Details about MIDI 2.0

https://www.midi.org/articles-old/details-about-midi-2-0-midi-ci-profiles-and-property-exchange

by dmoreno • 7 years ago

281 147 7 years ago

vkaku2• 7 years ago

Not as fun to read, outside the music industry. Lack of consistent samples has been MIDI's major issues, and even in games these days, nobody uses it, sadly.

dmoreno6• 7 years ago

It does not make sense to use it in games. It would need a good synthesis engine plus samples which consumes much more CPU than reproducing a MP3.

If in your game you go the synthesis mode (chiptunes and whatnot) MIDI is a comunication protocol between devices.. if you want to use it to communicate a game with its own synthesis engine it makes less sense. Buy you may want MIDI so you compose in a standard music composing program.

It is used also in other areas that need automation, as lighting (DMX).

But I agree it would be nice to have better examples.

hedora2• 7 years ago

It would need a good synthesis engine plus samples which consumes much more CPU than reproducing a MP3.

My 386 could do a decent job running DOS trackers (software synths) years before mp3’s were feasible on PC hardware (there was not enough storage, bandwidth or compute for MP3’s).

The Kosmic Free Music Foundation published a ton of music on one CD-ROM this way:

https://archive.org/details/KOSMICD1.tar

vnorilo2• 7 years ago

MIDI is just a control protocol. You are thinking of General MIDI [1], which defined a vague set of sounds associated with a program number, that allowed playing a sequence on different engines with horribly mixed results as you said.

MIDI 2.0 brings additional capabilities to device interconnection, and AFAIK has nothing to do with GM (which not many people care about anymore)

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_MIDI

burfog• 7 years ago

Lack of consistent samples is far worse without General MIDI. You could get a flute switched with a snare drum.

matchagaucho2• 7 years ago

MIDI actually allowed game designers to decouple samples from the events that triggered them.

coldtea4• 7 years ago

Lack of consistent samples

MIDI has nothing to do with samples itself.

and even in games these days, nobody uses it, sadly.

Most recorded music, soundtracks, and almost 100% of game music is been done with MIDI.

MIDI doesn't amount to the .mid files that people used to download / play on some player on their PC and which sound tinny.

It's a professional specification that's used in every single studio, and is the basis of every professional digital workstation for recording music and sequencing electronic instruments.

What you're describing is like confusing the JVM with Java applets, as if that's its only use.

dmoreno6• 7 years ago

As I read it, in brief, it adds much more resolution, and a introspection protocol using bidirectional communication which allows property exchange and profiles.

Both very welcome additions! Finally no stepping on CC and note velocity, and the DAW can really know about the synth / controller capabilities, as it knows already with VSTs.

And keeps MIDI 1.0 compatibility.

warent• 7 years ago

Now we just wait a decade for any DAW to support it, plus another million years if you're an Ableton Live user...

Kye2• 7 years ago

Reaper will probably have it quickly. They update it at least once a month and don't have any need to upsell to the next version or tier.

mathnmusic• 7 years ago

I feel MIDI is severely underutilized outside music. It's a simple, standard protocol that relays switches being turned on/off, and knobs being turned high or low. The only standard alternative that I know about is would be USB HID interface which has its limitations.

What are some cool uses of MIDI you have seen outside music-making?

iforgotpassword3• 7 years ago

Midi maze? :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI_Maze

boomlinde4• 7 years ago

I haven't listened in on the data but it seems likely that MIDI Maze only uses the electrical standards, i.e. a proprietary protocol over MIDI ports

shams93• 7 years ago

You could use it for game control having a super low latency midi controller would also work for game controllers

rerx• 7 years ago

Indeed: Pre-USB "game ports" doubled as MIDI interfaces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_port

elcritch• 7 years ago

It’s comparable, and in some ways superior as a general control protocol, to Modbus. Can’t recall the specifics but MIDI seemed better defined and generally saner (IMHO).

A good example of non-music MIDI is Firmata; it’s a protocol based on MIDI and allows remote control of Arduino and other MCUs [1]. Seems both modbus and midi have transports over Ethernet now as well.

