MOTM

In a message dated 8/10/00 9:53:06 PM, elhardt@... writes:

<<  I still have a possible future interest in the Kurzweil, so can anybody 
confirm that it can actually pitch bend without glissando? >>

Yes, I bought a Kurzweil Expressionmate, then sold it a month later.  Here's 
the facts about MIDI, folks (and why I don't use it to control analog 
synths):  MIDI only outputs NOTE information, not continuous pitch 
information.  The Kurzweil Expressionmate can output not information as you 
slide your finger along the ribbon, but it comes out as a glissando.  That 
is, individual "key" notes are played.  Yes, you can program it for different 
scales, and you can even use part of the ribbon to play notes and another 
part of it for pitch bend.  But any MIDI controller like this, including the 
Tactex, will still only play notes, not a everything in between the notes.  
This is the reason that the Big Briar MIDI theremin and the Rosedene theremin 
MIDI converter (http://www.fullerton.demon.co.uk/midicv.htm) are so expensive.
  They are using MIDI note, pitch bend, and portamento to SIMULATE a real 
continuous controller.  To quote the Rosedene info, "The pitch bend 
controller (1-48 semitones definable) is used in conjunction with RPN (54H) 
portamento control to follow the pitch of the Theremin."

This is why, in my not so humble opinion, I think that MIDI sucks.  It really 
pisses me off that I can't play continuous pitches on my SidStation, for 
example.  I'm contemplating buying a Rosedene unit, but it is a lot of money 
for a specialized piece of equipment (I believe around $600+).    It is also 
why I don't think that MIDI has much of a place with analog synths.  A whole 
facet to the beauty of analog synths is that they are continuously variable 
instruments.  I do use MIDI for its sequencing capabilities but I look 
forward to having a MIDI-syncable analog sequencer (DoMOAS/MOAS).

Ok, I would guess that I've irritated enough people for one night... back to 
your regularly scheduled programming.

Ivan

>In a message dated 8/10/00 9:53:06 PM, elhardt@... writes:
>
><<  I still have a possible future interest in the Kurzweil, so can anybody
>confirm that it can actually pitch bend without glissando? >>
>
>Yes, I bought a Kurzweil Expressionmate, then sold it a month later.  Here's
>the facts about MIDI, folks (and why I don't use it to control analog
>synths):  MIDI only outputs NOTE information, not continuous pitch
>information.  The Kurzweil Expressionmate can output not information as you
>slide your finger along the ribbon, but it comes out as a glissando.  That
>is, individual "key" notes are played.  Yes, you can program it for different
>scales, and you can even use part of the ribbon to play notes and another
>part of it for pitch bend.  But any MIDI controller like this, including the
>Tactex, will still only play notes, not a everything in between the notes.
>This is the reason that the Big Briar MIDI theremin and the Rosedene theremin
>MIDI converter (http://www.fullerton.demon.co.uk/midicv.htm) are so expensive.
>  They are using MIDI note, pitch bend, and portamento to SIMULATE a real
>continuous controller.  To quote the Rosedene info, "The pitch bend
>controller (1-48 semitones definable) is used in conjunction with RPN (54H)
>portamento control to follow the pitch of the Theremin."
>
Thanks for the info, I've been looking for a more subjective opinion on the
Expression Mate. All the reviews I've read have raved, but didn't really
answer the questions I had about the unit. Of course, there isn't one to
try in my area!

>This is why, in my not so humble opinion, I think that MIDI sucks.

Yeah, Absolutely! I want to keep MIDI as far away from my modular as
possible! It's fine for note-on stuff, and syncing my MAQ to Llogic is
pretty magical, but when it comes to controllers, I want smooth CV's
DAMMIT! And aren't CV's electronically easier to design?


It really
>pisses me off that I can't play continuous pitches on my SidStation, for
>example.  I'm contemplating buying a Rosedene unit, but it is a lot of money
>for a specialized piece of equipment (I believe around $600+).    It is also
>why I don't think that MIDI has much of a place with analog synths.

I have the same problem with the Nord Modular, because it depends on MIDI
for control.

  A whole
>facet to the beauty of analog synths is that they are continuously variable
>instruments.  I do use MIDI for its sequencing capabilities but I look
>forward to having a MIDI-syncable analog sequencer (DoMOAS/MOAS).
>
>Ok, I would guess that I've irritated enough people for one night... back to
>your regularly scheduled programming.

Naw, I totally agree with you, and I bet most of us here do as well!

____________________________________________
Dave Trenkel : improv@...
Minus Web Site: http://listen.to/minusmusic
Minus MP3's: http://www.mp3.com/-minus-
____________________________________________

It's true that the nature of MIDI is discreet notes, with Pitch bend
controller messages to modify the pitch within a small range.

But couldn't a MIDI ribbon controller be programmed to output it's
'position' as a continuous controller message, rather than a discreet pitch
"number"? That CC stream could then be converted to a control voltage for a
fairly smooth sweep.

