seven@nuchat.UUCP (David Paulsen) (11/22/87)
I know for a fact that MIDI interfaces do exist for the Amiga, and for around $50 (fifty) dollars. Granted, the cheaper ones don't have a pass-thru, and might even hog your printer port, but you CAN allow an Amiga to drive MIDI stuff without a wallet transplant. David Paulsen ...uunet.UU.NET!nuchat!seven (713) 480-0114 "Take a deep breath upon impact. This way, you have enough air to yell for help."
rodney@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (11/27/87)
In article <447@nuchat.UUCP> seven@nuchat.UUCP (David Paulsen) writes: >I know for a fact that MIDI interfaces do exist for the Amiga, and for around >$50 (fifty) dollars. Granted, the cheaper ones don't have a pass-thru, and >might even hog your printer port, but you CAN allow an Amiga to drive MIDI >stuff without a wallet transplant. Just as an example, not an endorsement: From Skyles Electric Works: MIDI IN, 2 MIDI OUT, and MIDI THRU for the Amiga. $49.95 (Amiga 500 and 1000) $59.95 (Amiga 2000) It plugs into the RS-232 port. I think Mimetics also has a MIDI Interface with similar features and price. Overall, I feel that the Amiga is by far a better computer, and that the 500 should settle and objections as to the price. Of course, that's only my opinion, unlike the "fact" that the ST has more support. :-) >David Paulsen >...uunet.UU.NET!nuchat!seven >(713) 480-0114 > >"Take a deep breath upon impact. This way, you have enough > air to yell for help." NO WARRANTY EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED Rodney Ricks, Systems Programmer, Atlanta University Center Computation Center
rex@otto.COM (Rex Jolliff) (11/28/87)
Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: In article <32160@auc.UUCP> rodney@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >Just as an example, not an endorsement: > > From Skyles Electric Works: MIDI IN, 2 MIDI OUT, and MIDI THRU > It plugs into the RS-232 port. > >I think Mimetics also has a MIDI Interface with similar features and price. hmmm... This sounds pretty scary to me. If the interface is built into the computer, then the software developers don't have to worry about writing 'drivers' to support all the different interfaces with 'similar features'. However, if you have to hook the interface up as an afterthought, only the software supplied by the interface manufacturer may be compatable. The MIDI port is already there on the ST, so the musician who wants to become 'computerized' can just go buy an ST, and just any piece of music software, and he's ready to go. This guy's gonna have enough problems trying to figure out why the program won't do the same things to his Juno-106, that it does to his Yamaha DX-7 (?). He really shouldn't have to worry about why the progam won't talk to either of them (read: why the program wont talk to the interface.). >..., I feel that the Amiga is by far a better computer, ... Lets not start another war, okay guys? >Rodney Ricks, > Systems Programmer, > Atlanta University Center Computation Center (Both of them are far better computers... 8-)) -- Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.UUCP, {akgua,ihnp4,mirror,sdcrdcf}!otto!rex) The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What happened to our superior space program?
