sent this to http://apple.com/feedback/ipod.html
Autymn D. C.
iPods must support MIDI! How could Apple not support those files, as
well as their composing, on a music player? Think of what Flash did
for presentations. Make Garageband portable or something. Digital
step functions, vectors, instructions: They're the best, and should be
all the rage. The last concept takes me to wanting native support for
font development.
Mr Ed Of Course
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> design defect
>
> iPods must support MIDI! How could Apple not support those files, as
> well as their composing, on a music player? Think of what Flash did
> for presentations. Make Garageband portable or something. Digital
> step functions, vectors, instructions: They're the best, and should be
> all the rage. The last concept takes me to wanting native support for
> font development.
You do realize that in order to support MIDI, additional processing is
required in the form of a synthesizer and that the instruments would
need to be stored on the device as well. The added circuitry would add
to the cost and size, and there would be an impact on interface and
support as well.
Cheap-ass MIDI support really sucks in terms of quality. If Apple did
support it, it would have to be relatively higher end support. And as
far as *composing* support...well, that's just crazy talk.
Given the extremely small number of people who may have MIDI libraries
and what it would cost (money, interface, size, support, etc), I don't
think it's asking too much for people to convert MIDI into any of the
other supported formats of the iPod. It's *easy* to do and really the
only downside is the increase in file size.
Autymn D. C.
Plugging in a MIDI instrument into an iPod for transcription is not
crazy talk anyway. And there are still plenty of people who want to
play MIDI files.
MR_ED_of_Course
C. at lysd...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 9/24/05 9:52 AM:
> Can you give me sizes for all of your objections and suggestions?
Yes,
http://store.apple.com
Click on the iBook graphic.
> Plugging in a MIDI instrument into an iPod for transcription is not
> crazy talk anyway.
Yes, it is.
You're talking about taking a product that is dedicated for one use and has
circuitry solely dedicated to that use, and adding circuitry that performs a
totally different use where the overlap is pretty much negligible.
If what you were talking about was just the ability to plug the iPod into an
instrument and have that instrument read from a midi file and then
synthesize the music, that capacity is already present in the iPod as it is.
What is missing is the bridge between the instrument and the iPod. This
could be done with an iBook...then again, it could be performed if the
instruments themselves had the necessary components.
Therein lies the rub. It makes far more sense to have the components be
based in the instruments than in the iPod. This is because the iPod can be
mounted via USB like any other USB storage device...thus, any MIDI
instrument that could read from any USB storage device could just as easily
read a MIDI file from an iPod as it exists today.
However, you're stuck with two end-units in the equation being linked by
USB. One of those units must become the controller. Consider a couple of
things. First, there are a ton of USB based storage devices which are all
by definition end units...this included the iPod. There is no downside to
having an instrument be able to switch to controller mode when a device is
connected via USB...just add the circuitry. This may cost $$$, but would
consume a fraction of relative size of the product along with power drain
concerns.
On the other hand, the iPod as a controller would need more $$$ and a
significantly higher amount of relative size increase along with crucial
power drain concerns.
> And there are still plenty of people who want to
> play MIDI files.
Apparently there are a *ton* of people who are fine buying the iPod and
other MP3 players without MIDI capability. Again, you can take a MIDI file
and convert it into any iPod compatible format and transfer it to the iPod
using Mac software today.
Adding the MIDI playing capability directly on the iPod will have to
increase size, processing power, and direct production and support
costs...also not mentioned before, there would be licensing costs added.
Autymn D. C.
> in article 1127580736.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, Autymn D.
> C. at lysd...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 9/24/05 9:52 AM:
>
> > Can you give me sizes for all of your objections and suggestions?
>
> Yes,
> http://store.apple.com
> Click on the iBook graphic.
Why did you take me to the store? I saw nothing about the sizes and
powers of chips, or what I was supposed to be looking for in the board.
Is it a codec, or sound card, or CPU, or FPU, or some other PU? The
iBook frontpage didn't help either. Besides, the Mac mini is much
smaller. It sounds like you have no clue what numbers are needed, and
sent me on a trip.
>
> > Plugging in a MIDI instrument into an iPod for transcription is not
> > crazy talk anyway.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> You're talking about taking a product that is dedicated for one use and has
> circuitry solely dedicated to that use, and adding circuitry that performs a
> totally different use where the overlap is pretty much negligible.
specifics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_Instrument_Digital_Interface and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesizer were unhelpful.
> If what you were talking about was just the ability to plug the iPod into an
> instrument and have that instrument read from a midi file and then
> synthesize the music, that capacity is already present in the iPod as it is.
Maybe the least I'd want is for the iPod to borrow processor work of
anything and read its memory, playing the signals back through itself.
> What is missing is the bridge between the instrument and the iPod. This
> could be done with an iBook...then again, it could be performed if the
> instruments themselves had the necessary components.
>
> Therein lies the rub. It makes far more sense to have the components be
> based in the instruments than in the iPod. This is because the iPod can be
> mounted via USB like any other USB storage device...thus, any MIDI
> instrument that could read from any USB storage device could just as easily
> read a MIDI file from an iPod as it exists today.
>
> However, you're stuck with two end-units in the equation being linked by
> USB. One of those units must become the controller. Consider a couple of
> things. First, there are a ton of USB based storage devices which are all
> by definition end units...this included the iPod. There is no downside to
> having an instrument be able to switch to controller mode when a device is
> connected via USB...just add the circuitry. This may cost $$$, but would
> consume a fraction of relative size of the product along with power drain
> concerns.
>
> On the other hand, the iPod as a controller would need more $$$ and a
> significantly higher amount of relative size increase along with crucial
> power drain concerns.
no specifics
> > And there are still plenty of people who want to
> > play MIDI files.
>
> Apparently there are a *ton* of people who are fine buying the iPod and
> other MP3 players without MIDI capability. Again, you can take a MIDI file
> and convert it into any iPod compatible format and transfer it to the iPod
> using Mac software today.
>
> Adding the MIDI playing capability directly on the iPod will have to
> increase size, processing power, and direct production and support
> costs...also not mentioned before, there would be licensing costs added.
People usually don't want something that they don't know of. They
certainly didn't want an iPod before it existed. Nor did many want the
telegraf or television, which authorities spoke their indifference on.
Since most users have no clue what MIDI files and players and
instruments offer (at the least because their unMac sound cards are
awful), they never bothered asking for or wanting it in the iPod. But
the several kilobytes in a MIDI file that translates into several
minutes of clear, crisp, and wonderful music is amazing; and it's
puzzling why the iPod doesn't /do something/ to further that medium.
I'm interested in [amateurly] designing a PowerBook G5 too, and
proposed wireless power as a partial solution:
http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/17171.
-Aut
MR_ED_of_Course
C. at lysd...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 9/25/05 3:33 AM:
> MR_ED_of_Course wrote:
>> in article 1127580736.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, Autymn D.
>> C. at lysd...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 9/24/05 9:52 AM:
>>
>>> Can you give me sizes for all of your objections and suggestions?
>>
>> Yes,
>> http://store.apple.com
>> Click on the iBook graphic.
>
> Why did you take me to the store? I saw nothing about the sizes and
> powers of chips, or what I was supposed to be looking for in the board.
> Is it a codec, or sound card, or CPU, or FPU, or some other PU? The
> iBook frontpage didn't help either. Besides, the Mac mini is much
> smaller. It sounds like you have no clue what numbers are needed, and
> sent me on a trip.
You do realize that MIDI is not a codec, right?
I pointed you to the iBook, because I thought you wanted a *portable* MIDI
solution. The mini isn't portable and doesn't have a display or a built-in
input/control interface.
The point being that what you have been asking for is a lot closer to asking
"why can't they make the iBook the size of an iPod?" rather than "why can't
the iPod add another file format capability?"
It's one thing to ask for FLAC, OGG or other codec support, but MIDI
support...especially the level of support you've asked for is far more
involved and more like asking for an iBook that's the size of an iPod.
>>> Plugging in a MIDI instrument into an iPod for transcription is not
>>> crazy talk anyway.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> You're talking about taking a product that is dedicated for one use and has
>> circuitry solely dedicated to that use, and adding circuitry that performs a
>> totally different use where the overlap is pretty much negligible.
>
> specifics?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_Instrument_Digital_Interface and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesizer were unhelpful.
You're asking for specifics for something that doesn't exist and its
existence would not be economically viable today.
How much would it cost to take an iBook and shrink it down to the size of an
iPod (giving up things like the optical drive)? It's not a productive
exercise.
>> If what you were talking about was just the ability to plug the iPod into an
>> instrument and have that instrument read from a midi file and then
>> synthesize the music, that capacity is already present in the iPod as it is.
>
> Maybe the least I'd want is for the iPod to borrow processor work of
> anything and read its memory, playing the signals back through itself.
*Least* here is overwhelming. Now not only talking about the iPod being the
controller on a USB chain, but you're talking about it controlling an
instrument *and* at the same time inputting the analog/digital audio back
into the iPod real time. So now, you're talking about USB controller
circuitry and adding audio-in capability, along with the increase in
processor to deal with all of this I/O along with some kind of
interface...iBook.
>> What is missing is the bridge between the instrument and the iPod. This
>> could be done with an iBook...then again, it could be performed if the
>> instruments themselves had the necessary components.
>>
>> Therein lies the rub. It makes far more sense to have the components be
>> based in the instruments than in the iPod. This is because the iPod can be
>> mounted via USB like any other USB storage device...thus, any MIDI
>> instrument that could read from any USB storage device could just as easily
>> read a MIDI file from an iPod as it exists today.
>>
>> However, you're stuck with two end-units in the equation being linked by
>> USB. One of those units must become the controller. Consider a couple of
>> things. First, there are a ton of USB based storage devices which are all
>> by definition end units...this included the iPod. There is no downside to
>> having an instrument be able to switch to controller mode when a device is
>> connected via USB...just add the circuitry. This may cost $$$, but would
>> consume a fraction of relative size of the product along with power drain
>> concerns.
>>
>> On the other hand, the iPod as a controller would need more $$$ and a
>> significantly higher amount of relative size increase along with crucial
>> power drain concerns.
>
> no specifics
There are specifics above on what is needed. Are you looking for:
Part #3418767 @ $123.47 each
Those parts don't exist. Again, an iBook is $999 and does what you're
asking for (and more) at a price far less than something the size of an
iPod.
>>> And there are still plenty of people who want to
>>> play MIDI files.
>>
>> Apparently there are a *ton* of people who are fine buying the iPod and
>> other MP3 players without MIDI capability. Again, you can take a MIDI file
>> and convert it into any iPod compatible format and transfer it to the iPod
>> using Mac software today.