1: https://github.com/PatternAgents/Electronics_One_Workshop/wi...

kekebo• 7 years ago

not sure if it qualifies as "cool" but i see midi controllers being used a lot for live video mixing in clubs / events

edit: spelling

_pmf_• 7 years ago

I think most of the use cases you think of are currently covered by the USB Test and Measurement Device standard and/or the instrument control protocols (GPIB, VISA).

jawngee3• 7 years ago

There are better protocols outside of MIDI like Open Sound Control aka OSC (http://opensoundcontrol.org)

I used to do a lot of experiential retailing experiences and OSC was our preferred control scheme.

shearskill• 7 years ago

what is experiential retailing?

boomlinde4• 7 years ago

"Better" is a matter of requirements. You can interpret a stream of bytes of MIDI with some tens of lines of C code and a couple of bytes of interpreter state. The physical interface is less than a handful of components. For OSC you need an IP stack.

PeterisP• 7 years ago

I'm not in that industry, but isn't it also used for controlling stage lights in some cases?

inflatableDodo• 7 years ago

Yep, am using QLC+ at the moment and it has profiles for all sorts of midi controllers. https://www.qlcplus.org/

justin66• 7 years ago

That's DMX512.

formercoder• 7 years ago

MIDI will often be used to trigger the console to change cues which then uses DMX512 to control the lights.

mhh__2• 7 years ago

DMX is standard for lighting, but although the actual protocol is rock solid the parts around it are no where near as good as MIDI. Device to device is fine, but USB DMX controllers are expensive and rubbish in my experience using them to control a ~100 piece (dumb) lighting rig

smnc• 7 years ago

How about controlling a band consisting of robots playing real instruments? [0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7nMZvueKNQ

Compressorhead are built out of metal scrap, most of the movings are made with electro pneumatics. It is controlled via Midi. There is an interface that changes the Midi signals in switch signals for the electro pneumatic valves…,” Kolbie’s voice drifts off. He has soon got his face in a Robotics for Dummies manual. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressorhead

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20181016144145/http://www.gibson...

sjwright4• 7 years ago

I read the first line of your post and I seriously expected the YouTube link to be this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evHVh4bqaOQ

All controlled by MIDI, unsurprisingly.

soulofmischief• 7 years ago

Thank you so much for that rabbit hole.

hedora2• 7 years ago

Back in the 90’s, MIDI was used by some firework detonators to sync the launches and explosions with music, etc.

Bad_CRC• 7 years ago

They are being use on photography editing software: https://petapixel.com/2019/01/26/using-a-midi-controller-wit...

barneygale• 7 years ago

I haven't done a write-up yet, but my partner and I use MIDI as part of our custom lighting setup, which we bring to gigs and other events. A MIDI controller is hooked up to a raspberry pi running some Python software. We use the `mido` library for decoding MIDI. We then drive a bunch of RGB LED strips using DMX. Video: https://www.instagram.com/p/BtjLSUeFjtJ/.

callalex• 7 years ago

Is there a reason you chose to do that rather than use something more standard like OSC or ArtNet?

sly010• 7 years ago

There is OSC, which I think is under appreciated. It's super easy to implement, it's literally just UDP.

ken• 7 years ago

DMX512 does that, too, and it seems even simpler to me.

sbr464• 7 years ago

I completely agree. We are launching a new web app/platform soon and have completely integrated the web midi and gamepad APIs, allowing you to control any piece of the software with any midi controller and/or gamepad, including devices like the new Microsoft adaptive controller, which supports many more types of analog switches.

One of my favorite parts of both APIs is that they don’t require focus on elements or the window/tab and are naturally multi-touch.

This allows you to rapidly speed through the interface and perform tasks.

sixdimensional• 7 years ago

I agree. I was watching the first video in the article and thinking there must be similar standard protocols for IoT orchestration. I mean, anything that can be controlled and needs orchestration must have some kind of similar protocol?

zzo38computer• 7 years ago

I agree there is many use, which is what I have done with IMIDI. You can also use it with television and all sorts of stuff. While most of the commands are same as MIDI (a few are removed, and also a few having to do with forwarding signals to connected devices are added), some of the meanings are bit more general, and the signal is two ways and the format of the SysEx payload is different (and does not require any kind of registration) (although the framing is same as normal MIDI, so if the signal is recorded by something that does not interpret SysEx payloads, the recording will still work). You can also forward signals to other devices; you can have a tree structure of devices and each device can have up to 128 children, selected by the use of the Device Select command (which is an optional implementation; compliant implementations are required to parse the command even if it is otherwise ignored; this is the same with all other commands, which it is required to parse even if it is otherwise ignored). (My own intention of a computer design is using IMIDI for all of the input devices, rather than USB or PS/2 or whatever (I dislike USB). And you can also use the IMIDI to transmit captions along with a television picture (the picture using Digi-RGB, and the sound using ordinary analog audio ports), and/or to control the channel setting of a external TV tuner and to control the VCR, too).