gt4785b@pyr.gatech.EDU (CARTER) (11/29/87)
In article <528@otto.COM> rex@otto.UUCP (Rex Jolliff) writes: >> [deleted text about MIDI 'interfaces' for the Amigas] >hmmm... This sounds pretty scary to me. If the interface is built into the >computer, then the software developers don't have to worry about writing >'drivers' to support all the different interfaces with 'similar features'. >However, if you have to hook the interface up as an afterthought, only the >software supplied by the interface manufacturer may be compatable. The midi "interface adaptor" for the amiga consists of: a DB-25 plug, a DB-25 socket, 4 DIN sockets, 2 toggle switches, an optiosolator, and an op-amp. In other words, the only thing not already MIDI about the port on the back of the Amiga is that it's a DB-25 instead of a DIN. The op-amp and optoisolator just make it safe (i.e. buffering). But as far as software is concerned, ANY midi "adaptor" for the amiga will look the same. The DB-25 socket and one of the switches are so the person can use his printer too. Yeah, it would be nice to have a seperate, dedicated MIDI jack, but a) you usually never print while MIDI-ing, and b) many people will never use their Amigas for MIDI, so it would have been wasted money. A friend had shown me a copy of a magazine article on "how to build a MIDI adaptor for the Amiga." Does anyone remember what magazine/issue that was? David Carter
pmy@boole.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) (11/30/87)
In article <528@otto.COM>, rex@otto.COM (Rex Jolliff) writes: ] In article <32160@auc.UUCP> rodney@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: ] >Just as an example, not an endorsement: ] > ] > From Skyles Electric Works: MIDI IN, 2 MIDI OUT, and MIDI THRU ] > It plugs into the RS-232 port. ] > ] >I think Mimetics also has a MIDI Interface with similar features and price. ] ] hmmm... This sounds pretty scary to me. If the interface is built into the ] computer, then the software developers don't have to worry about writing ] 'drivers' to support all the different interfaces with 'similar features'. ] However, if you have to hook the interface up as an afterthought, only the ] software supplied by the interface manufacturer may be compatable. Huh? Wait a minute. The interface is just a hunk of hardware that converts RS-232 to MIDI current loop. There's no software compatibility problem... it's just a connector, no intelligence whatsoever. Any program can drive it. -- Pete Yadlowsky Academic Computing Center University of Virginia e-mail: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.EDU
sansom@trwrb.UUCP (Richard Sansom) (11/30/87)
In article <4567@pyr.gatech.EDU> gt4785b@pyr.UUCP (David Carter) writes: >... Yeah, it would be nice to have a seperate, dedicated MIDI jack, but >a) you usually never print while MIDI-ing, and b) many people will never use >their Amigas for MIDI, so it would have been wasted money. > I use my printer all the time with my current MIDI setup (1040 ST, various software packages, DX27, TX81Z, TR505). If I had to disconnect my MIDI port each time I wanted to print something, I'd go nuts. Also, what makes you so sure "many people will never use their Amigas for MIDI"? -Rich -- Richard E. Sansom TRW Space & Defense, Redondo Beach, CA {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!sansom
dag@chinet.UUCP (12/01/87)
In article <4567@pyr.gatech.EDU> gt4785b@pyr.UUCP (David Carter) writes:
+ ...
+The midi "interface adaptor" for the amiga consists of:
+ a DB-25 plug, a DB-25 socket, 4 DIN sockets, 2 toggle switches,
+ an optiosolator, and an op-amp.
+
+In other words, the only thing not already MIDI about the port on the back of
+the Amiga is that it's a DB-25 instead of a DIN. The op-amp and optoisolator
+just make it safe (i.e. buffering). But as far as software is concerned, ANY
+midi "adaptor" for the amiga will look the same.
+ ...
+David Carter
Actually, I suspect that the op-amp is to make a current loop out of an
EIA (RS-232 style) connection, the opto-isolator is for protection.
MIDI is a serial 5ma current loop with passive receivers, active
transmitters. The op-amp can be used to convert EIA to current loop for
the transmitter, the opto-isolator can be used to read the received data.
I'm not sure how the Amiga printer port is configured, and how the MIDI
devices are accessed from the program, but there are MIDI interfaces on
the market with different features, and this would seem to indicate that
not all Amiga MIDI adaptors are created equal from a programming standpoint.
Does the Amiga OS support MIDI devices? The ST OS does.
A question that must be asked before buying either machine to be part of
a MIDI set-up: Does the software that I want exist for this machine?
If the answer is no, you need to look into whys and whens. Don't let
a bunch of people from either fan club badmouthing the other machine
influence you too much. In most cases, neither party knows of what they
speak.