No?

I admit that it's a work-around, and I wish MIDI were a bit less 'discreet,'
but couldn't this be done? The CC messages, I believe, have a much higher
resolution than the Pitch Bend, Mod Wheel, etc., controller channels.

The Kurzweil Expressionmate can output 14 bit pitch bend information, so I
don't understand why you say it only plays glissando.  Were you trying to
trigger notes from it while in pitch bend mode?  In that case I can
understand the problem, you would need to trigger notes from a MIDI keyboard
in addition to using the pitch bend controller.  Another possibility would
be to send the pitch bends to an envelope follower/gate unit and use the
gate output to trigger notes on your analog synthesizer.

The Expressionist manual is downloadable from the following ftp site:

ftp://ftp.youngchang.com/pub/Kurzweil/Pro_Products/Other_Pro_Products/Manual
s/

John Loffink
microtonal@...

----- Original Message -----
From: <ivancu@...>
To: <motm@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)


>
> In a message dated 8/10/00 9:53:06 PM, elhardt@... writes:
>
> <<  I still have a possible future interest in the Kurzweil, so can
anybody
> confirm that it can actually pitch bend without glissando? >>
>
> Yes, I bought a Kurzweil Expressionmate, then sold it a month later.
Here's
> the facts about MIDI, folks (and why I don't use it to control analog
> synths):  MIDI only outputs NOTE information, not continuous pitch
> information.  The Kurzweil Expressionmate can output not information as
you
> slide your finger along the ribbon, but it comes out as a glissando.  That
> is, individual "key" notes are played.  Yes, you can program it for
different
> scales, and you can even use part of the ribbon to play notes and another
> part of it for pitch bend.  But any MIDI controller like this, including
the
> Tactex, will still only play notes, not a everything in between the notes.
> This is the reason that the Big Briar MIDI theremin and the Rosedene
theremin
> MIDI converter (http://www.fullerton.demon.co.uk/midicv.htm) are so
expensive.
>   They are using MIDI note, pitch bend, and portamento to SIMULATE a real

> continuous controller.  To quote the Rosedene info, "The pitch bend
> controller (1-48 semitones definable) is used in conjunction with RPN
(54H)
> portamento control to follow the pitch of the Theremin."
>
> This is why, in my not so humble opinion, I think that MIDI sucks.  It
really
> pisses me off that I can't play continuous pitches on my SidStation, for
> example.  I'm contemplating buying a Rosedene unit, but it is a lot of
money
> for a specialized piece of equipment (I believe around $600+).    It is
also
> why I don't think that MIDI has much of a place with analog synths.  A
whole
> facet to the beauty of analog synths is that they are continuously
variable
> instruments.  I do use MIDI for its sequencing capabilities but I look
> forward to having a MIDI-syncable analog sequencer (DoMOAS/MOAS).
>
> Ok, I would guess that I've irritated enough people for one night... back
to

> your regularly scheduled programming.
>
> Ivan
>
> 
>
>
>
>

In a message dated 8/11/00 12:21:37 AM, improv@... writes:

<< Thanks for the info, I've been looking for a more subjective opinion on the
Expression Mate. All the reviews I've read have raved, but didn't really
answer the questions I had about the unit. >>

Same here, which is why I ended up buying a unit to answer my questions.  No 
doubt the Expressionmate is cool if you want an additional controller device 
to add to your MIDI keyboard, but it doesn't make a good controller in and of 
itself, in my opinion.

Ivan

I have to agree with John's comment.  I have a K2500 and I use the ribbon on it for
pitch bends all the time (just like the Yamaha CS-80).  Yes, it can be programmed to
send note data and with various scales but where it is really useful is sending
pitch bends and other continuous controller messages.  I'm sure you can get the same
results with the ExpressionMate and a controller keyboard.  Heck, just take the
ExpressionMate, have it output pitchbend and send that through a MIDI/CV to get you
an additional voltage into your MOTM.  If it still feels a bit like there is some
quantization error, add a small bit of lag.  The Kurzweil ribbon programmed with
relative position (zero is wherever you touch the ribbon, just like the CS-80) is
sooo much easier to use than the old Moog ribbon controllers that just put out a
voltage based on position (making it impossible to get accurate pitch bending).

I respect Ivan's opinions and concerns about MIDI but I wonder if his experience was
more one of mismatched expectations (wanting a device to send continous pitch data
instead of continuous controller data).

