot@...>
>   To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
>   Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>
>
>
>   Hi Steve,
>
>   I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and
> 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old
> numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster
> than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the
> benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
>
>   High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example, in
> the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128
> megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to 31250
> bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices enable
> higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.
>
>   31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a
> good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster than
> 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
>
>   USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be
> generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0 to 20
> MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 5,120
> times faster than 31250 bps.
>
>   So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can send
> sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily tied
> to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the whole
> computer-USB system.
>
>   You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial Bus
> Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999, which
> you cand download here:
>
>   http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
>
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>   No virus found in this message.
>   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date: 08/21/13
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 06:21:26AM -0000, fulfil_objective wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> > 
> > I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> MIDI transfers data at 31250bps.  It doesn't matter how the interface is connected to the host or device, MIDI data is by definition 31250bps.  The interface may be able to talk to the PC faster than that, but you cannot send it to the target device at anything other than 31250bps.
> 
> -- 
> Gordonjcp MM0YEQ
>

On 22 Aug, 2013, at 10:01 PM, steve_the_composer wrote:

> I try to look at future possibilities.
>
> Steve

>
> 
> 
> Gordon is correct - the MIDI standard is 31.25 Kb - if there was any other speed,the MIDI equipment would not be able to read the signal- the baud rate is part of what is defined in a PROTOCOL - I should know - I teach IT!
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordon@...>
> To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 8:45
> Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>  
> 
> 
> Â  
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 06:21:26AM -0000, fulfil_objective wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> > 
> > I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> MIDI transfers data at 31250bps.  It doesn't matter how the interface is connected to the host or device, MIDI data is by definition 31250bps.  The interface may be able to talk to the PC faster than that, but you cannot send it to the target device at anything other than 31250bps.
> 
> -- 
> Gordonjcp MM0YEQ
> 
> 
>  
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> Then maybe better forget about MIDI at all. It's a 30 years old  
> standard, difficult if not impossible to improve.
> 
> Even now some instruments (and numbers go up quickly) use USB for MIDI  
> communication with computer.
> 
> Then there is Yamaha LAN...
> 
> And maybe other new standards will come.
> 
> Daniel Forro
> 
> On 22 Aug, 2013, at 10:01 PM, steve_the_composer wrote:
> 
> > I try to look at future possibilities.
> >
> > Steve
>

On 22 Aug, 2013, at 11:16 PM, k9k9dog wrote:

> lol. MIDI sample dump cannot even be envisaged. dot.
> i hope nobody's going to start sl*gging MIDI (again).
> quite simply one of the best human inventions ever.
> what about wordclocking? (i'm only kidding, send it
> via your old ADAT...). word.
>
> i'm serious about caged artist: it works beautifully.
> everyone should have an atari kicking around for all
> it can do. i just got one *nicked* during a housemove,
> of all things they could have taken...consider: editors,
> old sequencers, the cubase Interactive Phrase Synth as
> arpeggiator, etc.(slow workflow, crashes in hot weather)

>
> Then maybe better forget about MIDI at all. It's a 30 years old  
> standard, difficult if not impossible to improve.
> 
> Even now some instruments (and numbers go up quickly) use USB for MIDI  
> communication with computer.
> 
> Then there is Yamaha LAN...
> 
> And maybe other new standards will come.
> 
> Daniel Forro
> 
> On 22 Aug, 2013, at 10:01 PM, steve_the_composer wrote:
> 
> > I try to look at future possibilities.
> >
> > Steve
>

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: steve_the_composer 
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:30 PM
  Subject: [CZsynth] Re: Speed of sysex transfer


    
  I am not sure I saved or bookmarked the MMA document that says that midi as a vehicle of communication is not limited to 31.25 kbps. I will look for it.

  In case its not clear, I am not saying "Bullshit." Rather, I am agreeing that >>in the past<< gear makers (and hackers) used the 31.25 kbps as a convenience so that 5-pin din midi gear could communicate with all other 5-pin din midi gear.

  However, this is not to say that future midi gear couldn't be designed and implemented with different connectors, perhaps faster opto-isolators (if they exist)--or even micro-processors with built-in serial devices, and considerably faster speeds. Rates could even be selectable. 

  And there could be step-down devices so that older gear works with a newer system and is thereby not made obsolete.

  With the arduino --> serial usb-midi bridge --> midi-ox --> e-mu 2x2 usb interface test I did, clearly something performed the step down. I am guessing it might well be the e-mu 2x2 (and its drivers), but I cannot think of a way to test that.

  I suppose I could buy 1x1 usb-midi interface "cable" and run the same tests. If I find that sysex doesn't work properly but note and other data does, then it might not be the interface doing the stepping down. However, if the 1x1 fails, that would lead me to conclude its in the interface.

  Anyone want to subsidize the research? How about try to replicate it?