--
Daniel A. Glasser
...!ihnp4!chinet!dag
...!ihnp4!mwc!dag
...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dag
One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night.dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) (12/01/87)
> > From Skyles Electric Works: MIDI IN, 2 MIDI OUT, and MIDI THRU > > > >I think Mimetics also has a MIDI Interface with similar features and price. > > hmmm... This sounds pretty scary to me. If the interface is built into the > computer, then the software developers don't have to worry about writing > 'drivers' to support all the different interfaces with 'similar features'. > However, if you have to hook the interface up as an afterthought, only the > software supplied by the interface manufacturer may be compatable. > > The MIDI port is already there on the ST, so the musician who wants to become > 'computerized' can just go buy an ST, and just any piece of music software, and > he's ready to go. This guy's gonna have enough problems trying to figure out > why the program won't do the same things to his Juno-106, that it does to his > Yamaha DX-7 (?). He really shouldn't have to worry about why the progam won't > talk to either of them (read: why the program wont talk to the interface.). > > Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.UUCP, {akgua,ihnp4,mirror,sdcrdcf}!otto!rex) Let me put Mr. Jolliff's fears to rest. The RS232 connection on the back of the Amiga (500, 1000, 2000) is connected to a programmable UART which accommodates a wide range of baud rates including that which MIDI uses. The Midi interfaces are really just a RS232 to MIDI adapter which given that there are standards at both ends should no more a problem than a cable which goes between your printer and your computer. The interfaces are just a matter of some hex buffers and optoisolators and 'features' like pass-through or multiple outputs certainly have no affect on what the program driving the interface sees. A typical interface is very simple consisting of less than $5 of parts. He certainly could go buy an ST but if the sole reason is fears of incompatibility from the MIDI interfaces then he is being misguided by your information and you are certainly doing him no favors in the department of making intelligent choices. I will grant that there is more MIDI software available for the ST. Now that a low cost Amiga has hit the streets I expect the Amiga MIDI market will probably expand. Rather than start the wars going I will keep any comparisons of the machines to myself. In the future you might consider, however, that inaccurate speculation is one of the surest ways to cause a furor. David Albrecht
langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) (12/01/87)
In article <3813@trwrb.UUCP> sansom@trwrb.dsd.trw.com.UUCP (Richard Sansom) writes: >I use my printer all the time with my current MIDI setup (1040 ST, various >software packages, DX27, TX81Z, TR505). If I had to disconnect my MIDI port >each time I wanted to print something, I'd go nuts. > >-Rich Rich-- What Dave Carter was saying when he explained the dual use of the serial port for MIDI and lower baud rate I/O was that you can use your serial port for both, just not at the same time. The Amiga serial port already supports MIDI rates, and there is a standard software interface to the serial port. When you buy a MIDI connector you get a MIDI IN, a MIDI OUT, some models provide a MIDI THRU, and a serial port pass-through. These are just connectors and a few inexpensive parts to protect against line surges, etc. You plug the MIDI connectors into the serial port, then your printer into the serial pass-through on the MIDI adapter. The only time you can't use your serial port for printing is while you are using it to send or receive MIDI data, as the serial data destined for your printer would corrupt the MIDI data. There is no need to plug and unplug your printer however; you simply wait until your MIDI I/O is done, then print over the same port. Clear? --Lang Be seing you... --Lang Zerner langz@athena.mit.edu ...ihnp4!mit-eddie!mit-athena!langz "No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the only misfortune is to do it solemnly" --Michel de Montaigne
bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) (12/01/87)
In article <1931@chinet.UUCP> dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) writes: >In article <4567@pyr.gatech.EDU> gt4785b@pyr.UUCP (David Carter) writes: >+... >+In other words, the only thing not already MIDI about the port on the back >+of the Amiga is that it's a DB-25 instead of a DIN.... > >...I'm not sure how the Amiga printer port is configured, and how the MIDI >devices are accessed from the program, but there are MIDI interfaces on >the market with different features, and this would seem to indicate that >not all Amiga MIDI adaptors are created equal from a programming >standpoint.... You did not read what he said very well. To summarize: >> ALL THE MIDI ADAPTORS PRESENT THE SAME PROGRAMMING INTERFACE << >> PERIOD << The only difference in the units seems to be MIDI THRU, this does not change the above statement. With a standard exec device interface (midi.device) it would not even matter if the hardware *was* incompatible between manufacturer's devices. >Does the Amiga OS support MIDI devices? The ST OS does. Yes, and no. The Amiga OS support works, but provides poor timestamping. To do it "right" a dedicated MIDI driver must be written. Some developers have chosen to pick up a solution from the Public Domain, others have re-invented the wheel. It is not a problem any more (a long time ago it was). |\ /| . Ack! (NAK, SOH, EOT) {o O} . bryce@hoser.