the watmm GAS thread

[Taupe Beats]

24 minutes ago, neurone said:

right, but so with the aira MX1 wich connects tu usb directly with other aira devices, you could send anything into it, aim i right ? ... well,this only if all  your MX1 usb ports are not busy so you can fit one more....

anyway I would like to try this  because :

yeah I like the scatter effect on MX1 / TR9, very handfull. (TR9 "roll button" page combined with scatter fx gives you very nice and quick -acsess rythm variations / breaks fills - perfect for a live situation. )

Roland's gotta put out a new MX-1. It seems there's more requests made for it nearly by the day.

I know this would never happen in 2022 but a rackmount summing-style usb mixer for Boutiques and AIRA stuff would rule. Allow for the ability to quickly allot outputs depending on what you want (so let's say, you could quickly switch presets from having several Boutiques output stereo to one that just outputs all the separate drums from the TR-8 individually). 

And a nice Scatter trick for the TR-8: Depth+On while a pattern is playing automatically triggers Scatter to play through the end of the pattern.

edit: And with the E-4, it forces the USB stereo input to a mono signal before it passes to any effects. Boo!

Edited June 13, 2022 by Taupe Beats

[dcom]

8 hours ago, neurone said:

right, but so with the aira MX1 wich connects tu usb directly with other aira devices, you could send anything into it, aim i right ? 

When USB port's connected to the MX-1 with AIRA Link, the only audio route through the E-4's effects signal path comes from the mic in. If you hook up the E-4 to your computer with USB, you get the E-4 as an USB out in your DAW, and if I understand correctly, this is the only way you get the effects signal path without the mic in.

[TubularCorporation]

13 hours ago, Taupe Beats said:

I know this would never happen in 2022 but a rackmount summing-style usb mixer for Boutiques and AIRA stuff would rule. Allow for the ability to quickly allot outputs depending on what you want (so let's say, you could quickly switch presets from having several Boutiques output stereo to one that just outputs all the separate drums from the TR-8 individually). 

More generally, I never thought of this before but with all the hardware out there that uses USB for MIDI and/or audio, a 1u or even 2u rackmount USB3 interface that had maybe 16 USB host ports and would aggregate any class compliant audio or MIDI devices you connected to it.  I know it's already pretty easy to create aggegate devices in software (even under Windows with a little work) but that's exactly the kind of thing I'd rather leave to dedicated hardware that had very tight timing.

 

With a stereo analog out and one or two sets of DIN MIDI ports it could work as a mixer like you're describing and also as a USB-MIDI host.

Edited June 14, 2022 by TubularCorporation

[Taupe Beats]

42 minutes ago, TubularCorporation said:

More generally, I never thought of this before but with all the hardware out there that uses USB for MIDI and/or audio, a 1u or even 2u rackmount USB3 interface that had maybe 16 USB host ports and would aggregate any class compliant audio or MIDI devices you connected to it.  I know it's already pretty easy to create aggegate devices in software (even under Windows with a little work) but that's exactly the kind of thing I'd rather leave to dedicated hardware that had very tight timing.

 

With a stereo analog out and one or two sets of DIN MIDI ports it could work as a mixer like you're describing and also as a USB-MIDI host.

That's a great idea but I'd def. want more than a stereo analog out. There's still way too much gear with analog-only connections. Sets of DB-25 connectors like on Mackie mixers would be perfect.

[dcom]

I want a Toraiz Squid. And an SQ-64.

Edited June 14, 2022 by dcom

[chronical]

1 hour ago, dcom said:

I want a Toraiz Squid. And an SQ-64.

Why not a Squarp Hapax?

[dcom]

1 hour ago, chronical said:

Why not a Squarp Hapax?

Looks a bit like Polyend Play.

[dcom]

13 hours ago, chronical said:

Why not a Squarp Hapax?

There seems to be none available at the moment, Squarp's own site says September, but taking into account the component shortage I wouldn't hold my breath.

[thawkins]

What about a Donglebots Loopalizer?

[Taupe Beats]

Valuable Rickroll opportunity wasted.

I'm a bit torn on the Hapax. I love the concept (a MIDI sequencer that specializes in transitions, almost DJ-style). However with the limitations of MIDI bandwidth along with the amount of accompanying gear to achieve this stuff, I don't see it working that well in the real world. Hoping I'm wrong.