>>
>> Adding the MIDI playing capability directly on the iPod will have to
>> increase size, processing power, and direct production and support
>> costs...also not mentioned before, there would be licensing costs added.
>
> People usually don't want something that they don't know of. They
> certainly didn't want an iPod before it existed. Nor did many want the
> telegraf or television, which authorities spoke their indifference on.
So then change your statement to..."there *could* be plenty of people who
*might* want to play MIDI files."
But let's take a look at music today and the various formats we see. How
much MIDI music is sold on disc as compared to Audio CDs? Where do we see
MIDI music being sold at all other than Karaoke and for learning/band
support? How many music online retailers sell MIDI? What percentage of
files or traffic do we see MIDI as on P2P networks as compared to audio
interchange formats or codecs such as MP3, AAC, FLAC, OGG, etc...
You might again argue the "do not know about" point, but MIDI is waaay older
than all of the common codecs found for audio files on P2Ps, as well as
being older than AIFF and WAV. Back in the late 80s it was actually more
common to find MIDI files online than other audio formats.
> Since most users have no clue what MIDI files and players and
> instruments offer (at the least because their unMac sound cards are
> awful), they never bothered asking for or wanting it in the iPod.
I would also guess that the lack of vocals might have a weee bit to do with
it. Also the fact that any MIDI file can easily be converted to an iPod
compatible format would have a lot to do with it.
Now don't get me wrong, it would be nice to have, but it's pretty damn clear
that it won't happen.
And you just mentioned one of the reasons why. What good is MIDI when you
have a lame ass instrument library to play back from? Yes, people hear
cheap sound cards and hate MIDI, but how are they going to feel about a
bigger, more expensive iPod with the same crappy quality of a poor
instrument library?
> But
> the several kilobytes in a MIDI file that translates into several
> minutes of clear, crisp, and wonderful music is amazing; and it's
> puzzling why the iPod doesn't /do something/ to further that medium.
Supposing it could be viably done, what's in it for them? How many of the
top Billboard top 100 songs over the past 20 years have MIDI versions that
sound like the original? With no vocals, it's pretty easy to guess that it
would be somewhere under 1%.
> I'm interested in [amateurly] designing a PowerBook G5 too, and
> proposed wireless power as a partial solution:
> http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/17171.
Good luck on that.
Autymn D. C.
> You do realize that MIDI is not a codec, right?
I never said it was, or that I was looking for "MIDI" inside. You
didn't answer me about what components I should be looking for.
> I pointed you to the iBook, because I thought you wanted a *portable* MIDI
> solution. The mini isn't portable and doesn't have a display or a built-in
> input/control interface.
Stick the iPod on the mini's relevant components then. It won't be as
big.
> The point being that what you have been asking for is a lot closer to asking
> "why can't they make the iBook the size of an iPod?" rather than "why can't
> the iPod add another file format capability?"
You're still not telling me what MIDI needs. Unless you do, stop
rambling and repeating.
> It's one thing to ask for FLAC, OGG or other codec support, but MIDI
> support...especially the level of support you've asked for is far more
> involved and more like asking for an iBook that's the size of an iPod.
handwaving
> You're asking for specifics for something that doesn't exist and its
> existence would not be economically viable today.
handwaving
> How much would it cost to take an iBook and shrink it down to the size of an
> iPod (giving up things like the optical drive)? It's not a productive
> exercise.
Your handwaving is unproductive.
> > Maybe the least I'd want is for the iPod to borrow processor work of
> > anything and read its memory, playing the signals back through itself.
>
> *Least* here is overwhelming. Now not only talking about the iPod being the
> controller on a USB chain, but you're talking about it controlling an
> instrument *and* at the same time inputting the analog/digital audio back
> into the iPod real time. So now, you're talking about USB controller
> circuitry and adding audio-in capability, along with the increase in
> processor to deal with all of this I/O along with some kind of
> interface...iBook.
But the other device is the controller.
> There are specifics above on what is needed. Are you looking for:
> Part #3418767 @ $123.47 each
>
> Those parts don't exist. Again, an iBook is $999 and does what you're
> asking for (and more) at a price far less than something the size of an
> iPod.
Yeah they exist. Tell me what MIDI needs or shut up! MIDI doesn't
need the "more".
> So then change your statement to..."there *could* be plenty of people who
> *might* want to play MIDI files."
No, they /do/ want to play MIDI files. Not all of them know that they
want to play them on iPod.
> But let's take a look at music today and the various formats we see. How
> much MIDI music is sold on disc as compared to Audio CDs? Where do we see
> MIDI music being sold at all other than Karaoke and for learning/band
> support? How many music online retailers sell MIDI? What percentage of
> files or traffic do we see MIDI as on P2P networks as compared to audio
> interchange formats or codecs such as MP3, AAC, FLAC, OGG, etc...
They're free. Look on the web, or in the instrumental section of the
networks.
> You might again argue the "do not know about" point, but MIDI is waaay older
> than all of the common codecs found for audio files on P2Ps, as well as
> being older than AIFF and WAV. Back in the late 80s it was actually more
> common to find MIDI files online than other audio formats.
irrelevant
> I would also guess that the lack of vocals might have a weee bit to do with
> it. Also the fact that any MIDI file can easily be converted to an iPod
> compatible format would have a lot to do with it.
No vocals mean more peace and relaxation, things that the iPod is about
as opposed to fumbling and fiddling. And users can write in MIDI.
> Now don't get me wrong, it would be nice to have, but it's pretty damn clear
> that it won't happen.
>
> And you just mentioned one of the reasons why. What good is MIDI when you
> have a lame ass instrument library to play back from? Yes, people hear
> cheap sound cards and hate MIDI, but how are they going to feel about a
> bigger, more expensive iPod with the same crappy quality of a poor
> instrument library?
You haven't proven any of that.
> Supposing it could be viably done, what's in it for them? How many of the
> top Billboard top 100 songs over the past 20 years have MIDI versions that
> sound like the original? With no vocals, it's pretty easy to guess that it
> would be somewhere under 1%.
These are mostly free songs, and the format hasn't been promoted. Why
is Linux's consumer share so small?
-Aut
Alan Baker
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > There are specifics above on what is needed. Are you looking for:
> > Part #3418767 @ $123.47 each
> >
> > Those parts don't exist. Again, an iBook is $999 and does what you're
> > asking for (and more) at a price far less than something the size of an
> > iPod.
>
> Yeah they exist. Tell me what MIDI needs or shut up! MIDI doesn't
> need the "more".
In order to play back MIDI files one needs a multi-timbral, polyphonic
synthesizer with support for (IIRC) 128 instruments that make up the
General MIDI specification
>
> > So then change your statement to..."there *could* be plenty of people who
> > *might* want to play MIDI files."
>
> No, they /do/ want to play MIDI files. Not all of them know that they
> want to play them on iPod.
Very few actually want to do that. Playing back MIDI files is generally
of interest only to *musicians*, because the quality of the sound of a
MIDI file played back with the finest General MIDI synthesizer...
...*SUCKS*. At least as far as those who might want to do... ...karaoke,
I suppose.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Autymn D. C.
> In order to play back MIDI files one needs a multi-timbral, polyphonic
> synthesizer with support for (IIRC) 128 instruments that make up the
> General MIDI specification
I already said that the Wikipedia articles weren't helpful. Don't
plagiarise.
> Very few actually want to do that. Playing back MIDI files is generally
> of interest only to *musicians*, because the quality of the sound of a
> MIDI file played back with the finest General MIDI synthesizer...
>
>
> ...*SUCKS*. At least as far as those who might want to do... ...karaoke,
> I suppose.
MIDI is as free as Linux, Wikipedia, and interactive fiction, each of
which had/have been made great, handy, and crafty by the work of dozens
of smart and talented volunteers. They could've chosen to make it suck
or soar, and when it sucked they kept working so it didn't. Still no
one has told me why synths suck.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
sound even better than the original. By better, I don't mean sampling
quality. I don't listen to MIDI often--almost never, even--and have
stopped listening to regular music. But the few nights I've looked for
MIDI files on the web I've been spellbound, and cried long and hard a
few times. Their digitising is charming, and bring out thoughtful,
sofofilic (conventional "philosophical" spelling and wording wrong)
feelings in me about life, limitation, ease, depth, death, tragedy,
misfitting, silliness, and everbeing in the vast emptiness of space.
Those were from staring at a grey window with a Quicktime slider
playing a lone file in the web browser. I listened to lots of video
game themes too, that got thoughtful (pensive). I don't expect many
people to have understood my feelings if they hadn't the luck to know
some of these better themes and stories.
-Aut
MR_ED_of_Course
C. at lysd...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 9/26/05 1:06 AM:
> MR_ED_of_Course wrote:
>> You do realize that MIDI is not a codec, right?
>
> I never said it was, or that I was looking for "MIDI" inside. You
> didn't answer me about what components I should be looking for.
Yes, I did. Buy an iBook, remove the optical drive, and there you have an
iPod with the MIDI functionality you're looking for. Put another way, what
part of the iBook would not be needed for what you're looking for? You need
significant amounts of RAM, USB controller, a computer level processor as
opposed to a dedicated MP3 processor, etc...
>> I pointed you to the iBook, because I thought you wanted a *portable* MIDI
>> solution. The mini isn't portable and doesn't have a display or a built-in
>> input/control interface.
>
> Stick the iPod on the mini's relevant components then. It won't be as
> big.
Huh?
>>> Maybe the least I'd want is for the iPod to borrow processor work of
>>> anything and read its memory, playing the signals back through itself.
>>
>> *Least* here is overwhelming. Now not only talking about the iPod being the
>> controller on a USB chain, but you're talking about it controlling an
>> instrument *and* at the same time inputting the analog/digital audio back
>> into the iPod real time. So now, you're talking about USB controller
>> circuitry and adding audio-in capability, along with the increase in
>> processor to deal with all of this I/O along with some kind of
>> interface...iBook.
>
> But the other device is the controller.
No it's not. Stop letting the fact that you don't know something support
your argument.
If the other device was the controller, than all you'd need is for the iPod
to be able to mount to the other device. The iPod is already very much
capable of this. How many MIDI devices on the other end are ready for the
iPod or any other mountable USB device that then do not have their own DACs?
>> There are specifics above on what is needed. Are you looking for:
>> Part #3418767 @ $123.47 each
>>
>> Those parts don't exist. Again, an iBook is $999 and does what you're
>> asking for (and more) at a price far less than something the size of an
>> iPod.
>
> Yeah they exist. Tell me what MIDI needs or shut up! MIDI doesn't
> need the "more".
OK, for starters what's the part number and price of a USB controller that
would fit inside the spare space of an iPod Nano?
