[PD] MIDI 2.0

Dan Wilcox danomatika at gmail.com
Mon Apr 6 16:27:43 CEST 2020


Mmm my initial thought is that the existing objects can simply send out a more finer grained number. Design-wise, I think we would want to utilize as many of the existing objects as possible, ie. input/output MIDI 2 range, maybe add messages or creation args for special MIDI 2 modes. This could also require some sort of new object as well. The best design would not affect patching between MIDI 1 and MIDI 2, if possible.

For now, though, I think MIDI 2 could be implemented at the patch level using the raw MIDI bytes from [midiin] and [midiout]. It would probably take some doing, but MIDI 1/2 are basically just raw bytes and the notion, ctlin, etc objects a result of interpreting the protocol.

> On Apr 6, 2020, at 4:14 PM, Mario Buoninfante <mario.buoninfante at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thanks for getting back to me.
> Yap, I had a look at the protocol and is like you said about retro-compatibility. 
> I'm glad to hear that probably can be dealt with making some changes in s_midi.c, work that of course I know still takes some efforts.
> My question though, was more related to the new msg introduced by MIDI 2.0, with a different structure and resolution.
> But I suspect what you said is valid for that as well, right?
> 
> Cheers,
> Mario
> 
> 
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 14:23, Dan Wilcox <danomatika at gmail.com <mailto:danomatika at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Actually, form what I've read, I don't think MIDI 2 requires any (or very many) changes to Portmidi as Portmidi wraps the various OS-level MIDI APIs and gives you raw bytes. The actual MIDI protocol interpretation is handled in the Pd core.
> 
> MIDI 2 is basically an extension of the MIDI 1 protocol and MIDI 2 messages can contained embedded MIDI 1 messages. There is an additional query communication where a device can ask about the capabilities of another device. Overall, it seems to be designed to work seamlessly with older MIDI 1 devices/software.
> 
> Short answer is: I don't think anyone is doing this, but it can probably been done by modifying MIDI handling in s_midi.c.
> 
>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 12:00 PM, pd-list-request at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list-request at lists.iem.at> wrote:
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:51:26 +0100
>> From: Mario Buoninfante <mario.buoninfante at gmail.com <mailto:mario.buoninfante at gmail.com>>
>> To: pd-list <pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list at lists.iem.at>>
>> Subject: [PD] MIDI 2.0
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<CAHs=M8TCE+Yom8WoXoCDR7jZi_pzFmM3t0dKDwRU0_6dwFaYSw at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAHs=M8TCE+Yom8WoXoCDR7jZi_pzFmM3t0dKDwRU0_6dwFaYSw at mail.gmail.com>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Is there any plan to support MIDI 2.0? I know this is more of a question
>> about PortMidi, but I was wondering if anybody knows anything about it.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mario
> 
> --------
> Dan Wilcox
> @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
> 
> 
> 

--------
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20200406/8f2eccb4/attachment.html>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list