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!hoser!bryce (") U WARNING: hoser's spool directory eats a *lot* of mail. :-(
scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) (12/01/87)
In article <3813@trwrb.UUCP> sansom@trwrb.dsd.trw.com.UUCP (Richard Sansom) writes: >In article <4567@pyr.gatech.EDU> gt4785b@pyr.UUCP (David Carter) writes: >>... Yeah, it would be nice to have a seperate, dedicated MIDI jack,... > >I use my printer all the time with my current MIDI setup (1040 ST, various >software packages, DX27, TX81Z, TR505). If I had to disconnect my MIDI port >each time I wanted to print something, I'd go nuts. ... I have an ECE Midi Interface (bought from Abel for $44.86, arriving in 3 days). It passes the serial port and has a nice fat push-button on the front which allows you to switch from MIDI to serial. I don't have to disconnect my MIDI stuff to print/modem either... -scott
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (12/01/87)
[I wish people wouldn't comment when they don't have the facts.] In article <1931@chinet.UUCP> dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) writes: >I'm not sure how the Amiga printer port is configured, and how the MIDI >devices are accessed from the program, but there are MIDI interfaces on >the market with different features, and this would seem to indicate that >not all Amiga MIDI adaptors are created equal from a programming standpoint. Every MIDI interface that I know of on the market for the Amiga uses the serial port. Some programs like SoundScape, provide their own device drivers to get the speed up, but the MIDI 'Interface' is nothing more than a EIA <-> CurrentLoop converter circuit. All of the programs and their drivers talk to the serial port hardware which is in the same place, and has the same flag bits as every other Amiga. Thus every MIDI 'Interface' works with *every* MIDI capable program. There are conflicts when you multitask two MIDI programs but that is to be expected, one of them can't get the serial port because the other one has it. This won't be a problem for a while on the Mac or the ST (or even the IBM-PC for that matter.) >Does the Amiga OS support MIDI devices? The ST OS does. The Amiga OS supports any device that has a device driver in the DEVS: directory. Is there a standardized software layer interface to a generic midi device (something the Amiga calls a handler), No. >A question that must be asked before buying either machine to be part of >a MIDI set-up: Does the software that I want exist for this machine? >If the answer is no, you need to look into whys and whens. Don't let >a bunch of people from either fan club badmouthing the other machine >influence you too much. In most cases, neither party knows of what they >speak. This is certainly a true statement, with an example no less! --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
king@dciem.UUCP (Stephen King) (12/01/87)
In article <528@otto.COM> rex@otto.UUCP (Rex Jolliff) writes: >hmmm... This sounds pretty scary to me. If the interface is built into the >computer, then the software developers don't have to worry about writing >'drivers' to support all the different interfaces with 'similar features'. >However, if you have to hook the interface up as an afterthought, only the >software supplied by the interface manufacturer may be compatable. A MIDI interface is no more than an opto-isolator and a buffer. All MIDI interfaces for the Amiga will be the same from a software point of view. IT IS NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT !!! The Amiga ROM kernel has ALWAYS supported the MIDI data rate (somewhere between 31k & 32k baud). The flag for the serial device is called SERB_RAD_BOOGIE and is documented in the Amiga ROM kernel manual for vers 1.0! Incidentally, the Amiga hardware supports serial data rates up to 292000 baud, although it is pointed out that the software may not be able to keep up with data at this speed. (RKM 1.0 p3-168) Finally, MIDI interfaces are dead easy to build and only cost about $12 if you know where to pick up cheap parts (Active Surplus, Toronto; Halted Specialties, Sunnyvale (I think)) The was an Amazing Computing article about this just a short while ago. ...sjk -- * Defence & Civil Institute * ...!utzoo!dciem!king * of Environmental Medicine * Stephen J King - Simulation & Training Group - (416) 635-2149
ssd@sugar.UUCP (Scott Denham) (12/02/87)