How about the synthesizer? How about the instruments board?
Your argument comes down to... "I know it can be done, what is it that needs
to be done?"
>
>> So then change your statement to..."there *could* be plenty of people who
>> *might* want to play MIDI files."
>
> No, they /do/ want to play MIDI files. Not all of them know that they
> want to play them on iPod.
Again more of your logic...
Where do you come up with the measurement that people *do* want to play MIDI
files, but do not know that they want to play them on the iPod?
>> But let's take a look at music today and the various formats we see. How
>> much MIDI music is sold on disc as compared to Audio CDs? Where do we see
>> MIDI music being sold at all other than Karaoke and for learning/band
>> support? How many music online retailers sell MIDI? What percentage of
>> files or traffic do we see MIDI as on P2P networks as compared to audio
>> interchange formats or codecs such as MP3, AAC, FLAC, OGG, etc...
>
> They're free. Look on the web, or in the instrumental section of the
> networks.
I see them, I do not see *as many* of them. Not by a long shot.
>> You might again argue the "do not know about" point, but MIDI is waaay older
>> than all of the common codecs found for audio files on P2Ps, as well as
>> being older than AIFF and WAV. Back in the late 80s it was actually more
>> common to find MIDI files online than other audio formats.
>
> irrelevant
No it's not. Part of your argument was that people needed to somehow
discover MIDI and that Apple should be promoting this. The reality is that
MIDI has been around for ages, and will never come close to competing with
any audio interchange format or codec.
>> I would also guess that the lack of vocals might have a weee bit to do with
>> it. Also the fact that any MIDI file can easily be converted to an iPod
>> compatible format would have a lot to do with it.
>
> No vocals mean more peace and relaxation, things that the iPod is about
> as opposed to fumbling and fiddling. And users can write in MIDI.
You're contradicting yourself.
The iPod is a music playback device. There's no fumbling or fiddling in
playing MP3, AAC or any other iPod compatible format. There *is* a hell of
a lot of fumbling and fiddling with writing MIDI files. But be that as it
may, users can also create their own MP3 or AAC files.
>> Now don't get me wrong, it would be nice to have, but it's pretty damn clear
>> that it won't happen.
>>
>> And you just mentioned one of the reasons why. What good is MIDI when you
>> have a lame ass instrument library to play back from? Yes, people hear
>> cheap sound cards and hate MIDI, but how are they going to feel about a
>> bigger, more expensive iPod with the same crappy quality of a poor
>> instrument library?
>
> You haven't proven any of that.
How the heck do you prove a question?
>> Supposing it could be viably done, what's in it for them? How many of the
>> top Billboard top 100 songs over the past 20 years have MIDI versions that
>> sound like the original? With no vocals, it's pretty easy to guess that it
>> would be somewhere under 1%.
>
> These are mostly free songs, and the format hasn't been promoted.
Can you name *ONE* song that made it into the Billboard top 100 *EVER* that
has a MIDI version which sounds like the original when played using standard
built-in Mac or Windows software?
Again, where is the incentive for Apple?
You're talking about a file format that adding compatibility would add cost,
size and complexity to the iPod, would not result in increase iTMS sales
since MIDI is "mostly free", and would require promoting to consumers who do
not know they want it even though it's been available for decades.
> Why is Linux's consumer share so small?
1 Too difficult for the average consumer
2 Lack of common apps (MS Office, Adobe products, etc)
3 Lack of corporate greadership
#3 above results in lack of promotion
Steve Carroll
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
There are lots of reasons why it can suck... but it doesn't have to. If
you're looking for a small midi sequencer look at the Yamaha QY10; you
can probably find them used on the cheap:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Yamaha-QY10-Music-Sequencer-Tone-Generator-Drum-Mach_
W0QQitemZ7352028853QQcategoryZ64383QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
--
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from the
records." - Snit
Steve Carroll
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I don't know about your "feelings"... but it wouldn't hurt if your
knowledge of MIDI was a bit less "philosophical". This might help:
http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tutr/whatmidi.htm
Alan Baker
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In order to play back MIDI files one needs a multi-timbral, polyphonic
> > synthesizer with support for (IIRC) 128 instruments that make up the
> > General MIDI specification
>
> I already said that the Wikipedia articles weren't helpful. Don't
> plagiarise.
So without even having a *clue* of what a MIDI file is or what it can
do, you think the iPod should support it. Got it.
Well, "multi-timbral" means that it can make different sounds as opposed
to making essentially a single kind of sound. "Polyphonic" means that it
can play more than a single sound at one time.
General MIDI is the specification that made MIDI files as you're
thinking of them possible. It specified which instruments should be
played back on which with which numeric "program change" (don't worry
about that term; it's a MIDI-specific usage for "tell the synthesizer
what sound to make") and without that the piano part might end up
playing back the bass, or the guitar, or... It also specified which of
the 16 MIDI "channels" (identifier tags on the individual play note,
hold note, stop note messages; allowing you to play 16 different
"instruments" at once) should be reserved for the drums.
>
> > Very few actually want to do that. Playing back MIDI files is generally
> > of interest only to *musicians*, because the quality of the sound of a
> > MIDI file played back with the finest General MIDI synthesizer...
> >
> >
> > ...*SUCKS*. At least as far as those who might want to do... ...karaoke,
> > I suppose.
>
> MIDI is as free as Linux, Wikipedia, and interactive fiction, each of
> which had/have been made great, handy, and crafty by the work of dozens
> of smart and talented volunteers. They could've chosen to make it suck
> or soar, and when it sucked they kept working so it didn't. Still no
> one has told me why synths suck.
Because what you get doesn't sound much like the songs you hear when you
listen to a recording. The individual instruments only sound so-so, even
if you're using the best available sampling synthesizer, there can only
be a maximum of 15 of them (meaning a lot of music can't be reproduced
as it was played in the real recording), and the way the go together
lacks all the nuance of a real recording.
Lots of things are free, but that doesn't mean everything should support
every one of them. I'm sure someone could make it so that you could read
text books on the screen of an iPod, but that doesn't automatically make
doing so a necessity for Apple to include.
Steve Carroll
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <1127732558....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In order to play back MIDI files one needs a multi-timbral, polyphonic
> > > synthesizer with support for (IIRC) 128 instruments that make up the
> > > General MIDI specification
> >
> > I already said that the Wikipedia articles weren't helpful. Don't
> > plagiarise.
>
> So without even having a *clue* of what a MIDI file is or what it can
> do, you think the iPod should support it. Got it.
>
> Well, "multi-timbral" means that it can make different sounds as opposed
> to making essentially a single kind of sound. "Polyphonic" means that it
> can play more than a single sound at one time.
I think that definition of polyphonic will be a bit confusing to some
people. You probably know this but I'll say it anyway... a better way
to explain it is to say that polyphonic means it can play more than a
single note... of even the *same* sound if you so desire. We normally
say: Synth XXXX has 32 voice polyphony. In this instance a 'voice' means
32 instantiations of sound... the important point here is that they can
all have the *same* sound (though, they needn't and usually don't). To
clarify further, I have an old Roland D-50... when I use, say... a
piano patch, it will provide 16 voices of the same piano sound (at
different pitches, obviously) but it can't make any other sounds
simultaneously along with those piano sounds that utilize the multiple
voices... that's where multi-timbral comes into the act.
For the most part this is true but it does depend on the material. With
certain tunes of certain artists, some use synths/samplers exclusively,
not even real vocals are used. I did a guy like this a couple of
weekends ago, he wanted to use my tone generators because his stunk. We
had to tweak the MIDI performance to suit my hardware and what you hear
on his final recording was the synths/samplers, being triggered via MIDI
with their audio outputs being digitally recorded. If you don't process
it, in theory, it's the same sound that came out of the synth via MIDI
into the control room before you recorded it... in fact, it may not
sound as good as the unrecorded MIDI version if the convertors aren't
very good. As is your point above, doing this limits the hell out of the
music, though. Obviously, things like guitar, voice, harmonica and a ton
of other real world sounds are going to kick the shit out of synths and
samplers (from an expressive POV) but you can make music with just them
if you wish. Of course... this all depends on what one considers music.
Autymn D. C. seems to feel tone generators are fine. Personally, I feel
sticking with them exclusively is a poor substitute for things that are
already being substituted poorly:) Then there's the problem of fitting
GOOD tone generators into something you can actually carry and afford.
Hopefully, this will give Autymn D. C. a clue as to what you guys are
talking about.
> Lots of things are free, but that doesn't mean everything should support
> every one of them. I'm sure someone could make it so that you could read
> text books on the screen of an iPod, but that doesn't automatically make
> doing so a necessity for Apple to include.
--
Autymn D. C.
> Yes, I did. Buy an iBook, remove the optical drive, and there you have an
> iPod with the MIDI functionality you're looking for. Put another way, what
> part of the iBook would not be needed for what you're looking for? You need
> significant amounts of RAM, USB controller, a computer level processor as
> opposed to a dedicated MP3 processor, etc...
That's overkill. You didn't tell me the numbers for space and memory
and power. /Every/ chip in the iBook is needed for MIDIs?! How are
their performance benchmarked?
> No it's not. Stop letting the fact that you don't know something support
> your argument.
You don't know the numbers.
> If the other device was the controller, than all you'd need is for the iPod
were
> to be able to mount to the other device. The iPod is already very much
> capable of this. How many MIDI devices on the other end are ready for the
> iPod or any other mountable USB device that then do not have their own DACs?
I don't know; "ready" is subjective.
> OK, for starters what's the part number and price of a USB controller that
> would fit inside the spare space of an iPod Nano?
I didn't say fitting in the Nano or any other existing iPod. Stop
giving red herrings. But USB Flash drives already come with a
controller.
> How about the synthesizer? How about the instruments board?
>
> Your argument comes down to... "I know it can be done, what is it that needs
> to be done?"
done;
I can't see inside those boxes to know what they run on. With a GUI,
much of the space and mechanisms are cut down.
> Where do you come up with the measurement that people *do* want to play MIDI
> files, but do not know that they want to play them on the iPod?
Look at all the people offering them, and how many files there are.
> I see them, I do not see *as many* of them. Not by a long shot.
They lack /support/. And most nonMIDI songs out there are shit. Lots
only prove what the dumb and deaf like.
> No it's not. Part of your argument was that people needed to somehow
> discover MIDI and that Apple should be promoting this. The reality is that
> MIDI has been around for ages, and will never come close to competing with
> any audio interchange format or codec.
why?
> You're contradicting yourself.
>
> The iPod is a music playback device. There's no fumbling or fiddling in
> playing MP3, AAC or any other iPod compatible format. There *is* a hell of
> a lot of fumbling and fiddling with writing MIDI files. But be that as it
> may, users can also create their own MP3 or AAC files.