Specifically, for exclusive messages in IMIDI, the first byte specifies the type of message and the channel (some exclusive messages might be channel independent, and this is also indicated), and the second byte is a namespace number. The four types of exclusive messages are: application message, namespace error, namespace request, namespace response. Note that the first byte has four bits for the channel, one bit for channel independence, and two bits for message type, filling up the seven available bits, and the namespace number is also seven bits. (If the channel independence bit is set, then a 11-bit namespace number is used, because the channel bits are used as additional bits for the namespace number in this case.)

Some namespace numbers may be predefined by the application in use. Other namespaces are negotiated by the use of the protocol mentioned above.

vkaku2• 7 years ago

Lights, Props, Water Fountains, Drones. Anything that can be a show in Las Vegas.

bitwize• 7 years ago

MIDI is extensively used for stage light control.

jacquesm2• 7 years ago

I've used MIDI ports on an Atari ST to control tool changers and coolant pumps on an industrial CAD/CAM station.

yc-kraln• 7 years ago

Is the connector still that only DIN+USB-Micro hybrid? It looks like it's expensive and fragile.

matchagaucho2• 7 years ago

For backwards compatibility, all MIDI 2.0 features will still work over 5 Pin DIN cable.

makomk• 7 years ago

According to the linked page, 5-pin DIN still only supports traditional MIDI 1.0 and there's no plan to change this currentlyt.

tragic• 7 years ago

Will MIDI 2.0 devices need to use a new connector or cable?
No, MIDI 2.0 is a transport agnostic protocol.
That's engineering speak for MIDI 2.0 is a set of messages and those messages are not tied to any particular cable or connector.

7812• 7 years ago

DIN connectors are not expensive, nor fragile (too young to have used cassette players with them?). They are however big. Which is why the industry started using mini-jack connectors. They are now officially sanctioned:

https://www.musicradar.com/news/mini-jack-connectors-are-now...

dmoreno6• 7 years ago

I for one expect that MIDI 2.0 helps to boost the RTP MIDI protocol adoption (over ethernet). It has much more speed, longer distances, less latency, proper packet loss recovery (which is not a problem on local networks) and overall much better hardware ecosystem.

Even on WiFi it is useful although latency is very jittery.

Disclaimer: I'm working on a RTP MIDI implementation for linux (https://github.com/davidmoreno/rtpmidid)

paranoidrobot2• 7 years ago

Even on WiFi it is useful although latency is very jittery.

Could you elaborate on why Wifi latency jitter would be an issue for MIDI?

From an outsider's perspective and with only a vague knowledge of MIDI, it doesn't seem to be something that should be any more sensitive to latency jitter than other realtime applications like audio/video.

salicideblock• 7 years ago

In broad terms, performing music is much more sensitive to latency than A/V playback is.

Think of it like playback vs a phone call. If you have 0.5s gap between audio and video, you hardly notice. But the same latency in a phone call makes it very awkward.

In music performance, the awkwardness would be multiplied by the number of spectators cringeing :)

dmoreno6• 7 years ago

Music performance is a synchronized effort, and with very precise timings. If there is lag, everything is just a bit late and a musician can (unconsciously) compensate up to some point. But for example (if my math is correct) 120 bpm, has 8th notes every 250ms.

If drum beat is sometimes, and only sometimes, 100ms later than it should, the result is not nice at all. And it is random jitter.

mrob4• 7 years ago

Excellent demonstration at 6:52 here:

https://archive.org/details/GDC2013Pavaheau

Even 5ms jitter is perceptible, and 10ms is obvious when compared directly with 0ms.