  Steve

  --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, Lee Borrell <templarser@...> wrote:
  >
  > 
  > 
  > Gordon is correct - the MIDI standard is 31.25 Kb - if there was any other speed,the MIDI equipment would not be able to read the signal- the baud rate is part of what is defined in a PROTOCOL - I should know - I teach IT!
  > 
  > 
  > ________________________________
  > From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordon@...>
  > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 8:45
  > Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Â  
  > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 06:21:26AM -0000, fulfil_objective wrote:
  > > Hi Steve,
  > > 
  > > I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
  > 
  > Bullshit.
  > 
  > MIDI transfers data at 31250bps. It doesn't matter how the interface is connected to the host or device, MIDI data is by definition 31250bps. The interface may be able to talk to the PC faster than that, but you cannot send it to the target device at anything other than 31250bps.
  > 
  > -- 
  > Gordonjcp MM0YEQ
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date: 08/21/13


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Of course, it is hard to tell attitude in printed text messages posted on a forum. So, if you weren't being sarcastic and arrogant, I happily withdraw the suggestion that it might have been.
> 
> steve_the_visionary_dinosaur  ;)

On 22 Aug, 2013, at 11:58 PM, steve_the_composer wrote:

> Footnotes:
> (1) I googled Yamaha LAN and found some forum stuff with people  
> having issues with it.
> (2) About 3 or 4 years ago, I ran a test of midi-over-internet where  
> I payed a softsynth of a chat buddy in NL (IIRC). He echoed the midi  
> data back to me which I recorded and determined the round trip  
> latency. I think it was about 600ms.
> (3) What prompted the experiment (where's the Youtube clip?) were  
> some very successful tests (no noticeable latency) I had done  
> controlling gear hooked up to one computer from a controller hooked  
> up to another computer across the room but via a router. (Of course,  
> I was using 8-bit midi.)
>
> So, thanks for the offer to forget midi, but I am a dinosaur myself  
> and I like dinosaur gear.
>
> Oh, yeah, even as a dinosaur, I stick by my claim of looking towards  
> future possibilities. Always did; always will. I did that when I was  
> in my teens, too--when I envisioned controlling a synth (Moog  
> modular) with a computer. It was unheard of back then. In fact, one  
> of my professors told me, "What a waste of a computer!" Needless to  
> say, I should have told him "Bullshit," and tried to find a  
> professor or a program that had the ability to envision future  
> possibilities.
>
> Again, I try my best to help people with issues they have. Those  
> efforts are future-solution oriented. I envision possibilities. But  
> I do so mindful of the past.
>
> I am not sure who said, "the past informs the present to ideally  
> improve the future," but I think there is merit in that approach-- 
> whether it be on a small-scale, near-term problem-solution or a  
> large-scale, long-term one.
>
> I see no problem with integrating the old with the new with an eye  
> towards the future.
>
> Steve
>
> PS: When I first read and responded to your reply to my comment  
> about the future, I did not see any arrogance, agism, or sarcasm  
> whatsoever. I usually don't pick up on stuff like that even when it  
> is there. In fact, it didn't even occur to me you might be doing  
> that until sometime after I had innocently started penning the  
> footnotes by way of simple clarification. However, in retrospect,  
> your tone seems clear--everything you wrote was a reply to my  
> comment that "I try to look at future possibilities."
>
> It seems that your lead in, "Then maybe better forget about MIDI  
> after all," was a retort, a challenge.
>
> Of course, it is hard to tell attitude in printed text messages  
> posted on a forum. So, if you weren't being sarcastic and arrogant,  
> I happily withdraw the suggestion that it might have been.
>
> steve_the_visionary_dinosaur  ;)
>

On 22 Aug 2013, at 15:37, Daniel Forró wrote:

> Agreement.
>
> Three ATARI still at my side, one Mega ST on my table with two HD and
> Ultrasatan. I've been using them since 1988 :-) I was more Notator
> user but Cubase had some good features...
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 22 Aug, 2013, at 11:16 PM, k9k9dog wrote:
>
>> lol. MIDI sample dump cannot even be envisaged. dot.
>> i hope nobody's going to start sl*gging MIDI (again).
>> quite simply one of the best human inventions ever.
>> what about wordclocking? (i'm only kidding, send it
>> via your old ADAT...). word.
>>
>> i'm serious about caged artist: it works beautifully.
>> everyone should have an atari kicking around for all
>> it can do. i just got one *nicked* during a housemove,
>> of all things they could have taken...consider: editors,
>> old sequencers, the cubase Interactive Phrase Synth as
>> arpeggiator, etc.(slow workflow, crashes in hot weather)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

>
> For this (and of course for music) I had Commodore 64 and Yamaha CX5M
> since 1985 :-)
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

 From: Jason Adkins <jason_ralf808@....uk>
To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 19:30
Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Re: Speed of sysex transfer
 


  
For patterned based sequencing I'd use an MC50 or Alesis MMT8,even 
thought it has an AC psu with iffy style connector 3,5inch jack I 
think? and crappy rubber buttons but a great sequencer nonetheless.
The CX5M was nice actually,looked cool too,Iike said before I 
programed a crude looking naked woman controlled by the cursor keys on 
the  msx,my first ever bit of programming,,,

The C64 was a nightmare to program in comparison,It's only saving 
grace was it's popularity and the SID chip...... However Steinberg 
ever managed to program Pro16 on that thing I'll never know.