I'm talking about the singing, listening, thinking, translating, and
rocking. Do you understand the difference between hearing music and
Muzak? Your "writing" claim is another red herring.
> How the heck do you prove a question?
its clauses
> Can you name *ONE* song that made it into the Billboard top 100 *EVER* that
> has a MIDI version which sounds like the original when played using standard
> built-in Mac or Windows software?
>
> Again, where is the incentive for Apple?
I don't follow Billboard. If there are many who don't, and are also
sick of the pop trash, there is the potential userbase.
> You're talking about a file format that adding compatibility would add cost,
> size and complexity to the iPod, would not result in increase iTMS sales
> since MIDI is "mostly free", and would require promoting to consumers who do
> not know they want it even though it's been available for decades.
Why bother supporting much-worthles Podcasts of radio shows, or make
all the iPods' drives carry more songs than nearly everyone has?
> > Why is Linux's consumer share so small?
>
> 1 Too difficult for the average consumer
> 2 Lack of common apps (MS Office, Adobe products, etc)
> 3 Lack of corporate greadership
>
> #3 above results in lack of promotion
But it does what it's supposed to, and well. That's why Apple took it,
even though few use it directly. The poor MIDI playback has less to do
with the protocol than with the hardware, and both can be upgraded.
-Aut
Steve Carroll
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm talking about the singing, listening,
You won't be "listening" to any "singing" in a MIDI file.
Mr Ed Of Course
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> MR_ED_of_Course wrote:
> > Yes, I did. Buy an iBook, remove the optical drive, and there you have an
> > iPod with the MIDI functionality you're looking for. Put another way, what
> > part of the iBook would not be needed for what you're looking for? You need
> > significant amounts of RAM, USB controller, a computer level processor as
> > opposed to a dedicated MP3 processor, etc...
>
> That's overkill. You didn't tell me the numbers for space and memory
> and power. /Every/ chip in the iBook is needed for MIDIs?! How are
> their performance benchmarked?
Did you take a look at Steve's excellent post? Take a look at the
Yamaha QY10. It's the size of a videocasette and still doesn't do what
you described. To do what you've described, the most cost effective
and space effective option would be to take an iBook and scale it down
by doing things like removing the optical drive and so forth.
But...what you end up with is something on the product line which is
too big and expensive to be an iPod and too stripped to be an
iBook...so just take the damn iBook.
Keep in mind the Yamaha QY10 has *very* little componentry which
overlaps with what exists with the iPod.
> > No it's not. Stop letting the fact that you don't know something support
> > your argument.
>
> You don't know the numbers.
You: I want a personal spacecraft that would take me to the moon
Me: It could be done, but it's not commercially viable
You: Prove it
Me (and others): Here are the general requirements and reasons
You: Not good enough, give me parts and prices
Me: They don't exist since nobody is doing this and nobody is doing
this since it's not commercially viable.
You: Yes it is, people just don't know they want to go to the moon.
>
> > If the other device was the controller, than all you'd need is for the iPod
> were
> > to be able to mount to the other device. The iPod is already very much
> > capable of this. How many MIDI devices on the other end are ready for the
> > iPod or any other mountable USB device that then do not have their own DACs?
>
> I don't know; "ready" is subjective.
No it's not in this case. How many MIDI devices that do not have their
own DACs can act as a USB controller and input data from a mounted
device?
> > OK, for starters what's the part number and price of a USB controller that
> > would fit inside the spare space of an iPod Nano?
>
> I didn't say fitting in the Nano or any other existing iPod. Stop
> giving red herrings. But USB Flash drives already come with a
> controller.
No, you didn't talk about it fitting inside of an existing iPod, but
when you're talking about something the size and cost of an iBook, then
what the hell is your problem with an iBook as the solution?
And you are not only wrong, but obviously totally don't understand much
about USB. USB flash drives do not have USB controller circuitry.
> I can't see inside those boxes to know what they run on. With a GUI,
> much of the space and mechanisms are cut down.
Right, more arguing about what you don't know about
> They lack /support/. And most nonMIDI songs out there are shit. Lots
> only prove what the dumb and deaf like.
Who cares? You're arguing about what people would want here. If
people have had the choice for decades and the market has moved
entirely away from MIDI, then that should be telling you something.
> > No it's not. Part of your argument was that people needed to somehow
> > discover MIDI and that Apple should be promoting this. The reality is that
> > MIDI has been around for ages, and will never come close to competing with
> > any audio interchange format or codec.
>
> why?
Mostly because people have this thing about wanting to hear vocals.
MIDI is great for musicians and karoake, but even video games have
moved away from it.
> > You're contradicting yourself.
> >
> > The iPod is a music playback device. There's no fumbling or fiddling in
> > playing MP3, AAC or any other iPod compatible format. There *is* a hell of
> > a lot of fumbling and fiddling with writing MIDI files. But be that as it
> > may, users can also create their own MP3 or AAC files.
>
> I'm talking about the singing, listening, thinking, translating, and
> rocking. Do you understand the difference between hearing music and
> Muzak?
Do you understand the difference between hearing vocals and not hearing
vocals? Are you hearing voices in your head when you're listening to
MIDI? Maybe you are, but that's not "normal" and certainly not
something to count on for commercial viability.
> Your "writing" claim is another red herring.
No, it was a direct response to your quote "And users can write in
MIDI."
> > Can you name *ONE* song that made it into the Billboard top 100 *EVER* that
> > has a MIDI version which sounds like the original when played using standard
> > built-in Mac or Windows software?
> >
> > Again, where is the incentive for Apple?
>
> I don't follow Billboard. If there are many who don't, and are also
> sick of the pop trash, there is the potential userbase.
That's totally illogical. These are the songs that are being sold, use
Billboard or any other sales or sales/airplay tracking chart, you'll
find a pretty consistent match...at least in terms of music being sold
which could not possibly be identically re-created in MIDI. Show me
the demand for people willing to buy MIDI solely for listening (as
opposed to musicians and karoake).
> Why bother supporting much-worthles Podcasts of radio shows,
Have you seen the popularity of Podcasts? There is a huge measurable
demand for Podcasts. Podcasts provide the opportunity to take and
existing successful format (radio) and make it available on-demand over
the Net with quality that can scale to that which is better than the
previously delivered format.
> or make
> all the iPods' drives carry more songs than nearly everyone has?
If the drives for iPods are bigger than required in your opinion, then
what's the need for MIDI playback? If there's plenty of space on the
iPods, and MIDI can be converted to any number of compatible formats
for the iPod with quality that would meet or exceed anything that a
potential MIDI capable iPod could produce, then what's the need to add
the complexity and cost to the iPod?
You've never answered this...I'll ask it yet again...
What's the issue with converting MIDI files to any of the existing iPod
compatible formats?
> > > Why is Linux's consumer share so small?
> >
> > 1 Too difficult for the average consumer
> > 2 Lack of common apps (MS Office, Adobe products, etc)
> > 3 Lack of corporate greadership
> >
> > #3 above results in lack of promotion
>
> But it does what it's supposed to, and well. That's why Apple took it,
> even though few use it directly.
Apple took what?
> The poor MIDI playback has less to do
> with the protocol than with the hardware, and both can be upgraded.
Absolutely true, but...it can only be upgraded at a cost. This cost is
both in the $$$ for the circuitry and the space/power required for it
as well as the $$$ for licensing the instruments.
Steve Carroll
"Mr Ed Of Course" <mac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Did you take a look at Steve's excellent post? Take a look at the
> Yamaha QY10. It's the size of a videocasette and still doesn't do what
> you described. To do what you've described, the most cost effective
> and space effective option would be to take an iBook and scale it down
> by doing things like removing the optical drive and so forth.
> But...what you end up with is something on the product line which is
> too big and expensive to be an iPod and too stripped to be an
> iBook...so just take the damn iBook.
>
> Keep in mind the Yamaha QY10 has *very* little componentry which
> overlaps with what exists with the iPod.
To be fair, the QY is pretty old tech... it's probably very possible to
scale the size down. I think your points still stand, though, because
no one has done this... at least, not that I'm aware of and certainly
not on the level for the masses.
Alan Baker
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In order to play back MIDI files one needs a multi-timbral, polyphonic
> > synthesizer with support for (IIRC) 128 instruments that make up the
> > General MIDI specification
>
> I already said that the Wikipedia articles weren't helpful. Don't
> plagiarise.
BTW, I didn't plagiarize. What I wrote was straight from memory.
Autymn D. C.
> You won't be "listening" to any "singing" in a MIDI file.
But you'll be trolling in here.
Autymn D. C.
> BTW, I didn't plagiarize. What I wrote was straight from memory.
Where did you learn it? Either you should enter the lottery, or read
the Wikipedia article that basically says the same thing.
Autymn D. C.
> Did you take a look at Steve's excellent post? Take a look at the
> Yamaha QY10. It's the size of a videocasette and still doesn't do what
> you described. To do what you've described, the most cost effective
argumentum ad populum fallacy--what exists now and here has little
bearing on what can exist. Now /you/ read Steve's reply to you.
> and space effective option would be to take an iBook and scale it down
> by doing things like removing the optical drive and so forth.
> But...what you end up with is something on the product line which is
> too big and expensive to be an iPod and too stripped to be an
> iBook...so just take the damn iBook.
evidence?
> Keep in mind the Yamaha QY10 has *very* little componentry which
> overlaps with what exists with the iPod.
what componentry?
> You: I want a personal spacecraft that would take me to the moon
> Me: It could be done, but it's not commercially viable
> You: Prove it
> Me (and others): Here are the general requirements and reasons
> You: Not good enough, give me parts and prices
> Me: They don't exist since nobody is doing this and nobody is doing
> this since it's not commercially viable.
> You: Yes it is, people just don't know they want to go to the moon.
That's funny, but that's all it is. You forgot the "Yes they do" part.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/a4740ef840094820/1ef4709fb5260ab2#1ef4709fb5260ab2
> No it's not in this case. How many MIDI devices that do not have their
> own DACs can act as a USB controller and input data from a mounted
> device?
Wrong, ready means a can or could; now you're changing it to a can.
> No, you didn't talk about it fitting inside of an existing iPod, but
> when you're talking about something the size and cost of an iBook, then
> what the hell is your problem with an iBook as the solution?
Because you refuse to tell me the needed components.
> And you are not only wrong, but obviously totally don't understand much
> about USB. USB flash drives do not have USB controller circuitry.
Look up "flash drive" then and pay me.
> > I can't see inside those boxes to know what they run on. With a GUI,
> > much of the space and mechanisms are cut down.
