How much trouble would it be if midi changed

I know the standard midi spec was implemented a long time ago. What struggle with the most is a hardware way to send midi messages to more than 16 channels. I have a unique setup and many synths that require so.

If the world wanted to have a new midi standard of 0-16000 14 bit cc and 128 midi channels, what would the midi connectors have to look like?

Some manufacturers are removing midi from some units and replacing them with USB like the Boss GT001, and others follow that similar trend. Unfortunately they haven’t realized that it’s not an improvement, since the original functionality of midi 5 pin has not been replaced; you need a computer.

Do you think there should be a revision in standard midi specification for the modern musical world?

Pretty sure there will be some way of supporting old and new devices.

We don’t really know what they have planned for MIDI yet, I would hope they had some sort of handshaking so a DAW or controller could discover the capabilities of the device it is controlling. For example retrieve a JSON encoded list of controller names with resolution etc

Some sort of MIDI-NG to MIDI converter box would be made or just continue to use old MIDI interfaces.

Ah yeah I guess it would be similar to when usb went from 2 to 3.0. Same shape perhaps.

Right now, I’m still trying to figure out a hardware way of having more than 16 channels. Does anyone have this problem? It has to be triggered from one 1 single press of a midi controller. I’ve been thinking about midi controllable patchbays, but I don’t own one, and am not sure if it’ll work. I require at least 32 midi channels. Has anyone been successful at using some unit that can do this?

Just use a second cable.

The connector wouldn’t have to change – only the data we send over the cable will have a new format.

1 Like

Ah hope they do end up updating midi!

As for the second cable, I’ve thought of that but my midi foot controller only has one output, and it has to be from that controller. Is there any other trick up the current midi sleeve to get around this?

Why do you need 32 channels from your foot controller? How many feet do you got?

Seriously though, what are you trying to do specifically that you cannot do right now with your setup?

1 Like

I currently have two feet. Yeah that’s the response I always get when I try to ask this same question on every forum I’ve been to :grin:. It’s a very very complex setup. I’ve just been trying to avoid using a computer to do so.

Can you try to describe what you want to accomplish? There might be a way to do it with existing hardware, but so far we only know that it is very complex :slight_smile:

1 Like

One of the main things I need to do is send 1 PC message to change programs on 26 different synths/FX units at once. Patches are not aligned and cannot be because patch memories are full on some units, all synths have to be on different channels. This is complex layering I’m achieving. Not all are on at same time though.

Would a Cooper Msb/DMC MX8 work since it has multiple outputs?

With those programmable midi patch bays, I was thinking this…

One single Midi message stream:

  • Send PC changes to first 16 devices CH 1-16
  • Send PC change to patchbay to signal 2nd output
  • Send PC change to remaining devices CH 1-10

The thing is I don’t know how fast those patchbays react to switch midi outputs to close 1 midi output and open the second one. Because I don’t want the 2nd PC batch to affect the first 16 units.

No offense, but you might be confusing “need” with “want”… :wink:

I know it’s you Mr Papathanassíou

5 Likes

Gasp… you’ve seen my final form…

Hah yeah it is somewhat like that. The only reason is when I use gear on a recording, it’s a part of me and I never sell to make room for new gear. Thats why it’s constantly growing and will get even bigger :grinning:. I’m actually no where near satisfied with the amount of synths I have. Would the patch bay trick work?

One approach might be to handle it kind of like the way IPV4 internet addresses have had the need to expand to IPV6 addresses-- use a sub-network that is the “old” format with a router that can map the new expanded format to the old format where necessary.

So essentially, the addressing part of MIDI gets expanded to handle more devices, which can be directly recognized by newer devices, but can be run through a simple router that can separate multiple sub-networks of older devices and in the process reduce the new address down to an old address, thereby giving you essentially, “banks” of 16 device subnetworks.

Sync

Has anyone heard of an update on the Midi-HD protocol? I read about it months ago, but have no recent development news. I appreciate the MPE aspect of midi, but we sure can use more channels! Can we do like a petition or something to get a change going? Mmmm… never petitioned before, I feel like a good citizen in need of the government to change. Lower taxes, more midi channels! Ban stuck midi notes! Make midi great again!

And do you think older units from companies that are still around will update their discontinued products to support such implementation?

No need for channels if a MIDI synth or device can have some sort of equivalent of a MAC address. There’s already the MIDI ID for manufacturers, but the device needs a unique ID.

Not a good idea. Many small manufacturers will have a pain aquiring the IDs and paying the licensing for them. Its bad enough with USB already. Unless … the IDs are generated at no cost via an open platform. But how are you going to prevent people from abusing the system by taking up all available IDs?
See, it’s complicated.

Self signed public key then?

Anything unique really. Just needs to be a sort of unique hardware address.