>
> For this (and of course for music) I had Commodore 64 and Yamaha CX5M
> since 1985 :-)
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 22 Aug 2013, at 19:48, Lee Borrell wrote:

> I have to admit the CX5m looks like something the aliens left on  
> earth in 2001,Space Odyssey...but it suffers from a basic written by  
> MS,which once I started looking into it started spotting all the old  
> annoying habits that cause Windows to be so crap. I would take a  
> Commodore before a CX. The OS in that has never failed me and is  
> intuitive and easy to use.
> The only drawback was not having MIDI on tap - which I corrected by  
> making my own interface,which was thankfully given by MAPLIN in  
> their magazine. The Interface once made is dead easy to use,and  
> easier to communicate with than either the Atari ST or the CX5m.
>
> http://templarseries.atspace.com/maplin.html
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jason Adkins <jason_ralf808@...>
> To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 19:30
> Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Re: Speed of sysex transfer
>
>
>
>
> For patterned based sequencing I'd use an MC50 or Alesis MMT8,even
> thought it has an AC psu with iffy style connector 3,5inch jack I
> think? and crappy rubber buttons but a great sequencer nonetheless.
> The CX5M was nice actually,looked cool too,Iike said before I
> programed a crude looking naked woman controlled by the cursor keys on
> the  msx,my first ever bit of programming,,,
>
> The C64 was a nightmare to program in comparison,It's only saving
> grace was it's popularity and the SID chip...... However Steinberg
> ever managed to program Pro16 on that thing I'll never know.
>
>>
>> For this (and of course for music) I had Commodore 64 and Yamaha CX5M
>> since 1985 :-)
>>
>> Daniel Forro
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Loscha 
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer


    
  You assert that MIDI over USB is sloppy.

  This is the same as a schoolgirl saying toads gice you warts!!!

  If you look at a MIDI USB over an oscilloscope, as I have, you'll see
  it is just fine. I do not have any pictures to document this, sadly --
  and my scope is not currently set up.

  I defy you to produce factual evidence to the contrary, however!

  MiDI is not ideal for tight timing.
  If you look at, say, laying a 4 down kick drum on a track, unless that
  tempo you are using is an integer divisor of 31250, it's going to flop
  around and not be in time.
  Period.

  On 8/22/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
  > you could fit a lan midi port on the cz this is attached to the pre opto
  > isolaters of the uart
  >
  > then you can use midi over lan
  >
  > but the midi protocol is still 31.25kb period thats the standard set
  >
  > but the problem lies with the usb and windows changing it from win98
  >
  > and since then midi timing has been sloppy
  >
  > now a parallel interface is much better and timing is much better
  >
  > so a opcode x64 which i still use and has xp 32 and 64bit drivers
  >
  > and i have never had any problems with sysex
  >
  > but i still use sound diver and changeit which is a great sysex sender and
  > has a section for slowing down packets
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: Lee Borrell
  > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM
  > Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  >
  >
  >
  > I think if you talking about USB to USB transfer - or Firewire then you
  > may have a point ,but as soon as any interface hits a MIDI DIN plug it HAS
  > to be 31.25 Kb - this is the MIDI standard. No commercial interface with DIN
  > plugs on it is going to do better than that baud rate,or face the equipment
  > not getting the signal. In the case of pre-USB vintage machines,there is no
  > way to go faster than 31.25kB.
  >
  > ________________________________
  > From: fulfil_objective <robot@...>
  > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
  > Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  >
  >
  >
  > Hi Steve,
  >
  > I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and
  > 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old
  > numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster
  > than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the
  > benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
  >
  > High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example, in
  > the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128
  > megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to 31250
  > bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices enable
  > higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.
  >
  > 31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a
  > good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster than
  > 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
  >
  > USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be
  > generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0 to 20
  > MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 5,120
  > times faster than 31250 bps.
  >
  > So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can send
  > sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily tied
  > to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the whole
  > computer-USB system.
  >
  > You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial Bus
  > Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999, which
  > you cand download here:
  >
  > http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > No virus found in this message.
  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date: 08/21/13
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >


  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 From: jammie <jammie.emma@...>
To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 21:40
Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
 


  
actually we have proven usb midi does drop notes out of time using an oscilloscope 

and expersleepers software and usb timing is not rock solid as midi from the st

or expert sleepers audio to midi which is just great 

http://www.expert-sleepers.co.uk/index_files/the-horrors-of-usb-midi-timing.php

heres a video showing you 

defy away but thats just one example of many 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Loscha 
To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer

You assert that MIDI over USB is sloppy.

This is the same as a schoolgirl saying toads gice you warts!!!

If you look at a MIDI USB over an oscilloscope, as I have, you'll see
it is just fine. I do not have any pictures to document this, sadly --
and my scope is not currently set up.

I defy you to produce factual evidence to the contrary, however!

MiDI is not ideal for tight timing.
If you look at, say, laying a 4 down kick drum on a track, unless that
tempo you are using is an integer divisor of 31250, it's going to flop
around and not be in time.
Period.