TazeTSchnitzel• 7 years ago

Audio and video streaming have buffering, which hides most jitter. MIDI doesn't have that at all.

yardie• 7 years ago

Wow. This took so long to happen that I assumed it had already happened, a decade ago. Early RFCs went out while I was in college.

tsegratis2• 7 years ago

16bit note velocity

For electronic drums I would of much prefered at least 24bit. Volume is by far and away a drum's most expressive dimension, so it will be limited by a 16bit velocity range. Adding velocity curves just masks the problem

Though of course 16bit is orders of magintude better than the current 8bit range

royjacobs• 7 years ago

Why wouldn't 65536 separate velocities not be enough, even for the most expressive drummer (or indeed for any other instrument)?

coldtea4• 7 years ago

For electronic drums I would of much prefered at least 24bit. Volume is by far and away a drum's most expressive dimension, so it will be limited by a 16bit velocity range.

It wont be limited at all, real human players have no control as subtle as 256 levels, much less 65K levels... Nobody would even notice anything...

edejong3• 7 years ago

Not my experience. The expressive control is exponential, so either you clip on either end of the velocity spectrum, or you get discrete steps at the lower end.

phs25014• 7 years ago

99% of digital recorded music only has 16 bit velocity for every sample. I think it'd be fine.

mrob4• 7 years ago

16bit is sufficient for listening, but it leaves no headroom for production. Modern music is often recorded in 24bit and only rendered to 16bit as the final step.

widdershins• 7 years ago

Remember that music on a CD has only 16bit depth. It's plenty of dynamic range, especially for a control signal that can map to any output amplitude range.

mrob4• 7 years ago

It's plenty of dynamic range only when you know in advance what the lowest and highest values are going to be so you can scale it correctly, or if you're using a logarithmic scale. Neither are as convenient as higher bit depth linear scale.

kyberias• 7 years ago

Your resolution problem with electric drums is not MIDI, it's your drums.

ClassyJacket• 7 years ago

I'd bet money on it that you couldn't tell even if it was 10-bit. 16-bit gives you 65536 levels of volume, that's surely overkill for anything a human can control or recognize. You certainly can't consistently drum with 65,536 different levels of volume. You wouldn't be able to even do 256.

tnolet2• 7 years ago

I once had a dream that every new synth, sampler or drum machine I brought into my studio would automatically recognize the local MIDI network, joined it and would pop up as a new device in my Cubase sequencer.

All wireless of course. Like Bluetooth but actually working. A man can dream.

PS: it would also stream multitrack audio over ASIO wireless and expose its inputs and outputs.

okket• 7 years ago

Also:

- perfectly synchronised

- zero latency

This may be hard to realise with lots of devices and wireless connections.

tnolet2• 7 years ago

Yes!

Also, my dream included vintage synths with just cv controls that would just connect to some dongle/wireless CV converter and boom, integrated. The dongle converted perfectly between all the various Yamaha, Roland and Moog standards.

hnarn• 7 years ago

This may be hard to realise with lots of devices and wireless connections.

Assuming that the latency of the wireless connections is at least relatively predictable, you could just introduce a suitable delay like with NTP time syncing, right? Of course, it's possible that the latency will be wildly unpredictable and in that case it's pretty much impossible, but that doesn't have to be the case.

munificent• 7 years ago

I think a lot of performing musicians actually prefer the reliability of a wired connection with no handshaking going on.

thefounder• 7 years ago

The future of MIDI is AVB and/or AES67 with OSC

stuntkite2• 7 years ago

You seem to be the only person commenting that gets it. I think that might be because anyone who cares just skipped this press release. Even calling this MIDI 2.0 is a deception. We have MIDI, it's great. The tools that follow exist already and MIDI 2.0 doesn't appear to add any value.

Whatever this hustle is, it can fuck right off in my book.

kitotik• 7 years ago

Property Exchange uses JSON inside of the System Exclusive messages.

For some reason this made me lol. The idea of cramming some JSON inside a SysEx seems crazy.

Hopefully the timing is actually improved in 2.0. Once you are past “hello world” getting midi gear to sync up has always been a nightmare.

VLM• 7 years ago

One of ESR's relatively recent rants about protocol design is optimizing the right thing vs scaling a protocol for use over long time, so he's a big fan of using JSON in the next generation of NTP.