>
> Right, more arguing about what you don't know about
You didn't say wrong.
> > They lack /support/. And most nonMIDI songs out there are shit. Lots
> > only prove what the dumb and deaf like.
>
> Who cares? You're arguing about what people would want here. If
> people have had the choice for decades and the market has moved
> entirely away from MIDI, then that should be telling you something.
MIDI isn't really a market, so your observation is irrelevant.
> Do you understand the difference between hearing vocals and not hearing
> vocals? Are you hearing voices in your head when you're listening to
> MIDI? Maybe you are, but that's not "normal" and certainly not
> something to count on for commercial viability.
Vocals piss me off lots of the time; they're hard to make out, and
they're not always appropriate. You are turning down a virtual
instrument: People have and hear instruments, and they don't complain
when there are no words. How often do you see people yell at stores,
clubs, offices, sitcoms, movies, living rooms, bedrooms, and
advertisements that there isn't any singing in the music?
> No, it was a direct response to your quote "And users can write in
> MIDI."
Not when they're listening.
> > I don't follow Billboard. If there are many who don't, and are also
> > sick of the pop trash, there is the potential userbase.
>
> That's totally illogical. These are the songs that are being sold, use
> Billboard or any other sales or sales/airplay tracking chart, you'll
> find a pretty consistent match...at least in terms of music being sold
> which could not possibly be identically re-created in MIDI. Show me
> the demand for people willing to buy MIDI solely for listening (as
> opposed to musicians and karoake).
But I wasn't talking about buying MIDI songs, because they're /free/.
Rehashes, remakes, and medial /borrowing/ (Borrowing and pirating make
up a significant portion of the unreported userbase of any product.)
don't make the charts. Anyone who looks for or downloads MIDI files is
part of the audience, and whit files are shown off on the internet
should be proportional to the people who are looking and to their
collecting.
> Have you seen the popularity of Podcasts? There is a huge measurable
> demand for Podcasts. Podcasts provide the opportunity to take and
> existing successful format (radio) and make it available on-demand over
> the Net with quality that can scale to that which is better than the
> previously delivered format.
Radio is free. More radio is available than is demanded. The littler
stations are volunteered. Now, which is more popular for resting,
thinking, working, and a program's background: music without speech, or
speech without music?
> If the drives for iPods are bigger than required in your opinion, then
> what's the need for MIDI playback? If there's plenty of space on the
> iPods, and MIDI can be converted to any number of compatible formats
> for the iPod with quality that would meet or exceed anything that a
> potential MIDI capable iPod could produce, then what's the need to add
> the complexity and cost to the iPod?
I've seen no evidence that they must be added. Maybe engineers will
find how to emulate the acoustics of any substance, instruments
included, in a "sampling chunk" that the player can read from and
amplify. Before you wave me off for daydreaming, I'd like you to look
at the old Mac program Atom in a Box: It was written before Macs became
supercomputers, yet its output very well emulates that of
supercomputers because its calculations would require one with that
drawing precision. And its drawings of atomic orbitals are
/infinitely/ better than any popularisation out there, especially the
garish Orbitron. The program works because it uses lookup tables based
on past work of all possible configurations; in other words, it's like
using prefabricated parts and needs barely the overhead.
> You've never answered this...I'll ask it yet again...
>
> What's the issue with converting MIDI files to any of the existing iPod
> compatible formats?
ah, okay: MIDIs (including MIDI-like protocols) are human-readable,
open-source, editable, nominal, free, public, scriptable (automatible),
living sheet music (cool), copyrightable, marketable, digital
(discrete), versatile, visceral, configurable and optimisable (GIF-like
palette), and indelible:
http://google.com/search?q=MIDIs ------------------2,240,000 hits
http://google.com/search?q=MIDI ------------------23,600,000
http://google.com/search?q=MIDI+-player+-players -22,000,000
http://google.com/search?q=MP3s ------------------18,700,000
http://google.com/search?q=MP3 ------------------291,000,000
http://google.com/search?q=MP3+-player+-players -107,000,000
http://google.com/search?q=WAVs -------------------2,310,000
http://google.com/search?q=WAV -------------------17,500,000
http://google.com/search?q=AIFFs ---------------------19,400
http://google.com/search?q=AIFF -------------------2,330,000
http://google.com/search?q=AAC+audio+OR+format ----4,140,000
> Apple took what?
a LinuxOS
> > The poor MIDI playback has less to do
> > with the protocol than with the hardware, and both can be upgraded.
>
> Absolutely true, but...it can only be upgraded at a cost. This cost is
> both in the $$$ for the circuitry and the space/power required for it
> as well as the $$$ for licensing the instruments.
It could be a negative cost. I feel like I'm in an IBM or Xerox
commercial.
-Aut
Mr Ed Of Course
You've got a lot of nerve pointing the troll finger at Steve. He's
obviously very knowledgeable about the subject matter in this thread
(more than me) *and* has shared his knowledge in a (futile) effort to
help you understand the subject.
Steve Carroll
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You can call what I've done to you trolling if you wish... I call it
providing you with information.
Alan Baker
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I learned it through using MIDI and computers over the last 21 years.
Mr Ed Of Course
> Mr Ed Of Course wrote:
> > Did you take a look at Steve's excellent post? Take a look at the
> > Yamaha QY10. It's the size of a videocasette and still doesn't do what
> > you described. To do what you've described, the most cost effective
>
> argumentum ad populum fallacy--what exists now and here has little
> bearing on what can exist. Now /you/ read Steve's reply to you.
Ah, so you're talking about what "can" exist? Now do you understand
why I can't list part numbers and prices...because, they don't exist.
Steve's right in that the QY10 is older and could be made smaller (and
I took that as a given to begin with), but he also points out that the
rest of my points are valid.
Here are my points in summary:
- The QY10 still doesn't do what you described
- The components in QY10 have very little overlap with the iPod
- There are no known QY10-like micro-components that could be added to
an iPod while maintaining similar form factor and price.
- To do what you described, you're really looking at an iBook stripped
down more than an iPod souped up.
> > and space effective option would be to take an iBook and scale it down
> > by doing things like removing the optical drive and so forth.
> > But...what you end up with is something on the product line which is
> > too big and expensive to be an iPod and too stripped to be an
> > iBook...so just take the damn iBook.
>
> evidence?
Take a look at what has already been described as the necessary
components for what you want in terms of MIDI (the instruments,
synthesizer, controller, interface, etc) and add all of that to the
iPod. Understand that there are no PortalPlayers that provide this
circuitry, so it all has to be engineered from scratch and solely for
this dedicated product (or products assuming a market exists).
>
> > Keep in mind the Yamaha QY10 has *very* little componentry which
> > overlaps with what exists with the iPod.
>
> what componentry?
See earlier posts in this thread or find the schematics of the QY10 or
other similar device. Or think about it logically for a split second.
Of everything the iPod does, how much of that applies to MIDI? Does
the iPod already have licensed instruments? Nooo...
> > No it's not in this case. How many MIDI devices that do not have their
> > own DACs can act as a USB controller and input data from a mounted
> > device?
>
> Wrong, ready means a can or could; now you're changing it to a can.
Nice way to not answer the question. It always was a "can".
Regardless of semantics, the point is that if there isn't a single MIDI
device that currently acts as a USB controller and inputs data from a
mounted device but doesn't have a DAC, then what sense would it make to
build the functionality into the iPod solely for the DAC?
> > No, you didn't talk about it fitting inside of an existing iPod, but
> > when you're talking about something the size and cost of an iBook, then
> > what the hell is your problem with an iBook as the solution?
>
> Because you refuse to tell me the needed components.
That's because they don't exist. Descriptions of what the needed
components would be have already been posted.
> > And you are not only wrong, but obviously totally don't understand much
> > about USB. USB flash drives do not have USB controller circuitry.
>
> Look up "flash drive" then and pay me.
Connect two flash drives together and get one of them to transfer files
to the other...oh yes, I would pay for that!
Take a look at the following and hopefully you'll learn something:
http://www.intel.com/technology/usb/
Intel sells USB controller chipsets. These are needed to control USB
I/O and reside on the controlling device (like a computer) wherein the
controlled device (like a flash card/drive) does not need to contain
the same controller circuitry (and normally doesn't). For the past few
years now, Intel has integrated USB 2.0 I/O controlling circuitry in
the Pentium 4.
This is one of the reasons why USB is cheaper than FireWire and why
some consider it to be inferior in some situations.
>
> > > They lack /support/. And most nonMIDI songs out there are shit. Lots
> > > only prove what the dumb and deaf like.
> >
> > Who cares? You're arguing about what people would want here. If
> > people have had the choice for decades and the market has moved
> > entirely away from MIDI, then that should be telling you something.
>
> MIDI isn't really a market, so your observation is irrelevant.
It's relevant in that you're now arguing my point. You're claiming
demand for something that for decades has yet to turn into a market
while other digital music formats have.
> > Do you understand the difference between hearing vocals and not hearing
> > vocals? Are you hearing voices in your head when you're listening to
> > MIDI? Maybe you are, but that's not "normal" and certainly not
> > something to count on for commercial viability.
>
> Vocals piss me off lots of the time; they're hard to make out, and
> they're not always appropriate. You are turning down a virtual
> instrument: People have and hear instruments, and they don't complain
> when there are no words. How often do you see people yell at stores,
> clubs, offices, sitcoms, movies, living rooms, bedrooms, and
> advertisements that there isn't any singing in the music?
I don't think many people are as emotional as you, and thus less likely
to *yell* about lack of vocals. On the other hand, the vast majority
of music bought and sold today does contain vocals. Just a guess, but
I think if you were to place the top selling albums on the shelf with
the vocals removed, most people would return them.
But it's not just vocals we're talking about. While MIDI can sound
great, there are many things it does not do well at all. It can only
play what has been defined and exists in the player's instrument
library...and all the subtle nuances of actual instrument playing are
removed (this very much affects guitars). Don't get me wrong...much of
the music I really like had some MIDI production in it. I *love*
everything from Sisters of Mercy to Tangerine Dream, from Thomas Dolby
to Art of Noise, but my argument is that the MIDI functionality you've
described is best suited for what the iBook is capable of doing today
as opposed to a new device that is much closer to the iBook than it is
to an iPod.
> > No, it was a direct response to your quote "And users can write in
> > MIDI."
>
> Not when they're listening.
So then what the hell was your point? You list write capability as
being a benefit of MIDI, I point out that users can *also* create music
in any other iPod compatible format, and now this?
> > > I don't follow Billboard. If there are many who don't, and are also
> > > sick of the pop trash, there is the potential userbase.