In article <4567@pyr.gatech.EDU>, gt4785b@pyr.gatech.EDU (CARTER) writes: > In article <528@otto.COM> rex@otto.UUCP (Rex Jolliff) writes: > >> [deleted text about MIDI 'interfaces' for the Amigas] > >> [deleted further text about MIDI 'interna' vs 'external'} > A friend had shown me a copy of a magazine article on "how to build a MIDI > adaptor for the Amiga." Does anyone remember what magazine/issue that was? > > David Carter I believe the article you are looking for was in Amazing Computing, Vol 2, No. 2. Scott Denham
dag@chinet.UUCP (12/03/87)
In article <35179@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: +[I wish people wouldn't comment when they don't have the facts.] I stated quite clearly that my Amiga knowlege is not extensive. I have plenty of facts, and don't claim to know anything that I don't know. +In article <1931@chinet.UUCP> dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) writes: +>I'm not sure how the Amiga printer port is configured, and how the MIDI +>devices are accessed from the program, but there are MIDI interfaces on +>the market with different features, and this would seem to indicate that +>not all Amiga MIDI adaptors are created equal from a programming standpoint. + +Every MIDI interface that I know of on the market for the Amiga uses +the serial port. Some programs like SoundScape, provide their own device +drivers to get the speed up, but the MIDI 'Interface' is nothing more than a +EIA <-> CurrentLoop converter circuit. All of the programs and their +drivers talk to the serial port hardware which is in the same place, and +has the same flag bits as every other Amiga. Thus every MIDI 'Interface' +works with *every* MIDI capable program. There are conflicts when you +multitask two MIDI programs but that is to be expected, one of them can't +get the serial port because the other one has it. This won't be a problem +for a while on the Mac or the ST (or even the IBM-PC for that matter.) The main point of my article, on the technical side, was pointing out that the op-amp was not being used for protection, but as an EIA to current loop converter. I have sitting in front of me right now ads for two different MIDI adaptors for the Amiga, one has four separate MIDI out's, one has one. For my money, these are different! Mind you, the same can be said for the ST -- there is only one built-in MIDI out, and it is harder to add OS support for another serial device. Multi-tasking? The ST hardware can support some, just not the ST ROM operating system. I've seen a UNIX V7-like system working just fine. +>Does the Amiga OS support MIDI devices? The ST OS does. + +The Amiga OS supports any device that has a device driver in +the DEVS: directory. Is there a standardized software layer interface +to a generic midi device (something the Amiga calls a handler), No. I was, and am, not attacking the Amiga OS. I was asking a question. +>A question that must be asked before buying either machine to be part of +>a MIDI set-up: Does the software that I want exist for this machine? +>If the answer is no, you need to look into whys and whens. Don't let +>a bunch of people from either fan club badmouthing the other machine +>influence you too much. In most cases, neither party knows of what they +>speak. + +This is certainly a true statement, with an example no less! I WAS NOT BADMOUTING ANYBODY OR ANYTHING!!!! Fully two thirds of the articles on this topic have been from Amiga fans badmouthing the ST. I have a full MIDI set up, including an Atari, DX-100, TX81Z, Midi guitar and some other stuff, and I am under contract to produce MIDI software for a major music software company. I know about the Atari. I've read the Amiga manuals and some of the OS source code. I have not the time or forum to flame the OS on either the Atari or the Amiga, but suffice it to say that I've used and written multi-tasking systems with better performance and real-time interprocess communication and resource management than the Amiga OS in less than half the space that either machine's OS takes up. I was giving general advice. If a musician buys a computer for MIDI and the software is unavailable at the time, he or she must either wait or write. There are fine packages available on the ST and PC and Amiga and Mac. Each has its plusses and minuses. I was advising that what software is available should enter into the decision, not attacking your precious Amiga!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to attack my qualifications or motivations, post to alt.flame or send me mail -- I do not like being attacked in any other newsgroup. I've not attacked you or your machine. I like the Amiga. I don't like it enough to buy one, but I like it. +--Chuck McManis +uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com +These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. -- Daniel A. Glasser ...!ihnp4!chinet!dag ...!ihnp4!mwc!dag ...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dag One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night.