Eric

--- Microtonal <microtonal@...> wrote:
> The Kurzweil Expressionmate can output 14 bit pitch bend information, so I
> don't understand why you say it only plays glissando.  Were you trying to
> trigger notes from it while in pitch bend mode?  In that case I can
> understand the problem, you would need to trigger notes from a MIDI keyboard
> in addition to using the pitch bend controller.  Another possibility would
> be to send the pitch bends to an envelope follower/gate unit and use the
> gate output to trigger notes on your analog synthesizer.
> 
> The Expressionist manual is downloadable from the following ftp site:
> 
> ftp://ftp.youngchang.com/pub/Kurzweil/Pro_Products/Other_Pro_Products/Manual
> s/
> 
> John Loffink
> microtonal@...
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ivancu@...>
> To: <motm@egroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 1:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)
> 
> 
> >
> > In a message dated 8/10/00 9:53:06 PM, elhardt@... writes:
> >
> > <<  I still have a possible future interest in the Kurzweil, so can
> anybody
> > confirm that it can actually pitch bend without glissando? >>
> >
> > Yes, I bought a Kurzweil Expressionmate, then sold it a month later.
> Here's
> > the facts about MIDI, folks (and why I don't use it to control analog
> > synths):  MIDI only outputs NOTE information, not continuous pitch
> > information.  The Kurzweil Expressionmate can output not information as
> you
> > slide your finger along the ribbon, but it comes out as a glissando.  That
> > is, individual "key" notes are played.  Yes, you can program it for
> different
> > scales, and you can even use part of the ribbon to play notes and another
> > part of it for pitch bend.  But any MIDI controller like this, including
> the
> > Tactex, will still only play notes, not a everything in between the notes.
> > This is the reason that the Big Briar MIDI theremin and the Rosedene
> theremin
> > MIDI converter (http://www.fullerton.demon.co.uk/midicv.htm) are so
> expensive.
> >   They are using MIDI note, pitch bend, and portamento to SIMULATE a real
> 
> > continuous controller.  To quote the Rosedene info, "The pitch bend
> > controller (1-48 semitones definable) is used in conjunction with RPN
> (54H)
> > portamento control to follow the pitch of the Theremin."
> >
> > This is why, in my not so humble opinion, I think that MIDI sucks.  It
> really
> > pisses me off that I can't play continuous pitches on my SidStation, for
> > example.  I'm contemplating buying a Rosedene unit, but it is a lot of
> money
> > for a specialized piece of equipment (I believe around $600+).    It is
> also
> > why I don't think that MIDI has much of a place with analog synths.  A
> whole
> > facet to the beauty of analog synths is that they are continuously
> variable
> > instruments.  I do use MIDI for its sequencing capabilities but I look
> > forward to having a MIDI-syncable analog sequencer (DoMOAS/MOAS).
> >
> > Ok, I would guess that I've irritated enough people for one night... back
> to
> > your regularly scheduled programming.
> >
> > Ivan
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

In a message dated 8/11/00 8:32:28 AM, alt_mode@... writes:

<< I respect Ivan's opinions and concerns about MIDI but I wonder if his 
experience was
more one of mismatched expectations (wanting a device to send continous pitch 
data
instead of continuous controller data). >>

No doubt about it; I want a controller to use on its own, not something to 
use with a keyboard.

Ivan

Analog control woes notwithstanding, the main reason I view MIDI with
some considerable criticism is that for a networking protocol, it *blows*.
I never will understand why they didn't go with some Manchester scheme to
provide collision and drop error handling.  It is not that difficult to
implement: the Apple Desktop Bus used on Macs to this day (and nearly as
old as MIDI) achieve it.

  These days, (starting in 1990 or so) plenty of sources of cheap MII
transcevier chips to fashion ethernet connections exist: it would cost
next to nothing to cram one in a keyboard and use a *real* network
protocol like TCP/IP to run the show.  You don't even have to abandon the
MIDI message structure--just encapsulate it in the IP packets.

  I hope that one day a true network physical layer like ethernet makes it
into new instruments.  And for the millions of old instruments--an
ethernet to MIDI-hardware adapter (which are cheap and easy to make, look
at the dinky little thing from www.picoweb.net!) is no problem.


  --Crow, dreaming of the day they put real LAN hardware into the gear

/**/

>It's true that the nature of MIDI is discreet notes, with Pitch bend
>controller messages to modify the pitch within a small range.
>
>But couldn't a MIDI ribbon controller be programmed to output it's
>'position' as a continuous controller message, rather than a discreet pitch
>"number"? That CC stream could then be converted to a control voltage for a
>fairly smooth sweep.
>
>No?

Yeah, this can be done, but it seems like quite a kludge, to be basically
converting a CV signal to MIDI, then back again.
>
>I admit that it's a work-around, and I wish MIDI were a bit less 'discreet,'
>but couldn't this be done? The CC messages, I believe, have a much higher
>resolution than the Pitch Bend, Mod Wheel, etc., controller channels.
>
Actually, standard CC Messages only have values from 0-127, which means
pretty discrete stepping when sweeping across wide ranges of pitch, for
example. Pitch bend is, I believe, 12 bits, and there are some double
precision CC's that use 2 bytes for values, but programming them is a pain
in the butt, as I recall from my MAX hacking days.