It did give me this fantasy of universal MIDI file formats, so producers could do live sets like b2b dj sets with something like a Hapax. That would be amazing.

[TubularCorporation]

17 hours ago, chronical said:

Why not a Squarp Hapax?

You can't fool me, I know this is a supporting character from Space Precinct 

[dcom]

35 minutes ago, Taupe Beats said:

It did give me this fantasy of universal MIDI file formats, so producers could do live sets like b2b dj sets with something like a Hapax.

Would you elaborate on this? There's General MIDI, of course, but what kind of features you mean?

[TubularCorporation]

Other than type 1 vs type 0 (which hardly matters in practice), Standard MIDI File is already a standard that hasn't changed since they added support for more non-english characters in the karaoke/lyrics part of the spec (and hasn't changed in any significant way for more like 30 years), unless there have been more recent changes I haven't heard about.  

 

The only way to have files that will sound more or less the same on any system regardless of the software and hardware is something like a MOD that includes the actual instruments along with the MIDI data, but then that really limits things on the production side.

Edited June 15, 2022 by TubularCorporation

[Taupe Beats]

edit: Sorry, I should have quoted the post. This is in response to @dcom's question to me.

Taking the idea that someone goes and produces with the instruments/daw/whatever of their choice. And if the producer wanted to take the MIDI data which comprises that track, it could be exported to a standard file that could be loaded onto a different piece of gear than what was used to make that track, and all the data would still be playable to whatever instruments were assigned in that new environment.

Now, you're going to tell me, "But Taupe Beats, that's exactly what standard MIDI files are designed to do!" While I understand this is the theoretical process, it is not a realistic one. Not even 7/10/74/71 are truly universal MIDI CC's, to use the most obvious examples. You get where I'm going...

Like everyone else, I am eagerly awaiting to see what the true capabilities and functionalities of MIDI 2.0 will be. If they can solve these problems once and for all. I'm not trying to talk about how they'll do it (there's plenty of discussion of that all over the place and the speculation's pointless anyway). Just if it will be achieved.

The tl:dr version is this:  I see the Hapax like a purely MIDI take on a Pioneer DJ setup. That Pioneer DJ setup is now the industry standard. I don't think current MIDI can achieve what the Hapax aims to do. But I do think it's a noble and admirable idea and attempt, with hopes that future technology can achieve this goal.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Taupe Beats

[TubularCorporation]

So you mean more strictly enforcing general MIDI?  I don't think it's really the MIDI file standard that's the issue, it's the way hardware and VSTis implement it, and I don't really know if there's a good solution for that.  General MIDI isn't that relevant outside of 90s PC games because nobody really liked it.

 

I definitely agree that it would be nice if CC standardization was more stricly followed and everyone used the standard GM drum mapping, though.  Why companies are still putting out drum machines that don't conform to GM mapping is beyond me.  

 

Honestly, it seems like between 2003 and 2013 the whole industry (except for a handful of niche companies that mostly did expensive, 5u modular stuff) lost most of its accumulated knowledge about how to develop MIDI hardware and analog synthesizers, and the last decade has been them relearning it, with varying degrees of success.

[Taupe Beats]

I think stricter enforcement of a current process is the weaker of potential solutions. I am hoping that MIDI 2.0 instead attempts something more unique to identify control signals, instead of the current sharing of 128 potential signals between all MIDI compatible gear. I've gotten the impression from what I've read in MIDI 2.0 is that the developers are on the same wavelength.

[TubularCorporation]

52 minutes ago, Taupe Beats said:

I think stricter enforcement of a current process is the weaker of potential solutions. I am hoping that MIDI 2.0 instead attempts something more unique to identify control signals, instead of the current sharing of 128 potential signals between all MIDI compatible gear. I've gotten the impression from what I've read in MIDI 2.0 is that the developers are on the same wavelength.

I hope so, but backward compatibility is still important, especially since MIDI 2.0 is an extension of the existing 1.0 standard, not a replacement. Anyway, I thought you were talking about a new format that would work with existing hardware and software, if MIDI 2.0 actually works out then I hope everything you're talking about happens, because it all sounds good and would help MIDI 2.0 be more than OSC + MPE on a single channel + higher resolution, which would already be way more convenient than the way things are now but maybe not enough to see widespread adoption.