On 8/22/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
> you could fit a lan midi port on the cz this is attached to the pre opto
> isolaters of the uart
>
> then you can use midi over lan
>
> but the midi protocol is still 31.25kb period thats the standard set
>
> but the problem lies with the usb and windows changing it from win98
>
> and since then midi timing has been sloppy
>
> now a parallel interface is much better and timing is much better
>
> so a opcode x64 which i still use and has xp 32 and 64bit drivers
>
> and i have never had any problems with sysex
>
> but i still use sound diver and changeit which is a great sysex sender and
> has a section for slowing down packets
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lee Borrell
> To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>
>
>
> I think if you talking about USB to USB transfer - or Firewire then you
> may have a point ,but as soon as any interface hits a MIDI DIN plug it HAS
> to be 31.25 Kb - this is the MIDI standard. No commercial interface with DIN
> plugs on it is going to do better than that baud rate,or face the equipment
> not getting the signal. In the case of pre-USB vintage machines,there is no
> way to go faster than 31.25kB.
>
> ________________________________
> From: fulfil_objective <robot@...>
> To: CZsynth@...m
> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
> Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and
> 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old
> numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster
> than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the
> benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
>
> High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example, in
> the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128
> megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to 31250
> bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices enable
> higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.
>
> 31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a
> good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster than
> 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
>
> USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be
> generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0 to 20
> MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 5,120
> times faster than 31250 bps.
>
> So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can send
> sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily tied
> to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the whole
> computer-USB system.
>
> You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial Bus
> Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999, which
> you cand download here:
>
> http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date: 08/21/13
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 8/23/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
> actually we have proven usb midi does drop notes out of time using an
> oscilloscope
>
> and expersleepers software and usb timing is not rock solid as midi from the
> st
>
> or expert sleepers audio to midi which is just great
>
> http://www.expert-sleepers.co.uk/index_files/the-horrors-of-usb-midi-timing.php
>
> heres a video showing you
>
> defy away but thats just one example of many
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Loscha
>   To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:37 PM
>   Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>
>
>
>   You assert that MIDI over USB is sloppy.
>
>   This is the same as a schoolgirl saying toads gice you warts!!!
>
>   If you look at a MIDI USB over an oscilloscope, as I have, you'll see
>   it is just fine. I do not have any pictures to document this, sadly --
>   and my scope is not currently set up.
>
>   I defy you to produce factual evidence to the contrary, however!
>
>   MiDI is not ideal for tight timing.
>   If you look at, say, laying a 4 down kick drum on a track, unless that
>   tempo you are using is an integer divisor of 31250, it's going to flop
>   around and not be in time.
>   Period.
>
>   On 8/22/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
>   > you could fit a lan midi port on the cz this is attached to the pre
> opto
>   > isolaters of the uart
>   >
>   > then you can use midi over lan
>   >
>   > but the midi protocol is still 31.25kb period thats the standard set
>   >
>   > but the problem lies with the usb and windows changing it from win98
>   >
>   > and since then midi timing has been sloppy
>   >
>   > now a parallel interface is much better and timing is much better
>   >
>   > so a opcode x64 which i still use and has xp 32 and 64bit drivers
>   >
>   > and i have never had any problems with sysex
>   >
>   > but i still use sound diver and changeit which is a great sysex sender
> and
>   > has a section for slowing down packets
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Lee Borrell
>   > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM
>   > Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > I think if you talking about USB to USB transfer - or Firewire then you
>   > may have a point ,but as soon as any interface hits a MIDI DIN plug it
> HAS
>   > to be 31.25 Kb - this is the MIDI standard. No commercial interface with
> DIN
>   > plugs on it is going to do better than that baud rate,or face the
> equipment
>   > not getting the signal. In the case of pre-USB vintage machines,there is
> no
>   > way to go faster than 31.25kB.
>   >
>   > ________________________________
>   > From: fulfil_objective <robot@...>
>   > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
>   > Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Hi Steve,
>   >
>   > I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and
>   > 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these
> old
>   > numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times
> faster
>   > than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of
> the
>   > benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
>   >
>   > High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example,
> in
>   > the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128
>   > megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to
> 31250
>   > bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices
> enable
>   > higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.
>   >
>   > 31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a
>   > good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster
> than
>   > 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
>   >
>   > USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be
>   > generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0
> to 20
>   > MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 5,120
>   > times faster than 31250 bps.
>   >
>   > So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can
> send
>   > sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily
> tied
>   > to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the whole
>   > computer-USB system.
>   >
>   > You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial
> Bus
>   > Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999,
> which
>   > you cand download here:
>   >
>   > http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > No virus found in this message.
>   > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date:
> 08/21/13
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   >
>
>
>
>   No virus found in this message.
>   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lee Borrell 
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer


    
  I am not quite clear on the mis-timing issue.

  MIDI is asynchronous - each item has it's own master clock used to transfer the bits across the communicating line at 31.25 Kb - the timing of the MIDI clock is different than the clock used to clock the signals across the line,which is usually derived from a 1-4Mhz master clock.

  The synchronization of any timing MIDI signal is thence due to the arrival of the timing message comprising the 8 bits of the System clock messages.
   The MIDI system is capable of sending 31250 bits per second and the timing message is 8 bits - even if it was an entire midi message of 3x8bits (24 bits) this is still some 1300 messages during that time. Normal tempos of 120 or so BPM are hardly going to drift significantly are they?

  I am open to "Bullshit calls" as I am just querying just how much any timing is likely to be out using 31.25 Kb?