____________________________________________
Dave Trenkel : improv@...
Minus Web Site: http://listen.to/minusmusic
Minus MP3's: http://www.mp3.com/-minus-
____________________________________________

>Yeah, this can be done, but it seems like quite a kludge, to be
basically converting a CV signal to MIDI, then back again.

OK, I haven't seen this Kurzweil thingy, but if you feeling brave you
could always hack the thing to get at the analogue signal inside the
unit. This is what I have done inside my D-50's aftertouch sensor, its a
simple 0-5V CV that can be patched straight into the modular. No need to
go to the MIDI middle man. Et viola no quantised stepping. But, all of
which could have avoided if Roland and others had adopted the full
16-bits allocated for aftertouch in the first place.

Regards,

Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, England

Modular synth circuits, TB303 clone and Filter Rack
www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/projects.htm
My music: www.mp3.com/taklamakan

>>>This is what I've been wondering all along. I know there's an anlog
signal coming from the ribbon. I'm just hesitant to spend ~$550 for the
whole expressionmate just for this kind of experiment. I wonder who makes
the ribbon, and if it's available seperately?


What was used on the old PAIA Gnome? It looked like some sort of stretchy
plastic. It was cut into a strange sawtooth shape, but that may have been to
produce a log CV in order to drive the linear-response VCO? Just a guess.

Still, had to be some kind of cheap material.

>>Yeah, this can be done, but it seems like quite a kludge, to be
>basically converting a CV signal to MIDI, then back again.
>
>OK, I haven't seen this Kurzweil thingy, but if you feeling brave you
>could always hack the thing to get at the analogue signal inside the
>unit. This is what I have done inside my D-50's aftertouch sensor, its a
>simple 0-5V CV that can be patched straight into the modular. No need to
>go to the MIDI middle man. Et viola no quantised stepping. But, all of
>which could have avoided if Roland and others had adopted the full
>16-bits allocated for aftertouch in the first place.
>
This is what I've been wondering all along. I know there's an anlog signal
coming from the ribbon. I'm just hesitant to spend ~$550 for the whole
expressionmate just for this kind of experiment. I wonder who makes the
ribbon, and if it's available seperately?

____________________________________________
Dave Trenkel : improv@...
Minus Web Site: http://listen.to/minusmusic
Minus MP3's: http://www.mp3.com/-minus-
____________________________________________

----- Original Message -----

From: <improv@...>
> This is what I've been wondering all along. I know there's an anlog signal
> coming from the ribbon. I'm just hesitant to spend ~$550 for the whole
> expressionmate just for this kind of experiment. I wonder who makes the
> ribbon, and if it's available seperately?

hello all,

dave, you've almost hit the nail on the head...
surely there'll be some spare yamaha CS80 ribbons around somewhere, and some
schematics to boot..?
(the rush for CS80 spares starts here)

cheers
paul b

In a message dated 8/11/00 11:33:14 AM, improv@... writes:

<< I wonder who makes the ribbon, and if it's available seperately? >>

I wasn't that impressed with the ribbon itself; any Kurzweil owners out there 
that can comment on the long-term reliability of the ribbon?

Ivan

Kurzweils new PC2 and PC2X keyboard controller is advertised as having
the
input conversion electronics for the 600 mm ribbon controller built in.
All
you have to do is buy the ribbon itself.  I called Sweetwater a little
while
and my sales guy is checking it out for me.

Dave

improv@... wrote:

> >>Yeah, this can be done, but it seems like quite a kludge, to be
> >basically converting a CV signal to MIDI, then back again.
> >
> >OK, I haven't seen this Kurzweil thingy, but if you feeling brave you

> >could always hack the thing to get at the analogue signal inside the
> >unit. This is what I have done inside my D-50's aftertouch sensor,
its a
> >simple 0-5V CV that can be patched straight into the modular. No need
to
> >go to the MIDI middle man. Et viola no quantised stepping. But, all
of
> >which could have avoided if Roland and others had adopted the full
> >16-bits allocated for aftertouch in the first place.
> >
> This is what I've been wondering all along. I know there's an anlog
signal
> coming from the ribbon. I'm just hesitant to spend ~$550 for the whole

> expressionmate just for this kind of experiment. I wonder who makes
the
> ribbon, and if it's available seperately?

> 
> I wasn't that impressed with the ribbon itself; any Kurzweil owners out there 
> that can comment on the long-term reliability of the ribbon?
> 
I've had mine about 5 years and have experienced no problems.  I haven't gigged with
it so it hasn't had much abuse except for the time that the computer monitor fell on
it....  It continued to work after that.  The feel of the Yamaha CS-80 ribbon is
better, based on the few times I've played one, but I think the Kurzweil seems more
durable (cloth vs. plastic, respectively).  

I think one of the cool features of the Kurzweil ribbon is that you can divide it up
into multiple segments, each with a different controller and zero point.

I'm not so crazy about the small ribbon by the wheels.  It's OK but the pressure
sensing tends to get in the way.  I need to disable it on many patches.