 

Profiles seem like they will pretty much do what you're talking about if they're actually imlemented the way they've been described in the 2.0 spec, which would be great. Between time-stamping and higher bandwidth, MIDI over USB will actually have consistently good timing when/if the 2.0 spec is finally adopted - I'd absolutely buy a USB MIDI 2.0 interface even though none of the hardware I own would support it (and I don't plan to buy anything else any time soon) if the timing was as solid as it should be. Getting MIDI in and out of a computer made in the last 25 years with decent timing is a chore with MIDI 1.0.  Timestamping would also make it easy to sync devices over the Internet, too, which would be huge and is actually the potential I'm most excited about personally.

 

I hope it catches on, they spent so long on it (we were already learning about the proposed MIDI 2.0 spec when I was in college, and I graduated in 2003) and so many of the major features have already been implemented outside of the MIDI Association back when everyone assumed 2.0 was never actually going to happen that they might have missed their chance, but hopefully not.  

Edited June 15, 2022 by TubularCorporation

[Taupe Beats]

Sorry, backwards compatibility was the term I was looking for, went blank in my previous post and had meant to comment on it. Backwards compatibility would be nothing short of mandatory for all the MIDI 1.0 spec gear that currently exists. I would anticipate limitations as far as what could be done to upgrade 1.0 gear into a 2.0 spec capabilities (if anything). I am *hoping* at the least that there will be a way to force 1.0 gear into a unique device identifier so the 16-channel limitation is removed. I'm not smart enough with MIDI to know the specifics on why Device ID's were limited to SysEx stuff.

Your point on timing improvements is a great one.

You may find this interview interesting. Update on MIDI 2.0 development:

 

[dcom]

The Cre8audio East Beast and West Pest sound like fun little semi-modular boxes with a huge range of possibilities and affordances for a decent enough price.

 

[chim]

Like how they sound (especially the discrete Pittsburgh Modular filter in the East Beast) but one osc is a bit weak.

[TubularCorporation]

5 hours ago, dcom said:

The Cre8audio East Beast and West Pest sound like fun little semi-modular boxes with a huge range of possibilities and affordances for a decent enough price.

 

They sound really nice, and the prices are fantastic, but they're a strong contender for the ugliest gear I've ever seen.  Still tempting, if I had $250 to spare I'd seriously consider the West coast one.

[dcom]

2 hours ago, TubularCorporation said:

They sound really nice, and the prices are fantastic, but they're a strong contender for the ugliest gear I've ever seen.  Still tempting, if I had $250 to spare I'd seriously consider the West coast one.

I've never cared much how hardware looks, it's what you get out of them and how you use them - but I have to admit that the East Beast and West Pest are rather garish. The Sonicware boxes are plastic and quite fugly too, the pots and buttons are vintage/legacy Elektron (Analog Rytm/Keys/Four/Octatrack) but they're fun. I wouldn't mind having both of the Cre8audio synths, I love the versatility and crossover desktop/modular functionality.

Edited June 17, 2022 by dcom

[dcom]

Do you have power conditioners, filters, surge protectors between your gear and wall outlet(s)? If so, what? I'm thinking of getting this.

[Taupe Beats]

Yeah I run a bunch of power strips to Furman M-8x2's, which go to another power strip and then to the wall. Easy on/easy off. The Furman's are designed to fall on the sword if there's a power surge.

https://www.furmanpower.com/product/15a-standard-power-conditioner/

[thawkins]

On 6/15/2022 at 5:28 PM, Taupe Beats said:

Now, you're going to tell me, "But Taupe Beats, that's exactly what standard MIDI files are designed to do!" While I understand this is the theoretical process, it is not a realistic one. Not even 7/10/74/71 are truly universal MIDI CC's, to use the most obvious examples. You get where I'm going...

If the main blocker is harmonizing MIDI implementations between different types of gear, I think this is easily technically solvable by having some interpreter layer(s) where you say "OK this MIDI file that I am about to load is meant for a Korg MS2000, but what I have is a Roland JV1080" and then it'll translate the CCs to rough equivalents. This won't ever 100% work for stuff like SysEx, but it will definitely get to the same ballpark.

It will get murky anyway at the point where one synth may have 2 filters-oscillators and another has 3, but messing around with my gear I have the impression that basic CCs like volume, pan, attack, release, cutoff, resonance are quite standard.