MIDI: Difference between revisions

Line 11:

*'''[https://www.midi.org/midi-articles/midi-polyphonic-expression-mpe MIDI Polyphonic Expression]''' ('''MPE''') - Allows controlling multiple parameters independently for each note, including pitch-bend.

*'''[https://www.midi.org/midi-articles/details-about-midi-2-0-midi-ci-profiles-and-property-exchange MIDI 2.0]''' - Allows for setting the pitch of each note independently, using the "[https://amei.or.jp/midistandardcommittee/MIDI2.0/MIDI2.0-DOCS/M2-104-UM_v1-0_UMP_and_MIDI_2-0_Protocol_Specification.pdf#page=34 Pitch 7.9]" attribute (which overrides the default pitch).

([[Wikipedia:Open Sound Control|Open Sound Control]] (OSC) is sometimes suggested as a microtonal replacement for MIDI,<ref>{{Cite web|title=OSC question|url=https://groups.google.com/g/microtools/c/Gh1fFbCb6XI/m/aSssQIHAXEkJ|website=groups.google.com|access-date=2023-02-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=linux-audio-dev: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Common synthesizer interf|url=https://ccrma.stanford.edu/mirrors/lalists/lad/2005/05/0016.html|website=ccrma.stanford.edu|access-date=2023-02-03}}</ref> however it is an open-ended communication protocol, without even a de facto standard for sending notes, so the protocol must be customized for each synthesizer/output.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Home · fabb/SynOSCopy Wiki |url=https://github.com/fabb/SynOSCopy |access-date=2022-12-31 |website=GitHub |language=en |quote=one of the reasons OSC has not replaced MIDI yet is that there is no connect-and-play … There is no standard namespace in OSC for interfacing e.g. a synth}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Supper |first=Ben |date=October 24, 2012 |title=We hate MIDI. We love MIDI. |url=https://focusritedevelopmentteam.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/we-hate-midi-we-love-midi/ |access-date=2023-01-01 |website=Focusrite Development |language=en |quote=OSC suffers from a superset of this problem: it’s anarchy, and deliberately so. The owners of the specification have been so eager to avoid imposing constraints upon it that it has become increasingly difficult for hardware to cope with it. … More severely, there is an interoperability problem. OSC lacks a defined namespace for even the most common musical exchanges, to the extent that one cannot use it to send Middle C from a sequencer to a synthesiser in a standardised manner}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=OSC-Namespace and OSC-State: Schemata for Describing the Namespace and State of OSC-Enabled Systems |url=https://www.nime.org/proceedings/2014/nime2014_300.pdf |quote=OSC also introduces new obstacles. First, since there is no fixed set of messages, each participating server needs to know what messages it can send to the servers it intends to communicate with. Currently the OSC standard does not provide for a means of programmatically discovering all messages a server responds to}}</ref>)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *'''[https://www.midi.org/midi-articles/midi-polyphonic-expression-mpe MIDI Polyphonic Expression]''' ('''MPE''') - Allows controlling multiple parameters independently for each note, including pitch-bend.
 *'''[https://www.midi.org/midi-articles/details-about-midi-2-0-midi-ci-profiles-and-property-exchange MIDI 2.0]''' - Allows for setting the pitch of each note independently, using the "[https://amei.or.jp/midistandardcommittee/MIDI2.0/MIDI2.0-DOCS/M2-104-UM_v1-0_UMP_and_MIDI_2-0_Protocol_Specification.pdf#page=34 Pitch 7.9]" attribute (which overrides the default pitch).
+([[Wikipedia:Open Sound Control|Open Sound Control]] (OSC) is sometimes suggested as a microtonal replacement for MIDI,<ref>{{Cite web|title=OSC question|url=https://groups.google.com/g/microtools/c/Gh1fFbCb6XI/m/aSssQIHAXEkJ|website=groups.google.com|access-date=2023-02-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=linux-audio-dev: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Common synthesizer interf|url=https://ccrma.stanford.edu/mirrors/lalists/lad/2005/05/0016.html|website=ccrma.stanford.edu|access-date=2023-02-03}}</ref> however it is an open-ended communication protocol, without even a de facto standard for sending notes, so the protocol must be customized for each synthesizer/output.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Home · fabb/SynOSCopy Wiki |url=https://github.com/fabb/SynOSCopy |access-date=2022-12-31 |website=GitHub |language=en |quote=one of the reasons OSC has not replaced MIDI yet is that there is no connect-and-play … There is no standard namespace in OSC for interfacing e.g. a synth}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Supper |first=Ben |date=October 24, 2012 |title=We hate MIDI. We love MIDI. |url=https://focusritedevelopmentteam.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/we-hate-midi-we-love-midi/ |access-date=2023-01-01 |website=Focusrite Development |language=en |quote=OSC suffers from a superset of this problem: it’s anarchy, and deliberately so. The owners of the specification have been so eager to avoid imposing constraints upon it that it has become increasingly difficult for hardware to cope with it. … More severely, there is an interoperability problem. OSC lacks a defined namespace for even the most common musical exchanges, to the extent that one cannot use it to send Middle C from a sequencer to a synthesiser in a standardised manner}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=OSC-Namespace and OSC-State: Schemata for Describing the Namespace and State of OSC-Enabled Systems |url=https://www.nime.org/proceedings/2014/nime2014_300.pdf |quote=OSC also introduces new obstacles. First, since there is no fixed set of messages, each participating server needs to know what messages it can send to the servers it intends to communicate with. Currently the OSC standard does not provide for a means of programmatically discovering all messages a server responds to}}</ref>)