  ________________________________
  From: jammie <jammie.emma@...>
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 21:40
  Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer


    
  actually we have proven usb midi does drop notes out of time using an oscilloscope 

  and expersleepers software and usb timing is not rock solid as midi from the st

  or expert sleepers audio to midi which is just great 

  http://www.expert-sleepers.co.uk/index_files/the-horrors-of-usb-midi-timing.php

  heres a video showing you 

  defy away but thats just one example of many 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Loscha 
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer

  You assert that MIDI over USB is sloppy.

  This is the same as a schoolgirl saying toads gice you warts!!!

  If you look at a MIDI USB over an oscilloscope, as I have, you'll see
  it is just fine. I do not have any pictures to document this, sadly --
  and my scope is not currently set up.

  I defy you to produce factual evidence to the contrary, however!

  MiDI is not ideal for tight timing.
  If you look at, say, laying a 4 down kick drum on a track, unless that
  tempo you are using is an integer divisor of 31250, it's going to flop
  around and not be in time.
  Period.

  On 8/22/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
  > you could fit a lan midi port on the cz this is attached to the pre opto
  > isolaters of the uart
  >
  > then you can use midi over lan
  >
  > but the midi protocol is still 31.25kb period thats the standard set
  >
  > but the problem lies with the usb and windows changing it from win98
  >
  > and since then midi timing has been sloppy
  >
  > now a parallel interface is much better and timing is much better
  >
  > so a opcode x64 which i still use and has xp 32 and 64bit drivers
  >
  > and i have never had any problems with sysex
  >
  > but i still use sound diver and changeit which is a great sysex sender and
  > has a section for slowing down packets
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: Lee Borrell
  > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM
  > Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  >
  >
  >
  > I think if you talking about USB to USB transfer - or Firewire then you
  > may have a point ,but as soon as any interface hits a MIDI DIN plug it HAS
  > to be 31.25 Kb - this is the MIDI standard. No commercial interface with DIN
  > plugs on it is going to do better than that baud rate,or face the equipment
  > not getting the signal. In the case of pre-USB vintage machines,there is no
  > way to go faster than 31.25kB.
  >
  > ________________________________
  > From: fulfil_objective <robot@...>
  > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
  > Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  >
  >
  >
  > Hi Steve,
  >
  > I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and
  > 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these old
  > numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times faster
  > than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of the
  > benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
  >
  > High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example, in
  > the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128
  > megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to 31250
  > bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices enable
  > higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.
  >
  > 31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a
  > good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster than
  > 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
  >
  > USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be
  > generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0 to 20
  > MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 5,120
  > times faster than 31250 bps.
  >
  > So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can send
  > sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily tied
  > to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the whole
  > computer-USB system.
  >
  > You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial Bus
  > Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999, which
  > you cand download here:
  >
  > http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > No virus found in this message.
  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date: 08/21/13
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 8/23/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
> its the usb thats the problem not the midi
>
> usb to midi interfaces are the ones that mess up midi timing
>
> my hardware sequencers mpc60 and the quasimidi cyber6 dont suffer like
> certain usb to midi devices
>
> and its also proven that not all usb to midi devices are equal as proven by
> some not sending sysex properly
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Lee Borrell
>   To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:58 PM
>   Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>
>
>
>   I am not quite clear on the mis-timing issue.
>
>   MIDI is asynchronous - each item has it's own master clock used to
> transfer the bits across the communicating line at 31.25 Kb - the timing of
> the MIDI clock is different than the clock used to clock the signals across
> the line,which is usually derived from a 1-4Mhz master clock.
>
>   The synchronization of any timing MIDI signal is thence due to the arrival
> of the timing message comprising the 8 bits of the System clock messages.
>    The MIDI system is capable of sending 31250 bits per second and the
> timing message is 8 bits - even if it was an entire midi message of 3x8bits
> (24 bits) this is still some 1300 messages during that time. Normal tempos
> of 120 or so BPM are hardly going to drift significantly are they?
>
>   I am open to "Bullshit calls" as I am just querying just how much any
> timing is likely to be out using 31.25 Kb?
>
>   ________________________________
>   From: jammie <jammie.emma@...>
>   To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 21:40
>   Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>
>
>
>   actually we have proven usb midi does drop notes out of time using an
> oscilloscope
>
>   and expersleepers software and usb timing is not rock solid as midi from
> the st
>
>   or expert sleepers audio to midi which is just great
>
>
> http://www.expert-sleepers.co.uk/index_files/the-horrors-of-usb-midi-timing.php
>
>   heres a video showing you
>
>   defy away but thats just one example of many
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Loscha
>   To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:37 PM
>   Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>
>   You assert that MIDI over USB is sloppy.
>
>   This is the same as a schoolgirl saying toads gice you warts!!!
>
>   If you look at a MIDI USB over an oscilloscope, as I have, you'll see
>   it is just fine. I do not have any pictures to document this, sadly --
>   and my scope is not currently set up.
>
>   I defy you to produce factual evidence to the contrary, however!
>
>   MiDI is not ideal for tight timing.
>   If you look at, say, laying a 4 down kick drum on a track, unless that
>   tempo you are using is an integer divisor of 31250, it's going to flop
>   around and not be in time.
>   Period.
>
>   On 8/22/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
>   > you could fit a lan midi port on the cz this is attached to the pre
> opto
>   > isolaters of the uart
>   >
>   > then you can use midi over lan
>   >
>   > but the midi protocol is still 31.25kb period thats the standard set
>   >
>   > but the problem lies with the usb and windows changing it from win98
>   >
>   > and since then midi timing has been sloppy
>   >
>   > now a parallel interface is much better and timing is much better
>   >
>   > so a opcode x64 which i still use and has xp 32 and 64bit drivers
>   >
>   > and i have never had any problems with sysex
>   >
>   > but i still use sound diver and changeit which is a great sysex sender
> and
>   > has a section for slowing down packets
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Lee Borrell
>   > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM
>   > Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > I think if you talking about USB to USB transfer - or Firewire then you
>   > may have a point ,but as soon as any interface hits a MIDI DIN plug it
> HAS
>   > to be 31.25 Kb - this is the MIDI standard. No commercial interface with
> DIN
>   > plugs on it is going to do better than that baud rate,or face the
> equipment
>   > not getting the signal. In the case of pre-USB vintage machines,there is
> no
>   > way to go faster than 31.25kB.
>   >
>   > ________________________________
>   > From: fulfil_objective <robot@...>
>   > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
>   > Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Hi Steve,
>   >
>   > I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and
>   > 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these
> old
>   > numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times
> faster
>   > than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of
> the
>   > benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
>   >
>   > High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example,
> in
>   > the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128
>   > megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to
> 31250
>   > bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices
> enable
>   > higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.
>   >
>   > 31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a
>   > good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster
> than
>   > 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
>   >
>   > USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be
>   > generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0
> to 20
>   > MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 5,120
>   > times faster than 31250 bps.
>   >
>   > So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can
> send
>   > sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily
> tied
>   > to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the whole
>   > computer-USB system.
>   >
>   > You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial
> Bus
>   > Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999,
> which
>   > you cand download here:
>   >
>   > http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > No virus found in this message.
>   > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date:
> 08/21/13
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   >
>
>   No virus found in this message.
>   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13
>
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>   No virus found in this message.
>   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Loscha 
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer


    
  If you make a video of audio on on trace of your scope, and MIDI on
  the other for any device, ANY device, you will get the exact same
  video.

  Shift the tempo around in it's smallest increment (most things 1 BPM,
  I've got a Dr-202 which happily changes at 1/10th a BPM) and the
  difference in timing, amount of note leading/lagging slightly will
  change.

  The drum machine triggers notes to it's own internal CPU update. Could
  be something like 1Mhz or at least several hundred Kb.

  Many MIDI devices I've got have trouble keeping time if you change
  settings around, but - hey, I've got a Quasimidi Raveolution, the
  notoriously worst thing in the world for disappearing beats when using
  some menufunctions.

  On 8/23/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
  > its the usb thats the problem not the midi
  >
  > usb to midi interfaces are the ones that mess up midi timing
  >
  > my hardware sequencers mpc60 and the quasimidi cyber6 dont suffer like
  > certain usb to midi devices
  >
  > and its also proven that not all usb to midi devices are equal as proven by
  > some not sending sysex properly
  >
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: Lee Borrell
  > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:58 PM
  > Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  >
  >
  >
  > I am not quite clear on the mis-timing issue.
  >
  > MIDI is asynchronous - each item has it's own master clock used to
  > transfer the bits across the communicating line at 31.25 Kb - the timing of
  > the MIDI clock is different than the clock used to clock the signals across
  > the line,which is usually derived from a 1-4Mhz master clock.
  >
  > The synchronization of any timing MIDI signal is thence due to the arrival
  > of the timing message comprising the 8 bits of the System clock messages.
  > The MIDI system is capable of sending 31250 bits per second and the
  > timing message is 8 bits - even if it was an entire midi message of 3x8bits
  > (24 bits) this is still some 1300 messages during that time. Normal tempos
  > of 120 or so BPM are hardly going to drift significantly are they?
  >
  > I am open to "Bullshit calls" as I am just querying just how much any
  > timing is likely to be out using 31.25 Kb?
  >
  > ________________________________
  > From: jammie <jammie.emma@...>
  > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 21:40
  > Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  >
  >
  >
  > actually we have proven usb midi does drop notes out of time using an
  > oscilloscope
  >
  > and expersleepers software and usb timing is not rock solid as midi from
  > the st
  >
  > or expert sleepers audio to midi which is just great
  >
  >
  > http://www.expert-sleepers.co.uk/index_files/the-horrors-of-usb-midi-timing.php
  >
  > heres a video showing you
  >
  > defy away but thats just one example of many
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: Loscha
  > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:37 PM
  > Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  >
  > You assert that MIDI over USB is sloppy.
  >
  > This is the same as a schoolgirl saying toads gice you warts!!!
  >
  > If you look at a MIDI USB over an oscilloscope, as I have, you'll see
  > it is just fine. I do not have any pictures to document this, sadly --
  > and my scope is not currently set up.
  >
  > I defy you to produce factual evidence to the contrary, however!
  >
  > MiDI is not ideal for tight timing.
  > If you look at, say, laying a 4 down kick drum on a track, unless that
  > tempo you are using is an integer divisor of 31250, it's going to flop
  > around and not be in time.
  > Period.
  >
  > On 8/22/13, jammie <jammie.emma@...> wrote:
  > > you could fit a lan midi port on the cz this is attached to the pre
  > opto
  > > isolaters of the uart
  > >
  > > then you can use midi over lan
  > >
  > > but the midi protocol is still 31.25kb period thats the standard set
  > >
  > > but the problem lies with the usb and windows changing it from win98
  > >
  > > and since then midi timing has been sloppy
  > >
  > > now a parallel interface is much better and timing is much better
  > >
  > > so a opcode x64 which i still use and has xp 32 and 64bit drivers
  > >
  > > and i have never had any problems with sysex
  > >
  > > but i still use sound diver and changeit which is a great sysex sender
  > and
  > > has a section for slowing down packets
  > > ----- Original Message -----
  > > From: Lee Borrell
  > > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
  > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM
  > > Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > I think if you talking about USB to USB transfer - or Firewire then you
  > > may have a point ,but as soon as any interface hits a MIDI DIN plug it
  > HAS
  > > to be 31.25 Kb - this is the MIDI standard. No commercial interface with
  > DIN
  > > plugs on it is going to do better than that baud rate,or face the
  > equipment
  > > not getting the signal. In the case of pre-USB vintage machines,there is
  > no
  > > way to go faster than 31.25kB.
  > >
  > > ________________________________
  > > From: fulfil_objective <robot@...>
  > > To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
  > > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
  > > Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > Hi Steve,
  > >
  > > I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and
  > > 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these
  > old
  > > numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times
  > faster
  > > than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of
  > the
  > > benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
  > >
  > > High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example,
  > in
  > > the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128
  > > megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to
  > 31250
  > > bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices
  > enable
  > > higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.
  > >
  > > 31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a
  > > good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster
  > than
  > > 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
  > >
  > > USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be
  > > generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0
  > to 20
  > > MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 5,120
  > > times faster than 31250 bps.
  > >
  > > So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can
  > send
  > > sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily
  > tied
  > > to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the whole
  > > computer-USB system.
  > >
  > > You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial
  > Bus
  > > Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999,
  > which
  > > you cand download here:
  > >
  > > http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
  > >
  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > No virus found in this message.
  > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  > > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date:
  > 08/21/13
  > >
  > >
  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > >
  > >
  >
  > No virus found in this message.
  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > No virus found in this message.
  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >


  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> actually we have proven usb midi does drop notes out of time using an oscilloscope 
> 
> and expersleepers software and usb timing is not rock solid as midi from the st
> 
> or expert sleepers audio to midi which is just great 
> 
>  http://www.expert-sleepers.co.uk/index_files/the-horrors-of-usb-midi-timing.php
> 
> heres a video showing you 
> 
> defy away but thats just one example of many 
>

From: "Francis Cote" <francis.cote@...>
To: <CZsynth@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer


> If the machine has an issue with sysex speed, it's related to the number 
> of
> MIDI messages it can process in a certain amount of time.
> If the synth can't process more than, say, 5 messages per second (not real
> number, I don't know the real one it's just an example) and you throw 100,
> it obviously choke on it.
> If the synth makers implemented some kind of buffer able to take all the
> data coming from the MIDI port, then the synth's CPU will have all the 
> time
> it wants to process at the speed it can process and it won't choke.
>
> A chain is always going at the speed of the slowest node, that's it.
> Software that gives you the option of slowing down packets are just adding
> some delay between each packets.
>
> Francis
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:22 AM, jammie 
> <jammie.emma@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> you could fit a lan midi port on the cz this is attached to the pre opto
>> isolaters of the uart
>>
>> then you can use midi over lan
>>
>> but the midi protocol is still 31.25kb period thats the standard set
>>
>> but the problem lies with the usb and windows changing it from win98
>>
>> and since then midi timing has been sloppy
>>
>> now a parallel interface is much better and timing is much better
>>
>> so a opcode x64 which i still use and has xp 32 and 64bit drivers
>>
>> and i have never had any problems with sysex
>>
>> but i still use sound diver and changeit which is a great sysex sender 
>> and
>> has a section for slowing down packets
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Lee Borrell
>> To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>>
>> I think if you talking about USB to USB transfer - or Firewire then you
>> may have a point ,but as soon as any interface hits a MIDI DIN plug it 
>> HAS
>> to be 31.25 Kb - this is the MIDI standard. No commercial interface with
>> DIN plugs on it is going to do better than that baud rate,or face the
>> equipment not getting the signal. In the case of pre-USB vintage
>> machines,there is no way to go faster than 31.25kB.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fulfil_objective <robot@...>
>> To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2013, 7:21
>> Subject: [CZsynth] Speed of sysex transfer
>>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I think you are too focused on these vintage numbers like 31250 bps and
>> 115200 bps. Transferring sysex by USB and MIDI are not limited to these 
>> old
>> numbers. USB enables speeds that are hundreds or thousands of times 
>> faster
>> than these numbers. In fact, greatly higher speeds are touted as one of 
>> the
>> benefits of a USB MIDI device (along with multiple streams).
>>
>> High speed sysex transfer is both desired and encouraged, for example, in
>> the case of sending sound data to a sampler. If you wanted to send 128
>> megabytes of sounds to your sampler, and if you were restricted to 31250
>> bps, it would take 9.5 hours to send the sounds. USB MIDI devices enable
>> higher speeds, and that speed is encouraged.
>>
>> 31250 bps is the speed of an old dialup modem (actual throughput) on a
>> good day. If you tested at 115200 bps, that is merely 3.7 times faster 
>> than
>> 31250 bps. Still very slow by today's standards.
>>
>> USB 2.0 has a max throughput of something like 35 MB/s. But lets be
>> generous and say that in the real world, you can only get your USB 2.0 to
>> 20 MB/s. That speed, 20 MB/s, works out to 160,000,000 bps, which is 
>> 5,120
>> times faster than 31250 bps.
>>
>> So yes, I think a capable modern computer with a good USB system can send
>> sysex out faster than the CZ can deal with it. And it's not necessarily
>> tied to CPU speed of the computer either, more like the speed of the 
>> whole
>> computer-USB system.
>>
>> You will probably find it enlightening to read the "Universal Serial Bus
>> Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices", Release 1.0, Nov 1, 1999, 
>> which
>> you cand download here:
>>
>> http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6597 - Release Date: 08/21/13
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>