> >
> > That's totally illogical. These are the songs that are being sold, use
> > Billboard or any other sales or sales/airplay tracking chart, you'll
> > find a pretty consistent match...at least in terms of music being sold
> > which could not possibly be identically re-created in MIDI. Show me
> > the demand for people willing to buy MIDI solely for listening (as
> > opposed to musicians and karoake).
>
> But I wasn't talking about buying MIDI songs, because they're /free/.
> Rehashes, remakes, and medial /borrowing/ (Borrowing and pirating make
> up a significant portion of the unreported userbase of any product.)
> don't make the charts. Anyone who looks for or downloads MIDI files is
> part of the audience, and whit files are shown off on the internet
> should be proportional to the people who are looking and to their
> collecting.
Great, but you're admitting there is no market for MIDI as compared to
CDs, WMAs and AACs, while MIDI files being downloaded for free are
still far smaller than MP3s being downloaded on P2Ps. And of those
MIDI files, how many are actually being downloaded for listening as
opposed to karoake or for use by musicians?
> > Have you seen the popularity of Podcasts? There is a huge measurable
> > demand for Podcasts. Podcasts provide the opportunity to take and
> > existing successful format (radio) and make it available on-demand over
> > the Net with quality that can scale to that which is better than the
> > previously delivered format.
>
> Radio is free. More radio is available than is demanded. The littler
> stations are volunteered. Now, which is more popular for resting,
> thinking, working, and a program's background: music without speech, or
> speech without music?
Gee I don't know...I just look at say Howard Stern's salary and realize
that it probably exceeds the entire market for MIDI. Or in terms of
listeners, I doubt that on a daily basis more people are downloading
MIDI files than are listening to him...or Rush, or O'Reily, or etc...
Now of course background music is better as background music than talk
radio is at being background music, but...that's not the point. Going
back to the original point...Apple added podcast support because it was
an easy and cheap thing to do that satisfied what a lot of people were
asking for. It was easy and cheap because the entire system/process
contained significant overlap in what existed. The file formats are
the same, the interface is the same, the store already exists, all that
was required was some coding in iTunes and on the server to support
publishing and subscribing.
>
> > If the drives for iPods are bigger than required in your opinion, then
> > what's the need for MIDI playback? If there's plenty of space on the
> > iPods, and MIDI can be converted to any number of compatible formats
> > for the iPod with quality that would meet or exceed anything that a
> > potential MIDI capable iPod could produce, then what's the need to add
> > the complexity and cost to the iPod?
>
> I've seen no evidence that they must be added. Maybe engineers will
> find how to emulate the acoustics of any substance, instruments
> included, in a "sampling chunk" that the player can read from and
> amplify.
Well, either it's MIDI or it's not. You are describing something very
similar to the non-MIDI part of GarageBand...which is indeed very cool,
but again, think iBook, not iPod.
> Before you wave me off for daydreaming, [snip]
Well, to some degree you are...which is fine. But there's a difference
in saying that there is a need for a new technology which provides ___,
and saying the iPod should included some existing technology which
doesn't particularly make sense.
> > You've never answered this...I'll ask it yet again...
> >
> > What's the issue with converting MIDI files to any of the existing iPod
> > compatible formats?
>
> ah, okay: MIDIs (including MIDI-like protocols) are human-readable,
> open-source, editable, nominal, free, public, scriptable (automatible),
> living sheet music (cool), copyrightable, marketable, digital
> (discrete), versatile, visceral, configurable and optimisable (GIF-like
> palette), and indelible:
OK for the sake of argument, I'll buy all of that (even the conflicting
ones like free, marketable and copyrightable), so then...
What's the issue with converting MIDI files to any of the existing iPod
compatible formats?
You've already claimed that iPods have more space than people need, so
considering that, *AND* considering that the iPod exists today as and
end-unit playback device, what's lost with the converting? The whole
point of the iPod is that it works only as and end-unit to iTunes (like
that or not). You can today import all the MIDI your heart desires
into iTunes. You can edit and create MIDI all you want with
Garageband. Other than consumption of file capacity, there's no user
advantage to having a song as a MIDI file versus say ALE, AIFF, or WAV
on the iPod as it exists today as a end-unit playback device. All the
MIDI advantages (like other file advantages) still exist where the
files lives within your iTunes library.
> http://google.com/search?q=MIDIs ------------------2,240,000 hits
> http://google.com/search?q=MIDI ------------------23,600,000
> http://google.com/search?q=MIDI+-player+-players -22,000,000
>
> http://google.com/search?q=MP3s ------------------18,700,000
> http://google.com/search?q=MP3 ------------------291,000,000
> http://google.com/search?q=MP3+-player+-players -107,000,000
>
> http://google.com/search?q=WAVs -------------------2,310,000
> http://google.com/search?q=WAV -------------------17,500,000
>
> http://google.com/search?q=AIFFs ---------------------19,400
> http://google.com/search?q=AIFF -------------------2,330,000
>
> http://google.com/search?q=AAC+audio+OR+format ----4,140,000
I have no idea what you're trying to suggest above, but I like the
Google game too:
http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+sucks --------------- 404,000
http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+is+dead--------------2,660,000
http://www.google.com/search?q=no+more+midi--------------6,640,000
http://www.google.com/search?q=we+don't+want+midi--------1,780,000
http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+sounds+like+crap---- 294,000
http://www.google.com/search?q=why+google+searches+prove+nothing
6,680,000
> > Apple took what?
>
> a LinuxOS
Are you sure about that?
Elizabot v2.0.2
>>http://google.com/search?q=MIDIs ------------------2,240,000 hits
>>http://google.com/search?q=MIDI ------------------23,600,000
>>http://google.com/search?q=MIDI+-player+-players -22,000,000
>>
>>http://google.com/search?q=MP3s ------------------18,700,000
>>http://google.com/search?q=MP3 ------------------291,000,000
>>http://google.com/search?q=MP3+-player+-players -107,000,000
>>
>>http://google.com/search?q=WAVs -------------------2,310,000
>>http://google.com/search?q=WAV -------------------17,500,000
>>
>>http://google.com/search?q=AIFFs ---------------------19,400
>>http://google.com/search?q=AIFF -------------------2,330,000
>>
>>http://google.com/search?q=AAC+audio+OR+format ----4,140,000
>
>
> I have no idea what you're trying to suggest above, but I like the
> Google game too:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+sucks --------------- 404,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+is+dead--------------2,660,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=no+more+midi--------------6,640,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=we+don't+want+midi--------1,780,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+sounds+like+crap---- 294,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=why+google+searches+prove+nothing
> 6,680,000
Just take it straight to googlefight:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22midi+rules%22&word2=%22midi+sucks%22
or
"midi sucks" is the clear winner over "midi rules."
Autymn D. C.
> You can call what I've done to you trolling if you wish... I call it
> providing you with information.
information as useless as if I told you that shoes go on feet. If you
had already read that I acknowledged what MIDI had and had not, then
you are a troll.
Steve Carroll
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > You can call what I've done to you trolling if you wish... I call it
> > providing you with information.
>
> information as useless as if I told you that shoes go on feet.
Well of course it was useless to you... now just keep "listening" to
those MIDI files and let me know when hear some "singing" <shaking head
in disbelief>.
Autymn D. C.
> Ah, so you're talking about what "can" exist? Now do you understand
> why I can't list part numbers and prices...because, they don't exist.
> Steve's right in that the QY10 is older and could be made smaller (and
> I took that as a given to begin with), but he also points out that the
> rest of my points are valid.
You're claiming that components exist in the iBook, and suggesting that
I look at it as opposed to known MIDI players. I referred you to the
smaller space in a Mac mini, which you dismissed even after I told you
that iPod parts could be slapped on without the overkill in a laptop.
So I proved that getting components smaller was possible, /did/ exist,
and /could/ exist. And because you can't list the parts of /any/
quality, I doubt that you even know what you're talking about. There's
no need to repeat yourself either.
> Take a look at what has already been described as the necessary
> components for what you want in terms of MIDI (the instruments,
> synthesizer, controller, interface, etc) and add all of that to the
> iPod. Understand that there are no PortalPlayers that provide this
> circuitry, so it all has to be engineered from scratch and solely for
> this dedicated product (or products assuming a market exists).
What do they look like?
> See earlier posts in this thread or find the schematics of the QY10 or
> other similar device. Or think about it logically for a split second.
> Of everything the iPod does, how much of that applies to MIDI? Does
> the iPod already have licensed instruments? Nooo...
I don't know about those, so your dodging is unappreciated.
> Nice way to not answer the question. It always was a "can".
> Regardless of semantics, the point is that if there isn't a single MIDI
> device that currently acts as a USB controller and inputs data from a
> mounted device but doesn't have a DAC, then what sense would it make to
> build the functionality into the iPod solely for the DAC?
No, -ready means a could or can, and -worthy means a can. In Latin
French English, those are -ile and -a|ible, respectively. And I said
that I didn't know if there was one, and you are begging the question.
> That's because they don't exist. Descriptions of what the needed
> components would be have already been posted.
You described nothing.
> Connect two flash drives together and get one of them to transfer files
> to the other...oh yes, I would pay for that!
>
> Take a look at the following and hopefully you'll learn something:
> http://www.intel.com/technology/usb/
>
> Intel sells USB controller chipsets. These are needed to control USB
> I/O and reside on the controlling device (like a computer) wherein the
> controlled device (like a flash card/drive) does not need to contain
> the same controller circuitry (and normally doesn't). For the past few
> years now, Intel has integrated USB 2.0 I/O controlling circuitry in
> the Pentium 4.
>
> This is one of the reasons why USB is cheaper than FireWire and why
> some consider it to be inferior in some situations.
All of is this quite irrelevant. So when did you do the reading I
asked you to? Wikipedia has a picture of the chip. And
http://www.usb.org/developers/onthego/USB_OTG_Intro.pdf looks okay for
what I'm wanting.
> It's relevant in that you're now arguing my point. You're claiming
> demand for something that for decades has yet to turn into a market
> while other digital music formats have.
That was my point; your point was full ignorance which you twisted into
my point like a liar would do.
> I don't think many people are as emotional as you, and thus less likely
> to *yell* about lack of vocals. On the other hand, the vast majority
> of music bought and sold today does contain vocals. Just a guess, but
> I think if you were to place the top selling albums on the shelf with
> the vocals removed, most people would return them.
"Yelling" was a figure of speech. Are you Aspergian? Licensing and
contracting count as buying and selling. Business-to-business music
deals likely make the most of the market, and they don't want vocals
getting in the way of the message or mood in their own product or
service. You are clueless.
