I mean, kinda what he’s demonstrating here. I honestly can’t see what “thousands of velocity levels” is going to open up beyond what can’t already be achieved expressively. MPE and after touch has already filled in the gaps you couldn’t get from 127 velocity value levels. Don’t mean to naysay, I’m genuinely curious what thousands of velocity values could possibly do that’s actually audible by the human ear. I’m the same with Dolby atmos. Aside from, say, a futuristic mega led globe dome structure with like thousands of spacial speakers giving every seat the same identical 360° immersive experience they build in like Dubai or Las Vegas or something, adopting the technology in my own creative endeavours seems like a needless level of technicality added to my workflow for no real payoff. Of substance. It’s like 3D movies. I’m afraid just like with Dolby Atmos earbuds, I’m sceptical Thousands of values of velocity would even be audible. Let’s hope I’m proven wrong when 2.0 midi finally comes out. Apparently disclosures coming too…

I’m just sayin’. Ned is living proof we already have more options than we can ever possibly have and many times never discover we had. Thousands more velocities seems like overkill….

I’m hoping MIDI 2.0 will open up more online networking options. That’s the only real revolutionary aspect of it I can appreciate could be game changing…

@@DarkFutureConsolidated not just about the audible , it’s about feel/feedback of playing midi instruments, 127 value is terrible, I mean it was created in the 1980’s so it’s very old tech. Playing a modeled piano like pianoteq with thousands of velocity values going to make for better performances. Anyway midi 2.0 doesn’t just change velocity, it will improve all midi cc parameters like filter cut off with thousands of value will be smooth as butter. No stepping.

@@The_Invisible_Man yeah I get it. But 127 isn’t terrible it’s adequate. I’m sure if you sat down and compared step by step differences in the new values, they open up between each of the 127 current values, you would be able to pick up the slight differences in value. Maybe. but it’s not gonna capture any more expression in live performance than it already does. MIDI has more of a stepping problem when transmitting multiple channels of midi data across multiple pieces of hardware all hitting one note simultaneously. For example, you set up 16 909’s, sequence, a four bar pattern with all nine instruments hitting the first note of each bar. 4 to the floor. So kick snare low mid high Toms, open n closed HH, clap, rim and cymbal all on the down. DAW or hardware, you send all 16 channels to all 16 909’s triggering all sounds on all machines playing simultaneously on the first beat of every bar every bar @ 130BPM, your rave is going to suck. So hard. MIDI has never had a problem with the 127 values. MIDI,s problem is sending multiple pieces of note data on the same note simultaneously across multiple channels. Honestly, if 127 levels of note value, compromised, capturing expression, trust me, the major labels would’ve addressed it decades ago. And the scenario I just gave you, it’s rarely a scenario. Because that’s in alive environment, controlling multiple pieces of hardware simultaneously. There are so many work arounds for that we’ve coped just fine. And those who haven’t solve the problem quite some time ago. The CIRKLON hardware sequencer, Aphex’s sequencer of choice, (It’s the sequencer’s Richard D James rejects that makes CIRKLON the best), can be fitted out with an optional serial port hardware sync. You have to mod all your hardware with serial ports to make use of it, but it eliminates the use of a compatible universal industry interface standard bridging devices. Everything’s hardwired into a serial. so that 16 909 scenario I gave you, on a custom serial port fitted CIRKLON sequencer and tens of thousands of dollars spent on installing serial ports on already extremely rare vintage gear, you’ll have every sound on all 16 909’s hitting so tight on that first beat of every bar, Grenache will set its atomic clock by it. Or as RDJ himself puts it, “ it’s tighter than a gnats vag.” Point is, the downfalls in Moody has always been pushed to its limits, playing multiple instruments across multiple channels, further impacted by complex multi note sequencing in a live setup. Something that there has always been a workaround for. Because unless you are, in fact, Richard D. James, the chances are even if you know for a fact that having a live set up with cereal hardware sync for all of your priceless , vintage hardware, and money is no object for you and you’re willing to invest whatever it takes, I think the majority of people, even in those unlikely circumstances will opt to persevere with standard Midi. And I don’t mean to harp on, but if you have everything set up right, everything is smooth as butter these days, and if it isn’t smooth as butter it’s not normally MIDI itself that’s the problem. Trust me I have had my fair share of hair tearingly frustrating midi, configuration situations. And like all others before me, and since, I have also learnt to adapt and compensate and work around for the few downfalls that come hand-in-hand with Midi. Does it matter that it’s very old tech? The fact that it is so old goes to show that it was ahead of its time, and clearly the pros far outweigh the cons because for all its faults and failures I don’t think anybody would be to put out if the announcement came tomorrow morning Midi 2.0 will be at least 20 years away. Sure, there can be improvements, but you tell me one thing about MIDI that is so bad there, it’s been outcry for a new version. You can’t. Because there is no outcry for a new MIDI or a replacement or alternative. Link was a fantastic accompaniment. It’s more an enhancement. besides, putting things in sync, they’re two completely different things. And I’m sorry I don’t mean to go on about it, but I just can’t see at this stage how anything can make for better performances. Better performances we can’t already achieve im saying. I’m all for a new midi. Any improvement or enhancement is going to be welcome. It might make the performance capture process a better experience, but I honestly can’t see how it’s going to actually improve performances. Sorry. But I want you to convince me. Make for better for performances how? Do you have any examples? And don’t get me wrong I think Midi is far from perfect and there are numerous changes I would implement if I had the influence. And I’m not saying won’t improve in the areas you are suggesting either. I’m just not convinced this stage how it’s going to introduced anything that will make performances better than they already are. Enhanced Sure. More Streamlined workflow. Great. Gives you tools as a performer to get the most from your performances. Even better. Deliver a level of nuanced expressionism that was impossible achieve previously? “Tell her she’s dreamin’” I’ll go so far to say we don’t need it, we’re fine without it at all, and advancements in production hardware and software will not be held back by Never getting it. Other than global networking. That can be sorted out without it being incorporated into Midi And the only other case I could make from my position , if you think the additional values will bring an improvement in the detail of expression captured, does that mean you believe we are not perceiving performances as good as we could be as human beings? Hmmmm ….? That a competent musician might just be discovered to have a level of genius to his playing that just wasn’t possible to perceive until we developed the technology to hear the beauty of human expressionism and present it slightly better than humans can express…. I know that’s a stretch at the end. Just trying to highlight the human expressionism is as beautiful now as it ever will ever be with or without Midi 2.0 and it’s thousands and thousands of value levels…. ultimately, I can’t see it offering anything other than more convenience. Certainly not revolutionary game changer that pushes the artistry of musicianship forward…