> MiDI is not ideal for tight timing.
> If you look at, say, laying a 4 down kick drum on a track, unless that
> tempo you are using is an integer divisor of 31250, it's going to flop
> around and not be in time.
> Period.
>

On 23 Aug, 2013, at 9:46 AM, steve_the_composer wrote:

> As people have pointed out, this group has been extremely active  
> over the last day or two.  I did not see any replies about your  
> "integer divisor" statement; so if someone replied already, please  
> accept my apology (but only if I am repeating what someone else has  
> said).
>
> In the thread so far people have talked about primarily two types of  
> timing--(1) rate of serial port data transfer and (2) tempo.
>
> Sort of related to tempo, there's something I call resolution.  
> Sequencers (and the midi files they create) sometimes refer to ppq-- 
> pulses per quarter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulses_Per_Quarter).
>
> I suspect that the precision with which someone lays down a track so  
> it is 100% on the beat (or any other precise place) is more a matter  
> of the resolution of the sequencer than the divisibility of the  
> tempo into the rate of serial data transmission.
>
> I could be wrong (and if so, my guess is that someone will let me  
> know).
>
> Steve

>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:37:00PM +1000, Loscha wrote:
> > MiDI is not ideal for tight timing.
> > If you look at, say, laying a 4 down kick drum on a track, unless that
> > tempo you are using is an integer divisor of 31250, it's going to flop
> > around and not be in time.
> > Period.
> 
> That's not quite true.  For 31250 to be correct you'd need to be able to time the notes right down to individual bits, and you can't.  For a full 3-byte Note On message, you need three bytes - 24 bits, plus six start and stop bits, plus  whatever gap between bytes the transmitter inserts - so you've got roughly 1ms per message.
> 
> Now 1ms is pretty quick but in busy passages where you throw a lot of Note On messages at once you could easily end up with an appreciable gap between the first and last note on the beat.  At worst if you fired a Note On message as a full three-byte status on all 16 channels you'd end up with around 15ms of latency between the first and last note fired, which (and you can confirm this with a simple delay effect set for 50/50 wet/dry and no feedback) is enough to cause an appreciable flam.  If you bang out a lot of notes on one channel, like a complex drum part, then the problem only gets worse.
> 
> It's *still* not that bad though, unless you're doing ridiculously busy semi-semi-quaver passages at 160bpm with masses of notes on every channel.  If you're up in that territory you want to look at having multiple interfaces.  For the rest of us, with our four-part multi and monotimbral JX8Ps with slow-ass envelopes, it won't bother us in the least.
> 
> -- 
> Gordonjcp MM0YEQ
>

>
> Excellent explanation covering both theory and practical reality.
> Steve
> 
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, Gordon JC Pearce <gordon@> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:37:00PM +1000, Loscha wrote:
> > > MiDI is not ideal for tight timing.
> > > If you look at, say, laying a 4 down kick drum on a track, unless that
> > > tempo you are using is an integer divisor of 31250, it's going to flop
> > > around and not be in time.
> > > Period.
> > 
> > That's not quite true.  For 31250 to be correct you'd need to be able to time the notes right down to individual bits, and you can't.  For a full 3-byte Note On message, you need three bytes - 24 bits, plus six start and stop bits, plus  whatever gap between bytes the transmitter inserts - so you've got roughly 1ms per message.
> > 
> > Now 1ms is pretty quick but in busy passages where you throw a lot of Note On messages at once you could easily end up with an appreciable gap between the first and last note on the beat.  At worst if you fired a Note On message as a full three-byte status on all 16 channels you'd end up with around 15ms of latency between the first and last note fired, which (and you can confirm this with a simple delay effect set for 50/50 wet/dry and no feedback) is enough to cause an appreciable flam.  If you bang out a lot of notes on one channel, like a complex drum part, then the problem only gets worse.
> > 
> > It's *still* not that bad though, unless you're doing ridiculously busy semi-semi-quaver passages at 160bpm with masses of notes on every channel.  If you're up in that territory you want to look at having multiple interfaces.  For the rest of us, with our four-part multi and monotimbral JX8Ps with slow-ass envelopes, it won't bother us in the least.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Gordonjcp MM0YEQ
> >
>

>
> remember people 'printing to tape' with ADAT to run off 
> their compositions and tighten everything up? :)
>