    Eric


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

What I don't understand is why you'd *want* to make MIDI act like TCP/IP...

TCP/IP messages are, if I understand / recall correctly, broadcast to all
machines on a network.  You send a packet with a target address, that
message gets sent to *every* other machine connected to the net, and *each*
machine must figure out whether it cares about the message.  And if there's
a collision-- throw your hands up and try again after a random delay has
passed.  And every machine on your network having a unique ID (which is
handled by the network card at present)... 

I can just see it!  You get your brand new Korglandsoniq Groteous2000, and
you want to have it control that old Memorymoof machine in the corner... but
damnit!  What what the 'moofs ID again?  {285a-829b-dc9a}?  Or was it
{82b9-285b-dc9a}?  (And you thought setup was a hassle NOW!)

MIDI is point-to-point.  No collisions.  No IDs.  If a messages reaches a
target, it was intended to get there.  You have a MIDI box to route messages
to targets.  Its MUCH easier to centrally configure.

The big problem with MIDI isn't that its not distributed like TCP/IP-- its
that its *slow*.  Damned slow.  Slow enough that it uses those crappy serial
interfaces on your computer.  A faster version of MIDI is what's called
for-- still no collisions to worry about, and you could route to more
machines than possible today.  

Besides, I don't want my toaster talking to my Waldorf Pulse.  ;)

--PBr

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	The Old Crow [SMTP:oldcrow@...]
> Sent:	Friday, August 11, 2000 9:31 AM
> To:	motm@egroups.com
> Subject:	Re: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)
> 
> 
>   Analog control woes notwithstanding, the main reason I view MIDI with
> some considerable criticism is that for a networking protocol, it *blows*.
> I never will understand why they didn't go with some Manchester scheme to
> provide collision and drop error handling.  It is not that difficult to
> implement: the Apple Desktop Bus used on Macs to this day (and nearly as
> old as MIDI) achieve it.
> 
>   These days, (starting in 1990 or so) plenty of sources of cheap MII
> transcevier chips to fashion ethernet connections exist: it would cost
> next to nothing to cram one in a keyboard and use a *real* network
> protocol like TCP/IP to run the show.  You don't even have to abandon the
> MIDI message structure--just encapsulate it in the IP packets.
> 
>   I hope that one day a true network physical layer like ethernet makes it
> into new instruments.  And for the millions of old instruments--an
> ethernet to MIDI-hardware adapter (which are cheap and easy to make, look
> at the dinky little thing from www.picoweb.net!) is no problem.
> 
> 
>   --Crow, dreaming of the day they put real LAN hardware into the gear
> 
> /**/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Paul,

You are confusing TCP/IP with Ethernet.  Ethernet is a CSMA/CD technology (Carrier
Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection).  A shared Ethernet does allow other
nodes to "hear" each other on the same wire but the backoff and retransmit
mechanisms are quite fast.  You can also solve congestion problems with an Ethernet
switch.  

The Internet Protocol (IP) doesn't care whether it is run on a shared network or a
point-to-point network.  When you dial up to your ISP, you are running a point to
point link.  If you have a cable modem you are on a shared network.  IP works the
same in either case.  The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) runs on top of IP and
provides reiliability, windowing, and "sessions" or "connections".  When you load a
web page, you are creating a TCP connection to the server over IP.  It is likely
that your TCP/IP connection runs over a variety of shared and point-to-point media
to get from your home PC to the server.  [Sorry if this is basic stuff unrelated to
synths but the Internet has gotten big enough that misinformation about how it works
spreads too freely and I kinda feel obligated to explain this stuff when it gets
twisted.]

Additionally, the configuration problems can be fairly easily solved.  You don't
need to worry about the Ethernet MAC addresses, they are resolved with the Address
Resolution Protocol (ARP) that is fairly simple.  When it comes to assigning IP
addresses to devices, that can be a bit more complicated but it can be automated
with DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol).  [You think synths had acronym
overload, just get into a room with a bunch of networking geeks and you'll get TLA'd
to death ;)]

Besides, a toaster controller for my MOTM might have some interesting creative
possibilities...when the bagel is done, the EG fires and the 700 switches the 320
LFO shape... ;^}

