MIDI 2.0, MIDI-CI, Profiles and Property Exchange

Yuma · Post by **Yuma** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 3:05 pm

Details about MIDI 2.0™, MIDI-CI, Profiles and Property Exchange

bpoodoo · Post by **bpoodoo** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:35 pm

After 37 years, I suppose it's time for an version update.

Looks OK from the 10,000 ft. bird's-eye view. Devil could be in the details and in the consistency of implementation among manufacturers. The introduction of bidirectional communication introduces the possibility of deadlocks, timeouts, etc. And I would rather they had specified XML (simpler) instead of JSON for Property Exchange. Debugging MIDI 2.0 data will likely require more than just a byte-level viewer.

Goodbye 5-pin serial cables and connectors (except for backwards compatibility). "Unless/until that plan changes, 5 pin DIN will only support the MIDI 1.0 Protocol."

Progress!

Mr_SamDoogie · Post by **Mr_SamDoogie** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:35 pm

bpoodoo wrote:
And I would rather they had specified XML (simpler) instead of JSON for Property Exchange.
Progress!

Feel the same way about that wonder how that though process developed and why cause it seems its just the beginning.

fomalhaut · Post by **fomalhaut** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:03 pm

I don’t want to start a flame war but why do you think XML would be a simpler solution vs JSON?

Bachus · Post by **Bachus** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:18 pm

The standard is around for quite some time now
Seems only Roland is interested in making this work

bpoodoo · Post by **bpoodoo** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:45 am

fomalhaut wrote:I don’t want to start a flame war but why do you think XML would be a simpler solution vs JSON?

Both are certainly capable of representing structured data, not just a stream of bytes. If you can read and edit HTML, you can read and edit XML. XML is a familar syntax and general-purpose for representing data or document content. JSON I'm sure would work fine too. XML or JSON is an implementation-specific choice that seems to have been made early. It describes how the data is to be represented.

The more important decision, and what is germane to a MIDI 2.0 standard, is agreement on what data is to be represented, what is required, what is optional, etc.

bpoodoo · Post by **bpoodoo** » Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:42 pm

I wonder if the 31.25kbps data rate specification from MIDI 1.0 is going away in MIDI 2.0? It certainly is slow by today's standards, but it did provide guidance to manufacturers for the maximum data rate both their hardware and software designs needed to support.

Poseidon · Post by **Poseidon** » Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:45 am

To implement MIDI-CI and MIDI 2.0, you need a manufacturers SysEx ID. The fee is $US 250 a year.

bpoodoo · Post by **bpoodoo** » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:52 pm

Bachus wrote:The standard is around for quite some time now
Seems only Roland is interested in making this work

Korg has so far thumbed their nose at MIDI 2.0. Neither of their keyboards announced this year supports it (Nautilus, opsix). Cost of development/support to add MIDI 2.0 probably exceeds any expected sales increases if it were included as a feature. Deduction: there is little customer demand for MIDI 2.0 for workstations/synths.