SKIBUM@cup.portal.com.UUCP (12/04/87)
So whos usin a serial interface for a printer anyway. What do you do when you want to use your modem? Disconnect the printer? Spend a hundred bucks for a switch? Many of the available midi interfaces for the Amiga have pass thru for the serial port so it can be used with a modem (obviously not at the same time). Seems to me the question isnt whether one system has built in midi interface or not (fifty bucks for an interface isnt gonna break anyone whos seriously talking about spending the money to get into midi music in a serious way). The question should be which machine overs the most versatility for various applications. If we were just talking about buying a machine for music we might as well buy a Yamaha puter. Obviously offers some of the best internal voice capability some fine application software. Im sure that there are all kinds of machines that do one thing better than my AMI does. I bought the machine because it does lots of things in a way thats adequate for my needs Mike McDaniel
ford@crash.cts.com (Michael Ditto) (12/06/87)
**** FLAME ON **** In article <4567@pyr.gatech.EDU> gt4785b@pyr.UUCP (David Carter) writes: >... Yeah, it would be nice to have a seperate, dedicated MIDI jack, but >a) you usually never print while MIDI-ing, and b) many people will never use >their Amigas for MIDI, so it would have been wasted money. First of all, a MIDI interface connects to the serial port, not the printer port. So, although some people have serial printers, the problem is more general than whether you want to print and 'MIDI' at the same time. I have a terminal program running absolutely every minute that my Amiga is powered on (usually 24 hours/day). Because of the Amiga's hard-coded single-serial-port software design, I can not conveniently use MIDI on my Amiga. Even if auxiliary serial ports were available, all Amiga software that does non-trivial serial I/O (including MIDI) uses the built-in port. The current system of software access to a MIDI device is consistent and works well with any manufacturer's MIDI adapter. The software incompati- bility between different MIDI adapters that has been suggested does not exist, since MIDI access is done through the normal serial.device. The problem is: Amiga system software supports the existence of other serial devices, but does not allow using them to connect a serial printer with a consistent software interface (i.e. printer.device won't work). This means that serial printers can only be connected to the built-in serial port. Amiga communications application software only supports the built-in serial port. This means that modems can only be connected to the built-in serial port. Amiga MIDI software only supports the built-in serial port. This means that MIDI devices can only be connected to the built-in serial port. The cause of this is mainly that from the beginning, C=A has said to developers: "If you want to do serial I/O, here's what you do: You open the built-in serial-port, set up the parameters...". And that is what the developers did. I wish the Amiga's software were at least as expandable as its hardware. In article <3813@trwrb.UUCP> sansom@trwrb.dsd.trw.com.UUCP (Richard Sansom) writes: >I use my printer all the time with my current MIDI setup (1040 ST, various >software packages, DX27, TX81Z, TR505). If I had to disconnect my MIDI port >each time I wanted to print something, I'd go nuts. A 1040 ST, eh? What does this have to do with the subject "Amiga and MIDI"? Oh, you're saying that it's nice to have a dedicated MIDI device. This is fine, but that does not mean it has to be included with the computer. This just increases the cost of the system without increasing its usefulness for most people. The Atarioids are always saying that the Amiga costs too much, but are so proud of their built-in MIDI port that increased the cost of their system and will probably never be used. > Also, what makes you so >sure "many people will never use their Amigas for MIDI"? Consider the number of people in this country who use MIDI devices. Let's make a really liberal estimate and say it's a whole one percent of the population. Now consider the people who own Amigas as a sample of that population. Since many people who chose to buy an Amiga did so because of some technical or artistic interest, let's say that there will be a greater incidence of MIDI users, maybe even 5 times as many. Maybe even ten times as many. That still leaves 90 percent of Amigas that will never even be in the same room as any MIDI equipment. Whether that number is "many" is a matter of definition, but it certainly indicates that making those 10% of the users pay for everyone to have a MIDI