One quote summarizes a couple thousand words "We should be designing to minimize the cost of human attention."

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8254

when you can run all the world's stratum 1 traffic on a raspberry pi, you shouldn't be optimizing for bw and speed, but for bug-free-ness and security and ease of use. Likewise back when a minimal computer system was a multicard S100 Z80 system minimal midi made sense, but now a days it should be like adhoc wifi with a REST API or something similar.

Ericson2314• 7 years ago

Text is not how we optimize for correctness. I can already see my cheap synth failing on scientific notation oddities, BOM, and other JSON gotchas.

Please read up on langsec.

Uristqwerty• 7 years ago

JSON exposes implementors to all sorts of recursion, numeric precision, etc., where the only advantage is that you can consume the data through whatever JSON library already exists (but also having to handle that library's unique quirks).

When you look into it, while ESR says he's using JSON, he's really using a custom format that is readable by typical JSON libraries, but his format has very strict limitations, and his implementation is designed to error out early, rather than parsing an entire 10MB object tree before handing anything back to the application. He does not acknowledge this inconsistency in the article, only mentioning it late in the comment section.

Extensibility is valuable, but does that mean the format should support '"position": {"x":5,"y":[7.2,"XXIV"],"font-face":"Comic Sans"}', where every single object can have arbitrarily-many unrelated fields inserted? HTTP is better, with a flat key-value list, but if you build on top of HTTP itself, you now do not know if any of the systems on the network or libraries used might respond strangely to some obscure old header.

Personally, I think transmitting integers as text is at best rude, and somewhat comparable to Java allowing any reference to be null: Every client now has to handle an extra error condition on every parse. With binary integers, every bit pattern is valid, so you can perform a single range check to handle every type of bad input. Use 0x1234 as a magic number somewhere, and endianness errors are trivially debugged from a single sample packet.

diydsp• 7 years ago

This bothers angers me: >To implement MIDI-CI and MIDI 2.0, you need a manufacturers SysEx ID. A SysEx ID by itself is $250 a year

That would be a re-hash of the hobbyist USB VID/PID fiasco. MIDI synthesizers are one of the main non-activities which non-professional people have been doing. So many amateurs and educators whip up MIDI synthesizers in a few hours in a workshop or after work. And that is thanks to MIDI being a dirt-simple, unlicensed standard.

You will also have access to the MMA Github which has code for MIDI 2.0 to MIDI 1.0 translation (and vis versa)

yrro• 7 years ago

Can amateurs club together and form an organisation to administrate allocations from a common ID range? Or just liblically declare that they are going to squat on a particular range?

edoceo• 7 years ago

Haha! All IDs that start with 0x0FEE ;p

dmoreno6• 7 years ago

I was just listening to the midi 2.0 webminar from the midi association, and as I understood there are some free sysex and ci id for non profits / hobbists, but if you make money out of it you should register. I guess mainly to prevent ID collisions.

mrob4• 7 years ago

It's pure money grabbing. They could just as well avoid collisions by specifying a UUID for the SysEx ID, and then everybody could generate their own independently.

jobigoud• 7 years ago

In the USB case that simply translates to rogue VID/PID by vendors that don't want to pay the fee.

holy_city• 7 years ago

Steinberg tried the same thing with VST (2, not 3). No one uses (relies on) it.

At the end of the day specs are only as good as adoption. If there is a reliable workaround (or even easier way to do things) than using the UUID then people will do that instead.

H1Supreme• 7 years ago

How would they enforce the SysEx ID charge if someone built a synth for personal use? I've wrote a number of midi programs (sequencing utilities) and never remember implementing a SysEx ID for anything.

Also, it's pretty naive of these guys to assume their Github repo will stay hidden behind a $250 charge for very long.

an_d_rew• 7 years ago

This makes me sad and angry at the same time.

My introduction to MIDI was as a cheap-ass soldering-iron wielding 13 year old hooking together components for my Commodore VIC-20. I credit that work for my subsequent career as a scientist, programmer, and mathematician.

$250 a year. To solve a solved problem?

Everyone generates a UUID. Part of the CI setup is mapping the 128-bit UUID to a short identifier. Or some other compression scheme. Hell, even 64-bit random identifiers will almost-surely not collide on a bus.

