a question about midis

I've always used sound blaster cards in pc's because they seem to have the most realistic instruments when it comes to doom wads. I have an x-fi xtreme audio at the moment, which I just found out does not actually have a hardware chipset, it uses software emulation, at least for midi. However the instruments still sound quite realistic, much moreso than using onboard sound. Just wondering if a card with an emu20k chipset would make midis sound even better, or even another brand of sound card altogether? I'm aware of soundfonts however I want to use ports that don't support timidity and all that.

Just get this and then join everyone else in debating which soundfont is best.

Also, Creative has had such awful software support for all their stuff for so long that I'll never buy or endorse their stuff again. They're really terrible.

Aliotroph? said:

Just get this and then join everyone else in debating which soundfont is best.

Also, Creative has had such awful software support for all their stuff for so long that I'll never buy or endorse their stuff again. They're really terrible.

That thing roots so deep into the system that it's almost impossible to remove. I had to remove it manually using linux.

Nowadays CPUs are powerful enough that you can do high quality MIDI in software. There isn't really any need to get a special sound card that can do it in hardware. I doubt there are many such cards even still being manufactured.

Aliotroph? said:

Just get this and then join everyone else in debating which soundfont is best.

Also, Creative has had such awful software support for all their stuff for so long that I'll never buy or endorse their stuff again. They're really terrible.

I can install it, but with vista midi picker, I get "unknown device" which selecting doesn't actually pick it for midi. Midi programs can use it just fine. I have zdoom set up with fluidsynth to use the soundfont that the bassmidi creator recommends though. Any idea why vista midi picker isn't working?

I have a question about MIDI: how come we've been using it for nearly 30 years but the most advanced interface we can come up with is "OMG PRESS KEY ON PIANO NOW YOU IS RECORD ON COMPUTAR"?

My MIDI program should be able to profile the synthesizer's instrument set and sequence using non-GM sounds.

Bucket said:

I have a question about MIDI: how come we've been using it for nearly 30 years but the most advanced interface we can come up with is "OMG PRESS KEY ON PIANO NOW YOU IS RECORD ON COMPUTAR"?

Perhaps because that's exactly its purpose, nothing less and certainly nothing more.

Why, what more did you expect of it? Send a tweet and update your facebook profile, maybe?

invictius said:

I can install it, but with vista midi picker, I get "unknown device" which selecting doesn't actually pick it for midi. Midi programs can use it just fine. I have zdoom set up with fluidsynth to use the soundfont that the bassmidi creator recommends though. Any idea why vista midi picker isn't working?

Microsoft crippled the user end of the MIDI mapper stuff. You don't get an option for it at all in Windows 7. Bassmidi comes with its own configuration tool you have to use to set the MIDI device. It's the same tool that picks the soundfont.

@Bucket: That sounds like your tool just sucks. There's nothing in MIDI preventing it from being used for just about anything you can connect to it. Assuming you have the right stuff on hand you could be recording what your program insists is a guitar, but is actually a theremin you have wired to you PC. (Yes, you can get a MIDI theremin, a MIDI wind instrument, etc, etc.)

I think Bucket refers to some sort of extended protocol that could also pass stuff like actual digitized samples, instrument definitions and maybe other kinds of configuration metadata. AFAIK there are a few custom/manufacturer specific MIDI extensions that do that, but don't expect them to work everywhere.

Such a protocol would be more like MODI, than MIDI ;-)

Base MIDI simply doesn't have the bandwidth to do most of the above stuff, and is not designed to efficiently pass even moderately-sized packets of data.

The MIDI standard(s) actually evolve, though slowly. That's why there's GM 2 and stuff.

A MOD-like system actually exists: the Extended RIFF MIDI format, where you use a RIFF container to bundle together a MIDI song and a DLS soundfont. This has been superseded by Extensible Music Format.

Maes said:

I think Bucket refers to some sort of extended protocol that could also pass stuff like actual digitized samples, instrument definitions and maybe other kinds of configuration metadata. AFAIK there are a few custom/manufacturer specific MIDI extensions that do that, but don't expect them to work everywhere.

The MIDI protocol is extensible enough that you could do this if you wanted.

fraggle said:

The MIDI protocol is extensible enough that you could do this if you wanted.

This is true, and I believe SysEx is what makes it possible. In fact, that's how I can transfer waveforms to my PolyEvolver's digital oscillators. It's also how it sends firmware updates to it.

fraggle said:

The MIDI protocol is extensible enough that you could do this if you wanted.

If by "extensible" you mean building a custom protocol on top of it, sure, you can do that, but don't expect it to work universally or be backwards compatible. It's not like adding a color carrier to B&W (analog) TV signals, which are still backwards compatible.

MIDI is also pretty limited by the types of interfacing hardware that can be used with it, again, if you are interested in maintaining broad compatibility. By using anything but 5-pin DIN low-data rate connectors with optical isolation, you are simply pushing your luck. There might be some exotic stuff like MIDI-over-USB or MIDI-over-Firewire, but again, don't expect those to work with everything.

MIDI is about sticking to a lowest common denominator, which happens to be pretty low exactly because it's a 30 yo protocol.