port is silly. **** FLAME OFF **** I think Commodore made a good compromise in providing a general purpose port that can be used for modems, printers, MIDI, and many other things. This minimizes the cost to the users with simple applications, and provides a lot of functionality to the avarage user. The problem is that the software was not made expandable enough for sophisticated applications. The capability is there, but the software implementation makes things difficult. Note that by "sophisticated applications" I do not mean bizarre uses of the Amiga that its designers never anticipated, nor some "power user" that wants the Amiga to do the work of 25 computers. I mean the sorts of things that people expect from computers these days; things that even IBM-PC's can do. The Amiga is a sophisticated computer, I hate to see it limited in unnecessary ways. -- Mike Ditto -=] Ford [=- P.O. Box 1721 ford%kenobi@crash.CTS.COM Bonita, CA 92002 ford@crash.CTS.COM
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (12/07/87)
<< complaints about midi and terminal sharing same serial port>> I've used the Amiga midi quite a bit with Deluxe Music Construction Set (verion 1.2 or whatever it is; had to send in an extra $20 for the upgrade and no copy-proof), and with Pro Midi Studio (no offer of a copyable disk). Both DMCS (a true dinosaur) and Pro Midi Studio do a pretty good job of thrashing the CPU. If you expect to do a good job of time-stamping incoming events, you need to assure very quick response to interrupts from characters coming in from midi. Whith the current sophistication of software, this is tantamount to saying that your midi receive program should be the only user task running. Of course, I suppose you could impose a little priority setting to prevent the terminal emulator from munging the midi timing. One thing that would be helpful would be to have a midi.device that does the time stamping in the interrupt handler itself. It is my understanding that is or will soon be avialable in Pro Midi studio. Such a device handler would alleviate the need from the controlling program being a hog to assure accurate timing. There has been a lot of chatter about music-x being pretty neat, but I haven't seen it yet. Naturally the Atari STs will suffer from the same technical problems with midi response as the Amiga. In the IBM world the soultion has been to use the Korg MPU interface as an outboard solution. Such an outboard solution would probably enhance the functionality of either the ST or the Amiga, but it does cost bucks. I have no involvement with the McIntosh, so I'll leave it out of the discussion for the moment. Just having a DIN connector doesn't necessarily imply midi functionality. Serious music work requires that connector to have accurate timing. Both the Amiga and ST series have about the same shot at that. The Amgia has more complication, as it has a multitasking O/S that opens up the possiblity of shoving matches twixt programs. If a multitasking (as opposed to desk acessory) version of TOS is released*, it will have the same "problems" as the Amiga requiring programs to be good citizens. *released meaning that it is announced *and* I can actually purchase it. Of course, both Atari and Commodore know more than a little about the art of vapor ware. --Bill
rex@otto.COM (Rex Jolliff) (12/08/87)
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Sheesh! The first 2 or 3 replies to my post would have sufficed, but I can see
that their is a good chance that I'll probably get a reply from every Amiga
owner on the face of this planet with netnews access. I didn't mean for this
post to be a vicious flame, but all the Amiga owners obviously took it that
way. Don't take it to be a direct attack on your machine.
This is what I was trying to say:
If a musician decides he should have a computer, not only to help him with
producing music, but also to handle some other simple things like keeping his
checkbook in balance, to replace his typewriter, and of course to play decent
games on; he should look at how simple the machine is to acquire, assemble, use
and maintain. Having to worry about the midi level converter as an extra item
is not a problem with the ST. They both have very user friendly interfaces,
although it's debatable which one is more user friendly. Finally, as far as
the average musician is concerned, each machine is equally powerful (Read: they
both can play great music and great games!). One final comment: I've noticed,
from talking to various musicians around here, that they usually are not very
concerned about the built-in sound capabilities of computers, but rather if
the computer can make their own perticular keyboards sing.
Rex.