So much for "hobbyist-friendly".

And totally unnecessary.

illumin8• 7 years ago

$250 a year is a pretty small amount, probably about what it costs to keep a registry of SysEx IDs so that manufacturers don't create conflicts.

What's the alternative? This is a bit like MAC addresses - if network gear manufacturers didn't have some type of system for de-conflicting addresses it would be chaos when you bought 2 pieces of gear that conflicted with each other.

kalleboo• 7 years ago

In the classic Mac days it was up to each developer to make up a FourCC for their application. I don't remember there ever being any conflicts.

stevehiehn• 7 years ago

I'm trying to understand the 'bi-directional' part. There used to be a idea of midi out & midi in. So does this mean you only need one cable connected now?

ductionist• 7 years ago

It sounds that way - but they also say that connections over 5-pin DIN is/will be MIDI 1.0 only.

habosa• 7 years ago

I have just started to play around in the world of electronic music and have had my first real exposure to MIDI. I just want to say ... wow. Something like this is so rare. I have pieces of equipment from different decades that can talk to each other using a $2 cable and no computer in between.

As a programmer I'm used to walled gardens and competing standards. MIDI is a breath of fresh air. I hope whatever 2.0 brings can keep this spirit alive.

7812• 7 years ago

There is MIDI competition, more open and some say better, it just never caught on outside open-source/hacker/maker circles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_Control

seandougall3• 7 years ago

OSC is fantastic in many ways, but it makes for a pretty inefficient (and unnecessary) replacement for the primary use case of MIDI, which is note on/off messages. It’s much better suited to some of the other layers that got bolted on top of MIDI, such as MIDI Show Control. For most musical purposes, MIDI v1 is perfectly sufficient, well-documented, optimized, and open (from the standpoint of being free to implement).

OSC absolutely has caught on in a lot of professional applications, just not the ones that MIDI was initially designed to serve. It’s huge in the world of theater, for example.

(Background: I wrote the initial OSC implementation for QLab [a theatrical show control application].)

ssalazar2• 7 years ago

OSC is awesome but it never caught on with the mainstream because nobody standardized common music production events like noteOn/noteOff or control change. Furthermore, the original developers never attempted to build any industry consensus.

This was probably partly intentional, as it was designed by the academic community to solve the needs of relatively esoteric music production systems (e.g. [1]), whereas MIDI was standardized by a broad consortium of manufacturers of professional-oriented music products.

[1] https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2009/03/24/slabs-touch-pa...

anigbrowl• 7 years ago

You'll like DMX and CV too.

jacquesm2• 7 years ago

Once upon a time almost all standards were like that. You got the spec, wrote some code and off to the races. Then proprietary stuff happened, then that got displaced by open standards and now we're back to proprietary. It won't be long before email and messaging are all proprietary.

Wonder what the next swing of the pendulum will look like?

shakna• 7 years ago

As a programmer I'm used to walled gardens and competing standards. MIDI is a breath of fresh air. I hope whatever 2.0 brings can keep this spirit alive.

At $250 a SysEx ID it seems MIDI 2.0 is exactly the opposite of that spirit.

To implement MIDI-CI and MIDI 2.0, you need a manufacturers SysEx ID. A SysEx ID by itself is $250 a year, but it is included with your MMA membership.

A membership, not an open protocol.

elihu2• 7 years ago

Midi 2 adds some much-needed features (per-note pitch bend, for instance), but what I expect to happen is that the major manufacturers are going to only implement the parts they care about.

I'd kind of like to see MIDI replaced outright with something built on a somewhat different (less piano-centric) abstraction; something more voice-oriented rather than note-oriented. Instead of having some number of fixed pitch notes that you turn on and off and settings that apply to all notes, you have voices that you can control independently (set volume, filter cutoff, control the envelope, disable and enable, and so on). You can do that now with the one-note-per-channel trick or MPE if it's supported, but it's kind of kludgy and only works with synths that are multitimbral to begin with.

stuntkite2• 7 years ago

MIDI 2.0 looks like garbage and it barely features what Open Sound Control has been doing forever. I'm interested, but the demos here were made by people that don't make music and suck at hardware, software, blogging, and video presentation.

Whatever this is, I'm hard pressed to care.

Details about MIDI 2.0

Related Stories