OTOH they have an okay amount of toplevel message expansion space if needed (6/16 top-level message types are defined), so I hope they use it well in the future.
-
Show this thread
-
Now the thing is the new UMP packet format does not define any mapping to physical transports, and AFAICT the negotiation is between MIDI1/MIDI2 features, not the underlying transport. So how is UMP defined over e.g. existing USB-MIDI or DIN UART MIDI transports? No idea.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
It seems no physical layer mappings are defined in the MIDI 2.0 spec itself, that's for another document to lay out including any negotiation.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
According to their website, they're focusing on USB first (I guess the old 31kbit UART transport is deprecated, unsurprisingly), and a new mapping for UMP over USB(-audio?) needs to be written before that works. So no automatic backwards compat with MIDI1 byte streams.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
One thing they did do is make the UMP format self-delimiting. The message type alone determines message length, and they arbitrarily pre-assigned some lengths to all the unused message types. So transports should be able to deliver UMP messages with future expansions cleanly.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
OTOH it is *not* robust at the 32bit word level, so the underlying transport has to guarantee that. If you drop or corrupt a word expect things to explode.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
(MIDI1 was slightly better at this with the start/continue markers, but in practice this was useless anyway because as soon as you drop any data you get stuck notes so you're screwed anyway)
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Oh yeah, another fix: 7-bit sysex messages are still atomic (except for realtime messages) to preserve MIDI 1.0 compat, but the new 8-bit sysex messages *are* interleavable with other messages and even up to 256 sysex messages may be interleaved together in streams.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @marcan42
Any attempt to provide/guarantee clean clock distribution? I actually managed to synthesize a clean audio clock from MIDI 1.0 time signals. Probably one of the most epic and stupid things I've done.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thingcreator
They have jitter reduction time-stamping as a peer-to-peer thing and I guess it applies to MIDI clock messages too, but I don't think the intent is proper clock distribution (in fact that is explicitly stated to be outside the scope).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Mostly because actually having a clean clock transfer depends on low level transport details that are outside the scope of the generic MIDI message spec.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.