> But it's not just vocals we're talking about. While MIDI can sound
> great, there are many things it does not do well at all. It can only
> play what has been defined and exists in the player's instrument
> library...and all the subtle nuances of actual instrument playing are
> removed (this very much affects guitars). Don't get me wrong...much of
> the music I really like had some MIDI production in it. I *love*
> everything from Sisters of Mercy to Tangerine Dream, from Thomas Dolby
> to Art of Noise, but my argument is that the MIDI functionality you've
> described is best suited for what the iBook is capable of doing today
> as opposed to a new device that is much closer to the iBook than it is
> to an iPod.
So tell me what makes the best quality. I swear that MIDI instruments
on the 6100AV and OS7 sounded better than on my PBG4. Old headfones
improve it, oddly, but only halfway. I don't remember the guitar being
as tinny and abrupt back then. If anyone has both similar models out,
can they check <http://zeldadungeon.net/Zelda5/Midis/GerudoValley.mid>?
> So then what the hell was your point? You list write capability as
> being a benefit of MIDI, I point out that users can *also* create music
> in any other iPod compatible format, and now this?
Can you "write" in other formats? No, and you would likely be wealthy
if you could.
> Great, but you're admitting there is no market for MIDI as compared to
> CDs, WMAs and AACs, while MIDI files being downloaded for free are
> still far smaller than MP3s being downloaded on P2Ps. And of those
> MIDI files, how many are actually being downloaded for listening as
> opposed to karoake or for use by musicians?
There's no market for MIDI just like there's none for the other F/OSS
I've mentioned: Wikipedia, Linux, interactive fiction. But there are
fringe [beggar] markets that support these, not that they need support.
Where did you get those numbers?
> Gee I don't know...I just look at say Howard Stern's salary and realize
> that it probably exceeds the entire market for MIDI. Or in terms of
> listeners, I doubt that on a daily basis more people are downloading
> MIDI files than are listening to him...or Rush, or O'Reily, or etc...
It's down to composers against commentators. You are still giving
strawmen. Why are you limiting the music base to free downloads? I
already told you that many are done in private.
> Now of course background music is better as background music than talk
> radio is at being background music, but...that's not the point. Going
> back to the original point...Apple added podcast support because it was
> an easy and cheap thing to do that satisfied what a lot of people were
> asking for. It was easy and cheap because the entire system/process
> contained significant overlap in what existed. The file formats are
> the same, the interface is the same, the store already exists, all that
> was required was some coding in iTunes and on the server to support
> publishing and subscribing.
Podcasts are free, and people like free stuff. (How can something free
have a market? Yet it's supported.) So are MIDIs.
> Well, either it's MIDI or it's not. You are describing something very
> similar to the non-MIDI part of GarageBand...which is indeed very cool,
> but again, think iBook, not iPod.
What does GarageBand do that is similar to my whim? The MIDI is still
there, but the "synthesizer" would be tangible.
> > Before you wave me off for daydreaming, [snip]
>
> Well, to some degree you are...which is fine. But there's a difference
> in saying that there is a need for a new technology which provides ___,
> and saying the iPod should included some existing technology which
> doesn't particularly make sense.
That the iPod be a music /player/ rather than a file speaker?
> OK for the sake of argument, I'll buy all of that (even the conflicting
> ones like free, marketable and copyrightable), so then...
>
> What's the issue with converting MIDI files to any of the existing iPod
> compatible formats?
>
> You've already claimed that iPods have more space than people need, so
> considering that, *AND* considering that the iPod exists today as and
> end-unit playback device, what's lost with the converting? The whole
> point of the iPod is that it works only as and end-unit to iTunes (like
> that or not). You can today import all the MIDI your heart desires
> into iTunes. You can edit and create MIDI all you want with
> Garageband. Other than consumption of file capacity, there's no user
> advantage to having a song as a MIDI file versus say ALE, AIFF, or WAV
> on the iPod as it exists today as a end-unit playback device. All the
> MIDI advantages (like other file advantages) still exist where the
> files lives within your iTunes library.
It must be that I want [direct] interactivity, being a part of the
music rather than taking it as it is. See the F/OSS examples. I've
become really interested lately in having a virtual piano, or
kettledrum, or harp, or--ahem--pearl box in my hand, and knowing
everything that happens as it's playing. I want to take over a
primitive island with one, or with an unworldly weapon-generator,
maybe; or maybe the primitive island is some deep part of my mind.
> I have no idea what you're trying to suggest above, but I like the
> Google game too:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+sucks --------------- 404,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+is+dead--------------2,660,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=no+more+midi--------------6,640,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=we+don't+want+midi--------1,780,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+sounds+like+crap---- 294,000
> http://www.google.com/search?q=why+google+searches+prove+nothing
> 6,680,000
You don't even know how to use Google. Put quotes around your shame!
Here are the real stats:
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+sucks" ------------2460
http://google.com/search?q="MIDIs+suck" -------------762
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+dead" -----------227
http://google.com/search?q="no+more+MIDI" ----------2030
http://google.com/search?q="we+don't+want+MIDI" ------52
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+sounds+like+crap" --109
You argue like a theist.
> > > Apple took what?
> >
> > a LinuxOS
>
> Are you sure about that?
the concept of?
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> Well of course it was useless to you... now just keep "listening" to
> those MIDI files and let me know when hear some "singing" <shaking head
> in disbelief>.
That's not even a sentence.
Autymn D. C.
> "midi sucks" is the clear winner over "midi rules."
http://google.com/search?q="I+love+MIDI"+OR+"I+love+MIDIs"+OR+"loves+MIDI"+OR+"loves+MIDIs"
(1340)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+rules"+OR+"MIDIs+rule"+OR+"MIDI+rocks"+OR+"MIDIs+rock"
(2720)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+great"+OR+"MIDI+is+cool"+OR+"MIDIs+are+great"+OR+"MIDIs+are+cool"
(2320)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+awesome"+OR+"MIDIs+are+awesome"
(197)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+neat"+OR+"MIDIs+are+neat" (29)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+interesting"+OR+"MIDIs+are+interesting"
(71)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+smart"+OR+"MIDIs+are+smart" (0)
=6677
http://google.com/search?q="I+hate+MIDI"+OR+"I+hate+MIDIs"+OR+"hates+MIDI"+OR+"hates+MIDIs"
(15)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+sucks"+OR+"MIDIs+suck"+OR+"MIDI+bites"+OR+"MIDIs+bite"
(1120)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+lame"+OR+"MIDI+is+dumb"+OR+"MIDIs+are+lame"+OR+"MIDIs+are+dumb"
(72)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+awful"+OR+"MIDIs+are+awful" (54)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+boring"+OR+"MIDIs+are+boring" (40)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+annoying"+OR+"MIDIs+are+annoying"
(173)
http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+stupid"+"MIDIs+are+stupid" (0)
=1474
-Aut
MR_ED_of_Course
C. at lysd...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 9/30/05 6:17 AM:
> Mr Ed Of Course wrote:
>> Ah, so you're talking about what "can" exist? Now do you understand
>> why I can't list part numbers and prices...because, they don't exist.
>> Steve's right in that the QY10 is older and could be made smaller (and
>> I took that as a given to begin with), but he also points out that the
>> rest of my points are valid.
>
> You're claiming that components exist in the iBook, and suggesting that
> I look at it as opposed to known MIDI players.
No, I'm suggesting that if you want what you described in the original post
and subsequent responses, that what you're looking for is closer to an iBook
than an iPod. *PART* of what you were asking for exists in MIDI devices
such as the QY10, but even that is something which would not be feasible on
an economic level for Apple to build into an iPod as we know iPods to exist
today. On the other hand, everything that is the QY10 *and much more* is
available today on an iBook.
> I referred you to the
> smaller space in a Mac mini, which you dismissed even after I told you
> that iPod parts could be slapped on without the overkill in a laptop.
No, I could care less if you'd want a mini or an iBook. I pointed out the
iBook, because there were three points on a scale. Point A is an iPod.
Point B is a MIDI device as described by you. Point C is either an iBook or
a mini. The argument about whether B is closer to C than it is to A is
simply more direct and straight forward when C represents an iBook, because
it becomes literally a turnkey solution, whereas the mini is not. The mini
requires a power supply, input device and some sort of monitor to meet the
requirements of B.
But if you want to lower the bar in what you want in a MIDI device such that
the mini meets your requirements, then great, that just proves my point even
more since the cost of the mini is only a bit more than the iPod to begin
with.
> So I proved that getting components smaller was possible, /did/ exist,
> and /could/ exist.
Where did you prove any of this???? The threshold of proof is actual parts
sizes and costs along with licensing costs that build your device at a size
and cost that is less than a stripped down iBook. Are you talking about
when you pointed to USB On The Go? Yes, that's *ONE* tiny added cost that
doesn't get you close at all to what you described that you wanted in an
iPod.
> And because you can't list the parts of /any/
> quality, I doubt that you even know what you're talking about. There's
> no need to repeat yourself either.
I'm telling you that they don't exist and you're arguing that I can't name
them. It's incumbent on you to point to the required parts and ask why they
can't fit inside of an iPod at a cost that's less than what a stripped down
iBook would be? When you get there, then start talking about the market
demand for such a product.
>> Take a look at what has already been described as the necessary
>> components for what you want in terms of MIDI (the instruments,
>> synthesizer, controller, interface, etc) and add all of that to the
>> iPod. Understand that there are no PortalPlayers that provide this
>> circuitry, so it all has to be engineered from scratch and solely for
>> this dedicated product (or products assuming a market exists).
>
> What do they look like?
They look like they don't exist.
>> See earlier posts in this thread or find the schematics of the QY10 or
>> other similar device. Or think about it logically for a split second.
>> Of everything the iPod does, how much of that applies to MIDI? Does
>> the iPod already have licensed instruments? Nooo...
>
> I don't know about those, so your dodging is unappreciated.
You don't know what licensed instruments are, but you insist that they can
be added to the iPod at an insignificant expense or that the iPod already
has them?
>> Nice way to not answer the question. It always was a "can".
>> Regardless of semantics, the point is that if there isn't a single MIDI
>> device that currently acts as a USB controller and inputs data from a
>> mounted device but doesn't have a DAC, then what sense would it make to
>> build the functionality into the iPod solely for the DAC?
>
> No, -ready means a could or can, and -worthy means a can. In Latin
> French English, those are -ile and -a|ible, respectively. And I said
> that I didn't know if there was one, and you are begging the question.
I can't believe you of all people are trying to argue about the English
language. I'm not going there with you. I haven't in the past when you've
made significant errors and here on this point I even re-wrote the question
for clarification. You still refuse to acknowledge the point.