Eric

--- "Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" <noise@...> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why you'd *want* to make MIDI act like TCP/IP...
> 
> TCP/IP messages are, if I understand / recall correctly, broadcast to all
> machines on a network.  You send a packet with a target address, that
> message gets sent to *every* other machine connected to the net, and *each*
> machine must figure out whether it cares about the message.  And if there's
> a collision-- throw your hands up and try again after a random delay has
> passed.  And every machine on your network having a unique ID (which is
> handled by the network card at present)... 
> 
> I can just see it!  You get your brand new Korglandsoniq Groteous2000, and
> you want to have it control that old Memorymoof machine in the corner... but
> damnit!  What what the 'moofs ID again?  {285a-829b-dc9a}?  Or was it
> {82b9-285b-dc9a}?  (And you thought setup was a hassle NOW!)
> 
> MIDI is point-to-point.  No collisions.  No IDs.  If a messages reaches a
> target, it was intended to get there.  You have a MIDI box to route messages
> to targets.  Its MUCH easier to centrally configure.
> 
> The big problem with MIDI isn't that its not distributed like TCP/IP-- its
> that its *slow*.  Damned slow.  Slow enough that it uses those crappy serial
> interfaces on your computer.  A faster version of MIDI is what's called
> for-- still no collisions to worry about, and you could route to more
> machines than possible today.  
> 
> Besides, I don't want my toaster talking to my Waldorf Pulse.  ;)
> 
> --PBr
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	The Old Crow [SMTP:oldcrow@...]
> > Sent:	Friday, August 11, 2000 9:31 AM
> > To:	motm@egroups.com
> > Subject:	Re: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)
> > 
> > 
> >   Analog control woes notwithstanding, the main reason I view MIDI with
> > some considerable criticism is that for a networking protocol, it *blows*.
> > I never will understand why they didn't go with some Manchester scheme to
> > provide collision and drop error handling.  It is not that difficult to
> > implement: the Apple Desktop Bus used on Macs to this day (and nearly as
> > old as MIDI) achieve it.
> > 
> >   These days, (starting in 1990 or so) plenty of sources of cheap MII
> > transcevier chips to fashion ethernet connections exist: it would cost
> > next to nothing to cram one in a keyboard and use a *real* network
> > protocol like TCP/IP to run the show.  You don't even have to abandon the
> > MIDI message structure--just encapsulate it in the IP packets.
> > 
> >   I hope that one day a true network physical layer like ethernet makes it
> > into new instruments.  And for the millions of old instruments--an
> > ethernet to MIDI-hardware adapter (which are cheap and easy to make, look
> > at the dinky little thing from www.picoweb.net!) is no problem.
> > 
> > 
> >   --Crow, dreaming of the day they put real LAN hardware into the gear
> > 
> > /**/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

Oops.  Well, I did say "if I understand correctly..."  ;)

Nevermind... ;)

--PBr

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	alt-mode [SMTP:alt_mode@...]
> Sent:	Friday, August 11, 2000 2:37 PM
> To:	motm@egroups.com
> Subject:	RE: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)
> 
> Paul,
> 
> You are confusing TCP/IP with Ethernet.  Ethernet is a CSMA/CD technology
> (Carrier
> Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection).  A shared Ethernet does
> allow other
> nodes to "hear" each other on the same wire but the backoff and retransmit
> mechanisms are quite fast.  You can also solve congestion problems with an
> Ethernet
> switch.  
> 
> The Internet Protocol (IP) doesn't care whether it is run on a shared
> network or a
> point-to-point network.  When you dial up to your ISP, you are running a
> point to
> point link.  If you have a cable modem you are on a shared network.  IP
> works the
> same in either case.  The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) runs on top
> of IP and
> provides reiliability, windowing, and "sessions" or "connections".  When
> you load a
> web page, you are creating a TCP connection to the server over IP.  It is
> likely
