Midi 2.0

[Guy Rowland]

It's going to be a thing, apparently:

https://www.midi.org/articles-old/the-m ... rototyping

Los Angeles, CA, January 18, 2019 – The MIDI Manufacturers Association (MMA) and AMEI (the Japanese MIDI association) have finalized the core features and name for the next generation MIDI protocol: MIDI 2.0. Member companies are currently working together to develop prototypes based on a jointly developed, feature-complete, draft specification. A members-only plugfest to test compatibility between some early MIDI 2.0 prototypes is planned for Winter NAMM 2019. Participating companies include Ableton/Cycling '74, Art+Logic, Bome Software, Google, imitone, Native Instruments, Roland, ROLI, Steinberg, TouchKeys, and Yamaha.

As with MIDI 1.0, AMEI and the MMA are working closely together and sharing code to streamline the prototype development process. Prototyping is planned to continue during 2019 as the associations work together on MIDI 2.0 launch plans, including exploring the development of a MIDI 2.0 logo and self-certification program for MMA and AMEI member companies.

During the prototyping phase, the proposed MIDI 2.0 specification is available only to MMA and AMEI members, because the prototyping process may trigger minor enhancements to the specification. Once a final specification is adopted, it will join the current MIDI specifications as a free download on www.midi.org.

The MIDI 2.0 initiative updates MIDI with auto-configuration, new DAW/web integrations, extended resolution, increased expressiveness, and tighter timing -- all while maintaining a high priority on backward compatibility. This major update of MIDI paves the way for a new generation of advanced interconnected MIDI devices, while still preserving interoperability with the millions of existing MIDI 1.0 devices. One of the core goals of the MIDI 2.0 initiative is to also enhance the MIDI 1.0 feature set whenever possible.

All companies that develop MIDI products are encouraged to join the MMA to participate in the future development of the specification, and to keep abreast of other developments in MIDI technology.

The one thing I'd really like from 2.0 is some kind of DAW look ahead technology. Would massively help scripted libraries. I guess "new DAW/web integrations" could possibly include this.

[Lawrence]

If it's really gonna be a thing, my only comment-wow.

[Vik B]

Here is a more detailed presentation.

[tack]

Thanks for the video, Vik.

Looks like they're dragging MIDI into the 21st century. The MIDI-CI (Capability Inquiry) extension will use JSON as the data format. It's a trendier and developer-friendly format that's kind of the antithesis of the tightly packed wire-optimized protocol of MIDI 1.0. But it's also arbitrarily extensible, and really for what MIDI does the overhead of JSON won't be noticed on modern systems.

MIDI-CI will let instruments (physical or virtual) announce whether they conform to a particular pre-defined instrument profile. This addresses the fragmentation issue where similar instruments from different vendors all do their own thing (especially in terms of MIDI CCs). The spec also has a provision for a MIDI-CI proxy -- which could a device, or even a piece of software in front of your DAW such as the Bome MIDI Translator -- that translates existing hardware to MIDI-CI profiles. This should broadly improve compatibility.

They seem to be taking every precaution to ensure backward compatibility, and any MIDI 2.0 compatible device will continue to talk MIDI 1.0 to existing devices if it doesn't advertise extended capabilities through MIDI-CI.

The video also didn't talk about what might be changing with the protocol itself in MIDI 2.0. MIDI-CI is an extension, but not part of the core protocol. Will the core protocol itself move to an arbitrarily extensible format like JSON? They didn't say, but I suspect it might. Even if it's not JSON, IMO they'd be making a mistake if it didn't have some provision for extensibility, as opposed to the current approach where they have allocated a fixed number of bits to the message type and have run out of numbers to assign.

[Stakk]

If JSON or some non-binary format I'd be all for it. Those SysExs are just plain pain and these days I try not to use MIDI so long as possible. That might come with a compatibility loss, but MIDI's advantage of being not byte heavy is only noticeable on those 90's hardware with low-bandwidth MIDI cable (transferring a 2MB aiff via those midi cables, what a joy!)

My other wish list is at the least 16bit resolution for velocity, panpot, CC# and all things like that.

[tack]

My other wish list is at the least 16bit resolution for velocity, panpot, CC# and all things like that.

In the video he said higher resolution but didn't say for what. Certainly at least CCs. He didn't say how much, but I imagine it's at least 14 bits.

Also more channels, more CCs, and per-note CCs.

[Lawrence]

More than 127 steps would be nice.

[EvilDragon]

I think they mentioned 32-bit CCs somewhere.

[Daryl]

More than 127 steps would be nice.

It would mean that instrument like Disklavier don't have to use that terrible (but brilliant) workaround and would mean that editing could be done in a sequencer, at high resolution. I'm in favour...!

[Stakk]

32bit sounds like a little overkill and could be a bit of waste of disk space (honestly doubt that drawing a CC curve in such precision is humanly possible. Maybe keyframing and interpolation?) but I'd be very, very happy with anything that's higher than 127 steps.