The point here is that it is already possible with the iPod to put it in a
mode where it can be mounted by any device with a USB controller (obviously
along with a USB port). I know of NO MIDI devices with a USB controller
that do not have a DAC. I can't imagine that there would be one or what the
point of that would possibly be. Therefore, instead of having the iPod act
as both the host of MIDI file, the DAC, and the IO controller, while
connected to a MIDI device, why not just ask the MIDI device manufacturers
to accept iPods as mounted devices along with a standard for directory
layout for reading?
>> That's because they don't exist. Descriptions of what the needed
>> components would be have already been posted.
>
> You described nothing.
Yes I did, but don't bother reading what I wrote, Steve and Alan both did
excellent jobs.
> All of is this quite irrelevant. So when did you do the reading I
> asked you to? Wikipedia has a picture of the chip. And
> http://www.usb.org/developers/onthego/USB_OTG_Intro.pdf looks okay for
> what I'm wanting.
Apparently you haven't a clue as to what that does, do you?
>
>> It's relevant in that you're now arguing my point. You're claiming
>> demand for something that for decades has yet to turn into a market
>> while other digital music formats have.
>
> That was my point; your point was full ignorance which you twisted into
> my point like a liar would do.
Ok fair enough, you're saying that your point is that for decades there has
yet to develop a market for MIDI even though other digital music formats
have. I'll gladly let you have that as your point.
So with no existing market for MIDI, what's in it for Apple? And more
importantly, why has no market for MIDI developed? It seems to me that way
back when we were using 2400 baud modems that MIDI swapping would've been
all the rage. Bandwidth, storage, computing power, etc...have all increased
by orders of magnitude with no significant advances in MIDI technology over
the past decade or so.
What is it about conditions now that is going to make MIDI something that
will increase profits if Apple were to invest in R&D and magically develop
an iPod that supported what you asked for (even assuming a magical situation
where the cost and size didn't increase significantly)?
>
>> I don't think many people are as emotional as you, and thus less likely
>> to *yell* about lack of vocals. On the other hand, the vast majority
>> of music bought and sold today does contain vocals. Just a guess, but
>> I think if you were to place the top selling albums on the shelf with
>> the vocals removed, most people would return them.
>
> "Yelling" was a figure of speech. Are you Aspergian? Licensing and
> contracting count as buying and selling. Business-to-business music
> deals likely make the most of the market, and they don't want vocals
> getting in the way of the message or mood in their own product or
> service. You are clueless.
Right, I'm the one who didn't know anything. Look back on what you've
learned (or chosen to ignore in this thread).
Ok, I'll bite on this one too.
Pretending for a second that B2B counts for "most of the market" *and*
pretending that B2B doesn't want vocals, then what would the point be of
having a MIDI iPod as you described?
The iPod is a...wait for it...wait for it...A CONSUMER DEVICE. The
overwhelming vast majority of music that consumers have purchased for the
past few decades has had vocals and not being reproducible with identical
results through MIDI.
>> But it's not just vocals we're talking about. While MIDI can sound
>> great, there are many things it does not do well at all. It can only
>> play what has been defined and exists in the player's instrument
>> library...and all the subtle nuances of actual instrument playing are
>> removed (this very much affects guitars). Don't get me wrong...much of
>> the music I really like had some MIDI production in it. I *love*
>> everything from Sisters of Mercy to Tangerine Dream, from Thomas Dolby
>> to Art of Noise, but my argument is that the MIDI functionality you've
>> described is best suited for what the iBook is capable of doing today
>> as opposed to a new device that is much closer to the iBook than it is
>> to an iPod.
>
> So tell me what makes the best quality. I swear that MIDI instruments
> on the 6100AV and OS7 sounded better than on my PBG4. Old headfones
> improve it, oddly, but only halfway. I don't remember the guitar being
> as tinny and abrupt back then. If anyone has both similar models out,
> can they check <http://zeldadungeon.net/Zelda5/Midis/GerudoValley.mid>?
If you were using the standard QuickTime instruments that were available
back in the days of the PowerMac AVs / System 7, then the quality really
wasn't very good. It's important to understand *why* it wasn't very good
and what one would want to compare it to. For example a MIDI file played
through a low-end device with cheesy instruments may not have the
compression artifacts that you would find in say a 128kbps MP3 file...BUT
that MP3 file, while horribly compressed, will have sounds representing real
instruments and all the subtle nuances associated with them. It's a trade
off.
Now you can use better (more expensive, bigger circuitry) instruments, but
you can also increase the bit rate of an MP3 file and/or encode in a better
or even lossless format. While the instruments can be much improved, there
will always be things MIDI is simply not capable of.
Likewise the MIDI when turned into a waveform for playing must be at some
resolution, be it 16-bit 44.1 KHz or 16-bit 48KHz or whatever. Since you
can have a lossless format with the same resolution, you're always going to
find that the quality of a MIDI song can always be faithfully/identically
reproduced but you can't faithfully/identically most songs into MIDI.
>> So then what the hell was your point? You list write capability as
>> being a benefit of MIDI, I point out that users can *also* create music
>> in any other iPod compatible format, and now this?
>
> Can you "write" in other formats? No, and you would likely be wealthy
> if you could.
Well, if you want to make up your own definitions, then sure, ok, whatever.
On the other hand, if your argument was that consumers could make their own
MIDI files, then it's not an advantage as consumers can just as easily, if
not with greater ease, make their own MP3/AAC/AIFF/ALE files.
>> Great, but you're admitting there is no market for MIDI as compared to
>> CDs, WMAs and AACs, while MIDI files being downloaded for free are
>> still far smaller than MP3s being downloaded on P2Ps. And of those
>> MIDI files, how many are actually being downloaded for listening as
>> opposed to karoake or for use by musicians?
>
> There's no market for MIDI just like there's none for the other F/OSS
> I've mentioned: Wikipedia, Linux, interactive fiction. But there are
> fringe [beggar] markets that support these, not that they need support.
Again, with no market...what's in it for Apple? And...why is there no
market? I thought you said B2Bs love vocal free music?
> Where did you get those numbers?
What numbers? That MIDI is smaller than MP3 on the P2Ps? Uh...go to any
P2P directory that shows download numbers and do a comparison.
>> Gee I don't know...I just look at say Howard Stern's salary and realize
>> that it probably exceeds the entire market for MIDI. Or in terms of
>> listeners, I doubt that on a daily basis more people are downloading
>> MIDI files than are listening to him...or Rush, or O'Reily, or etc...
>
> It's down to composers against commentators. You are still giving
> strawmen.
YOU are accusing ME of the strawman?
YOU are the one who started this sub-thread with "Why bother supporting
much-worthles Podcasts of radio shows"
> Why are you limiting the music base to free downloads?
I didn't. I originally asked about the Billboard 100 or any other tracking
for store bought music or paid downloads. You still haven't named one top
100 selling song that could be faithfully/identically produced solely with
MIDI. Find one top BillBoard 100, iTMS, or top download on a P2P that is
MIDI or could be faithfully/identically produced solely with MIDI.
Show *anything* that shows demand for MIDI on a consumer level.
> I already told you that many are done in private.
Oh right, this private underground network of MIDI downloaders that is
bigger than podcasters and P2Ps of MP3s but somehow needs someone to support
them with a portable device.
>> Now of course background music is better as background music than talk
>> radio is at being background music, but...that's not the point. Going
>> back to the original point...Apple added podcast support because it was
>> an easy and cheap thing to do that satisfied what a lot of people were
>> asking for. It was easy and cheap because the entire system/process
>> contained significant overlap in what existed. The file formats are
>> the same, the interface is the same, the store already exists, all that
>> was required was some coding in iTunes and on the server to support
>> publishing and subscribing.
>
> Podcasts are free, and people like free stuff. (How can something free
> have a market? Yet it's supported.) So are MIDIs.
Most podcasts are not non-commercial. Take a look at the top 100 podcasters
and how many of them aren't commercial. I may be missing some, but I only
see NPR.
>> Well, either it's MIDI or it's not. You are describing something very
>> similar to the non-MIDI part of GarageBand...which is indeed very cool,
>> but again, think iBook, not iPod.
>
> What does GarageBand do that is similar to my whim?
Oh I don't know, maybe "Make Garageband portable or something."
> The MIDI is still there, but the "synthesizer" would be tangible.
Huh?
>>> Before you wave me off for daydreaming, [snip]
>>
>> Well, to some degree you are...which is fine. But there's a difference
>> in saying that there is a need for a new technology which provides ___,
>> and saying the iPod should included some existing technology which
>> doesn't particularly make sense.
>
> That the iPod be a music /player/ rather than a file speaker?
Huh?
> It must be that I want [direct] interactivity, being a part of the
> music rather than taking it as it is. See the F/OSS examples. I've
> become really interested lately in having a virtual piano, or
> kettledrum, or harp, or--ahem--pearl box in my hand, and knowing
> everything that happens as it's playing. I want to take over a
> primitive island with one, or with an unworldly weapon-generator,
> maybe; or maybe the primitive island is some deep part of my mind.
That's great..I'm definitely not denying that it is. BUT, I don't see this
happening in an iPod. iBook, yes...iPod, no.
>
>> I have no idea what you're trying to suggest above, but I like the
>> Google game too:
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+sucks --------------- 404,000
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+is+dead--------------2,660,000
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=no+more+midi--------------6,640,000
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=we+don't+want+midi--------1,780,000
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=midi+sounds+like+crap---- 294,000
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=why+google+searches+prove+nothing
>> 6,680,000
>
> You don't even know how to use Google. Put quotes around your shame!
> Here are the real stats:
>
> http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+sucks" ------------2460
> http://google.com/search?q="MIDIs+suck" -------------762
> http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+is+dead" -----------227
> http://google.com/search?q="no+more+MIDI" ----------2030
> http://google.com/search?q="we+don't+want+MIDI" ------52
> http://google.com/search?q="MIDI+sounds+like+crap" --109
>
> You argue like a theist.
You argue like someone who has just been shown how retarded their argument
is, and yet you still continue down the same path.
If you really want the remedial lesson on why you can't play the Google game
to win an argument....
In your original Google example, you didn't put *any* context in the results
whatsoever. "Midi" for example could refer to the south of France or even
other words. Likewise as you pointed out above, it could refer to 2,460
instances of "MIDI sucks" or "MIDI really sucks" or "MIDI kind of sucks" or
"don't use MIDI".
>>>> Apple took what?
>>>
>>> a LinuxOS
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>
> the concept of?
Nope, try again.
Buzz
> On the other hand, everything that is the QY10 *and much more* is
> available today on an iBook.
>
>
With a better user interface, more flexibility, and better results. This
is true about any general-purpose computer vs a dedicated device such as
an iPod or a QY10.
And the results can be played on an iPod. But all of this has been
said before. If it has not gotten through by now, it is not going to.