> that your TCP/IP connection runs over a variety of shared and
> point-to-point media
> to get from your home PC to the server.  [Sorry if this is basic stuff
> unrelated to
> synths but the Internet has gotten big enough that misinformation about
> how it works
> spreads too freely and I kinda feel obligated to explain this stuff when
> it gets
> twisted.]
> 
> Additionally, the configuration problems can be fairly easily solved.  You
> don't
> need to worry about the Ethernet MAC addresses, they are resolved with the
> Address
> Resolution Protocol (ARP) that is fairly simple.  When it comes to
> assigning IP
> addresses to devices, that can be a bit more complicated but it can be
> automated
> with DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol).  [You think synths had
> acronym
> overload, just get into a room with a bunch of networking geeks and you'll
> get TLA'd
> to death ;)]
> 
> Besides, a toaster controller for my MOTM might have some interesting
> creative
> possibilities...when the bagel is done, the EG fires and the 700 switches
> the 320
> LFO shape... ;^}
> 
> Eric
> 
> --- "Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" <noise@...> wrote:
> > What I don't understand is why you'd *want* to make MIDI act like
> TCP/IP...
> > 
> > TCP/IP messages are, if I understand / recall correctly, broadcast to
> all
> > machines on a network.  You send a packet with a target address, that
> > message gets sent to *every* other machine connected to the net, and
> *each*
> > machine must figure out whether it cares about the message.  And if
> there's
> > a collision-- throw your hands up and try again after a random delay has
> > passed.  And every machine on your network having a unique ID (which is
> > handled by the network card at present)... 
> > 
> > I can just see it!  You get your brand new Korglandsoniq Groteous2000,
> and
> > you want to have it control that old Memorymoof machine in the corner...
> but
> > damnit!  What what the 'moofs ID again?  {285a-829b-dc9a}?  Or was it
> > {82b9-285b-dc9a}?  (And you thought setup was a hassle NOW!)
> > 
> > MIDI is point-to-point.  No collisions.  No IDs.  If a messages reaches
> a
> > target, it was intended to get there.  You have a MIDI box to route
> messages
> > to targets.  Its MUCH easier to centrally configure.
> > 
> > The big problem with MIDI isn't that its not distributed like TCP/IP--
> its
> > that its *slow*.  Damned slow.  Slow enough that it uses those crappy
> serial
> > interfaces on your computer.  A faster version of MIDI is what's called
> > for-- still no collisions to worry about, and you could route to more
> > machines than possible today.  
> > 
> > Besides, I don't want my toaster talking to my Waldorf Pulse.  ;)
> > 
> > --PBr
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	The Old Crow [SMTP:oldcrow@...]
> > > Sent:	Friday, August 11, 2000 9:31 AM
> > > To:	motm@egroups.com
> > > Subject:	Re: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   Analog control woes notwithstanding, the main reason I view MIDI
> with
> > > some considerable criticism is that for a networking protocol, it
> *blows*.
> > > I never will understand why they didn't go with some Manchester scheme
> to
> > > provide collision and drop error handling.  It is not that difficult
> to
> > > implement: the Apple Desktop Bus used on Macs to this day (and nearly
> as
> > > old as MIDI) achieve it.
> > > 
> > >   These days, (starting in 1990 or so) plenty of sources of cheap MII
> > > transcevier chips to fashion ethernet connections exist: it would cost
> > > next to nothing to cram one in a keyboard and use a *real* network
> > > protocol like TCP/IP to run the show.  You don't even have to abandon
> the
> > > MIDI message structure--just encapsulate it in the IP packets.
> > > 
> > >   I hope that one day a true network physical layer like ethernet
> makes it
> > > into new instruments.  And for the millions of old instruments--an
> > > ethernet to MIDI-hardware adapter (which are cheap and easy to make,
> look
> > > at the dinky little thing from www.picoweb.net!) is no problem.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   --Crow, dreaming of the day they put real LAN hardware into the gear
> > > 
> > > /**/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com/
> 
> 
> 
>

