Electro, gothic, noise, darkwave from the Side-Line
http://www.velvetacidchrist.com/2010/03/08/sequencing-atari-st-cubase-2-0/
http://www.velvetacidchrist.com/2010/03/04/sequencers-cubase-2-8-on-windows-98-hexfix93s-take/
http://www.velvetacidchrist.com/2010/02/25/midi-sequencer-akai-asq-10-hexfix93s-take/
Yes if midi timing on external hardware is a big deal to you, or if recording beats perfect is a big deal to you. READ THESE!
I've been following Bryan's War On MIDI Timing.
I hope you've found a solution.
Though keep in mind... Infected Mushroom use Cubase 5 on a PC and I'll be damned if their MIDI timing isn't tight as hell. Not to mention the countless other Cubase users.
But, eh, MIDI jitter tests don't lie so there's obviously something to it. And maybe the old methods (hardware seq's, atari, etc) are better for that old school psy sound like Astral Projection, as you mentioned in your review.
Incidentally, the Machinedrum UW comes with a MIDI turbocharger unit thingie, which provides 10x MIDI speed. Maybe in the future, the MIDI standard can be upgraded in this manner across the board.
Its pcs doing to much, code sacrifices midi over other things. So you can get tight midi on a modern pc on playback, but not once the computer is loaded up and running a bunch of plugins, this is when it falls apart and ruins the tight feel. even on cubase 5. or logic 9.
old computers don't fall apart, they only do midi, so they sound tight no matter what. they record way better as well
"Better" being subjective, of course.
well may DAW can quantize...both MIDI and Audio :-)...
KryonikMessiah23
offlinemember
I don't think anyone can really argue that dedicated hardware isn't better for recording Midi.
Just too much of a hassle for me though.
soillodge
offlineTech Moderator
yep..a 20 yr old computer runs a 28 year old protocol better.
So when are we going to adopt a high definition protocol as the standard and move into the 21st century? MIDI HD or OSC anyone?
| [+] Embed the video | Get the Video Plugins |
Many electronic artists are using OSC now. Unfortunately I have yet to hear anyone making very aggressive music. And the precision of HD sequencing has so much added value in aggressively organized compositions.
`michael
it isn't really about old tech and an old protocol
i'm not sure higher tech will produce tighter results than those old machines Brian tested.
the way computers works... each process that is running is given processor time. this program gets a nanosecond , that program gets a nanosecond, etc, etc, etc.
so if you need really tight timing. you don't have to buy an old fucking atari. just use dedicated hardware
personally i could give 2 shits about tight timing.. but i guess that is because i grew up listening to metal and have practically been saturated in live music since birth.
midi is definitely old and dated. but it works fairly well. new standards are sure to work better but then there is the problem with it backwards compatible. are we going to need Osc to Midi to CV converters some day?
soillodge
offlineTech Moderator
That is like saying an HD video signal will not look as good as a monochrome signal. The reason why MIDI has difficulty as a precision protocol in todays devices is not processing power. It is because MIDI is not optimized to be used by todays processors. It is like using a 28k modem to run a flash video. MIDI is transmitted as 16 channels and 128 control change parameters. OSC transfers info in bundles that smoke the limitations of MIDI. HD MIDI or MIDI 2.0 would quadruple available functions and render information in such high resolution that precision music would attack a whole new level.
Bryan should test his hardware units with a soft-synth and DAW that uses OSC. See which has more precision results. Logically a higher resolution instrument in a higher resolution field will give more precision results.
In the end, though, I really do not care about timing either. I like a certain human fallibility or groove in the music I enjoy. But the concept of high resolution control changes and more expressive abilities in my gear is very attractive. I do not like Ableton Live, but soon other DAW's will be developing into the OSC protocol [or HD-MIDI if they ever get off their asses] Which means more control, more expression, and completely wireless instant interactivity.
Also OSC opens the possibilities for net hosted performances. Imagine 6 artists in different parts of the world all simultaneously performing together as a band for different audiences. We would no longer have to share files to collaborate or do remixes. It could be done in real time no matter where you were in the world. That is where we are heading with communications in general in the future. Of course, it is still ways off, but I think it is time we took some steps with our music protocol to reach that edifice.
`michael
Rogue Process
offlineMember
I don't really know too much about the whole MIDI jitter thing, but I will happily say that working with external MIDI gear in Logic is a total pain in the arse. Having to do all the roundtrip/latency calculations by hand FOR EACH CHANNEL is lame.
I may try and purchase an old Atari ST at some stage just to see how much 'tighter' it sounds on a purely subjective basis. Plus, it'd be pretty cool and novel :)
I do agree with Michael that gear companies need to start adopting OSC as a protocol as it opens up reams of cool possibilities, and also agree that overall I'm not massively bothered about slight MIDI jitter, as for me, the whole idea of a supposedly infallible, digital machine making mistakes is rather appealing to me ;)
as we are talking about midi timing...i have afew questions.
first, how tight is the virus for generating midi clock? i'm talking about virus b, because the setup i will play now that i have it requires me to send clock from it to the drum machine, not the other way round
and secondly, is there an external, hardware midi clock thingy...you know, just sends midi clock, and does nothing else, but does it really good, possibly with some form of real time clock? multichannel?
@dogmeat, MOTU Midi Timepeice.
Alternatively, if you are extremely anal like our good friend bryan
you could invest in $800 in Apogee or Lucid GENX 192.
Rogue Process
offlineMember
Oh! Somebody's selling a Steinberg Midex on Ebay for £60!
That might just have to get bought :)
Time clocks are good, but only if you really need to sync hardware tight
and are willing to spend the money ($800+).
Midi-patchbays:
You should know that the Midex is no longer supported by Steinberg.
Check out the ESI M8U, it's multi-platform (windows, mac, linux)
and does not require driver upgrades (most older devices such as
the studio 128x and midex only work in windows 95/98). Do yourself
a favor and do some research.
KryonikMessiah23
offlinemember
Gotta love industrial forums and how much they just utterly -drip- with condescension.
Rogue Process
offlineMember
@ Rayzr - It's an Atari Midex. And believe you me, I do my research ;)
*pats KryonikMessiah on the head*
:P
soillodge
offlineTech Moderator
Fuck MIDI you guys, get out of the 80's! :P
`michael
http://www.atarimusic.net/index.php/featured-articles/atari-hardware/atari-midi-hardware-vs-
I found this to be a great read.
I recommend a multi out for the atari st, one midi out is not so great if oyu are daisy chaining gear out one output.
My pc with win 98 cubase 2.8 with amt8 serial does much better when sending out all 8 outs.
I use a MIDI Cascade of atm 5 Emagic Devices (AMT8 and Unitor 8)...and never had a MIDI latency > 3ms.....
MOTU on the other hand got me a latency of up to one bar....when input Keys over a synth and recording it...
Hahahahah, simple test dont matter, try it with a full system load. CPU, and disk, or even half, then record multi midi from multi outs, then measure your midi.
Your tests mean nothing until you stress test them, and i have been doing this and that is why i jumped away from the modern daws.
The old gear does it better.
Its under a system load that midi goes to crap, and it has nothing to do with the midi interface, its the application not giving midi priority over timing, and with large buffers on a big system load, it turns to feces fast.
You must log in to post.