Eric,

Paul does have the basic feel correct: too damn complicated. Musicians do
give a rat's ass about DHCP, ARP, etc...

Besides, you have almost completely negelected to mention cost. You did say:

"These days, (starting in 1990 or so) plenty of sources of cheap MII
transcevier chips..."

but the comparison to the hardware and software that is currently needed to
support MIDI is an order of magnitude greater. That is a huge hurdle that
needs to be solved. Remember the venture capital Lone Wolf company? They
tried it and failed miserably.

MIDI was developed (what 16 years ago??) with a good balance of features
that manufacturers could swallow. There were several deviations (Oberheim
digital bus, Roland DCB, Voyetra XLR MIDI connectors) but none of these
"took."

Tony Karavidas
Encore Electronics

http://www.encoreelectronics.com

Designers of "The best MIDI to CV converter on the planet." -Keyboard Oct.
1997

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alt-mode [mailto:alt_mode@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 2:37 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)
>
>
> Paul,
>
> You are confusing TCP/IP with Ethernet.  Ethernet is a CSMA/CD
> technology (Carrier
> Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection).  A shared
> Ethernet does allow other
> nodes to "hear" each other on the same wire but the backoff and retransmit
> mechanisms are quite fast.  You can also solve congestion
> problems with an Ethernet
> switch.
>
> The Internet Protocol (IP) doesn't care whether it is run on a
> shared network or a
> point-to-point network.  When you dial up to your ISP, you are
> running a point to
> point link.  If you have a cable modem you are on a shared
> network.  IP works the
> same in either case.  The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
> runs on top of IP and
> provides reiliability, windowing, and "sessions" or
> "connections".  When you load a
> web page, you are creating a TCP connection to the server over
> IP.  It is likely
> that your TCP/IP connection runs over a variety of shared and
> point-to-point media
> to get from your home PC to the server.  [Sorry if this is basic
> stuff unrelated to
> synths but the Internet has gotten big enough that misinformation
> about how it works
> spreads too freely and I kinda feel obligated to explain this
> stuff when it gets
> twisted.]
>
> Additionally, the configuration problems can be fairly easily
> solved.  You don't
> need to worry about the Ethernet MAC addresses, they are resolved
> with the Address
> Resolution Protocol (ARP) that is fairly simple.  When it comes
> to assigning IP
> addresses to devices, that can be a bit more complicated but it
> can be automated
> with DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol).  [You think
> synths had acronym
> overload, just get into a room with a bunch of networking geeks
> and you'll get TLA'd
> to death ;)]
>
> Besides, a toaster controller for my MOTM might have some
> interesting creative
> possibilities...when the bagel is done, the EG fires and the 700
> switches the 320
> LFO shape... ;^}
>
> Eric
>
> --- "Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" <noise@...> wrote:
> > What I don't understand is why you'd *want* to make MIDI act
> like TCP/IP...
> >
> > TCP/IP messages are, if I understand / recall correctly,
> broadcast to all
> > machines on a network.  You send a packet with a target address, that
> > message gets sent to *every* other machine connected to the
> net, and *each*
> > machine must figure out whether it cares about the message.
> And if there's
> > a collision-- throw your hands up and try again after a random delay has
> > passed.  And every machine on your network having a unique ID (which is
> > handled by the network card at present)...
> >
> > I can just see it!  You get your brand new Korglandsoniq
> Groteous2000, and
> > you want to have it control that old Memorymoof machine in the
> corner... but
> > damnit!  What what the 'moofs ID again?  {285a-829b-dc9a}?  Or was it
> > {82b9-285b-dc9a}?  (And you thought setup was a hassle NOW!)
> >
> > MIDI is point-to-point.  No collisions.  No IDs.  If a messages
> reaches a
> > target, it was intended to get there.  You have a MIDI box to
> route messages
> > to targets.  Its MUCH easier to centrally configure.
> >
> > The big problem with MIDI isn't that its not distributed like
> TCP/IP-- its
> > that its *slow*.  Damned slow.  Slow enough that it uses those
> crappy serial
> > interfaces on your computer.  A faster version of MIDI is what's called
> > for-- still no collisions to worry about, and you could route to more
> > machines than possible today.
> >
> > Besides, I don't want my toaster talking to my Waldorf Pulse.  ;)
> >
> > --PBr
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	The Old Crow [SMTP:oldcrow@...]
> > > Sent:	Friday, August 11, 2000 9:31 AM
> > > To:	motm@egroups.com
> > > Subject:	Re: [motm] MIDI sucks (get your attention?)
> > >
> > >
> > >   Analog control woes notwithstanding, the main reason I view
> MIDI with
> > > some considerable criticism is that for a networking
> protocol, it *blows*.
> > > I never will understand why they didn't go with some
> Manchester scheme to
> > > provide collision and drop error handling.  It is not that
> difficult to
> > > implement: the Apple Desktop Bus used on Macs to this day
> (and nearly as
> > > old as MIDI) achieve it.
> > >
> > >   These days, (starting in 1990 or so) plenty of sources of cheap MII
> > > transcevier chips to fashion ethernet connections exist: it would cost
> > > next to nothing to cram one in a keyboard and use a *real* network
> > > protocol like TCP/IP to run the show.  You don't even have to
> abandon the
> > > MIDI message structure--just encapsulate it in the IP packets.
> > >
> > >   I hope that one day a true network physical layer like
> ethernet makes it
> > > into new instruments.  And for the millions of old instruments--an
> > > ethernet to MIDI-hardware adapter (which are cheap and easy
> to make, look
> > > at the dinky little thing from www.picoweb.net!) is no problem.
> > >
> > >
> > >   --Crow, dreaming of the day they put real LAN hardware into the gear
> > >
> > > /**/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com/
>
> 
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Tony Karavidas <tony@...>

MIDI was developed (what 16 years ago??) with a good balance of features
that manufacturers could swallow. There were several deviations (Oberheim
digital bus, Roland DCB, Voyetra XLR MIDI connectors) but none of these
"took."

-------------
Seem like some other manufacutrer tried to get XLRs to fly as the MIDI
connector of choice as 5 pin DINs might have been viewed as too cheap or
flimsy.  Wasn't it Sequential?  Maybe on the Prophet 600 ?  Anyone else
remember?  I seem to remember as I was synth shopping for my first poly
synth about the time.  Popular at the time was the Juno 60 (my eventual
choice) with DCB, the Korg Poly 6 and Poly 61 (Damn, wasn't that 61 the
start of the "I don't need no stinkin' knobs" movement") and the SC Prophet
600 with that funny MIDI thing.

Larry H

That was Octave-Plateau, now Voyetra.

John Loffink
microtonal@...

> Seem like some other manufacutrer tried to get XLRs to fly as the MIDI
> connector of choice as 5 pin DINs might have been viewed as too cheap or
> flimsy.  Wasn't it Sequential?  Maybe on the Prophet 600 ?  Anyone else
> remember?  I seem to remember as I was synth shopping for my first poly
> synth about the time.

In a message dated 8/11/00 11:44:42 PM, jlarryh@... writes:

<< Seem like some other manufacutrer tried to get XLRs to fly as the MIDI
connector of choice as 5 pin DINs might have been viewed as too cheap or
flimsy.  >>

For reliability the pro audio world has done this too.  The Klark Teknik 
DN3600 (digitally-controlled eqaulizer) and related products all have XLR 
connections for their MIDI interface.  It is regular MIDI, using mostly 
program change and SysEx commands, but they chose a more "robust" connector 
to interface the units.

Ivan