--
Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.UUCP, {akgua,ihnp4,mirror,sdcrdcf}!otto!rex)
The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in
Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way
Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What happened to our superior space program?Randomizer@cup.portal.com (12/11/87)
>problems with midi response as the Amiga. In the IBM world the >soultion has been to use the Korg MPU interface as an outboard >solution. Such an outboard solution would probably enhance the >functionality of either the ST or the Amiga, but it does cost >bucks. I have no involvement with the McIntosh, so I'll leave it Correction, the IBM's use the *Roland* MPU interface. Current street price for the MPU clone ( voyetra's OP-4001) is $180 dollars. Roland MPU is around $250. Randomizer@cup.portal.com
bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) (12/14/87)
My two cents:
If MIDI is simple, a standard, and an important interface to have CBM ought to
build it into the A3000.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Bill Daggett, a.k.a. *Bilbo Baggins* Recombinant Hobbit and Sysop of
* Sometimes The Dragon Wins! * Bilbo's Hideaway = 213-640-6104
INTERNET: bilbo@pnet02.CTS.COM
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd!crash, ihnp4!scgvaxd }!gryphon!pnet02!bilboczei@cbdkc1.ATT.COM (Michael Czeiszperger) (12/15/87)
In article <2568@gryphon.CTS.COM> bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) writes: >My two cents: >If MIDI is simple, a standard, and an important interface to have CBM ought to >build it into the A3000. > RS-232 is more of a standard than MIDI. I'd rather have a plain, high speed serial port, and be able to use it for other things besides MIDI. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michael S. Czeiszperger | "HELP! I'm stuck in 3B HELL !!!" Contracted to AT&T | Phone: (614) 860-4952 Unix Systems Administration | UUCP: cbosgd!dkc1!czei 6200 E. Broad Street | Disclaimer: "The above opinions are those Columbus, OH RM 1L334 | of a large rodent with sharp teeth" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
brianr@tekig4.TEK.COM (Brian Rhodefer) (12/18/87)
Michael S Czeisperger: "...Midi is less of a standard than RS232..." Oh, Noooo! It can't be THAT bad, can it? If only all the originators/promulgators of RS232 had just one neck, and I could get my hands around it.... Brian Rhodefer
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (12/20/87)
In article <2267@tekig4.TEK.COM> brianr@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Rhodefer) writes: >If only all the originators/promulgators of RS232 had just one neck, >and I could get my hands around it.... There is an RS-232 standard. You can get it from (I think) the American National Standards Institute. I've got a copy somewhere around here myself. In that standard, everything having to do with an RS-232 interface is defined, carefully, from the rise times of the signals to their meaning to the pins and connectors they are supposed to go to. If you've got to wring anyone's neck, wring that of the 95% of the manufacturers who decided that truly following the standard was too much of a pain in the neck, so went off in their own direction, leaving us poor users to try and patch up the differences. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa | Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
czei@cbdkc1.UUCP (12/21/87)
In article <2267@tekig4.TEK.COM> brianr@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Rhodefer) writes: >Michael S Czeisperger: "...Midi is less of a standard than RS232..." > >Oh, Noooo! It can't be THAT bad, can it? > Oh, whoops! I didn't really mean that! I was trying to imply that RS-232 is more of a general protocol that you'd want on a computer, where MIDI is specialized so that it can only be used for music. If you had a computer with only MIDI ports, you wouldn't be able to easily connect to a variety of generic hardware devices like printers and digitizers, to name a few. You are right that MIDI is a little more defined that RS-232. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michael S. Czeiszperger | "HELP! I'm stuck in 3B HELL !!!" Contracted to AT&T | Phone: (614) 860-4952 (formerly with Ohio Unix Systems Administration | UUCP: cbosgd!dkc1!czei State University) 6200 E. Broad Street | Disclaimer: "The above opinions are those Columbus, OH RM 1L334 | of a large rodent with sharp teeth" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (12/23/87)
Yes, you can order pulication RS-232-C form Electronic Industries
Association, 2001 Eye Street, Wash DC 20006. It is about 24 pages.
Back when I got mine about 10 years ago, it cost $5.10.
While going into excursiating detail about the elctrical
characteristics of the singals, it makes omits two useful items.
First the temporal relationships of control signals. (It does say
which ones should be on/off simultaineously for certain
conditions.) Actually, RS-334 defines the temporal reationships.
Second, RS-232-C says nothing about the physical design of
the connector beyond recommending that it have 25 pins.
Section Three says:
3.1 The interface between the data terminal equipment and data
communications equipment is located at a pluggable connector
signal interface point between the two equipments. The female
connector shall be associated with, but not necessarily
physically attached to the data communication equipment and
should be mounted in a fixed position near the data terminal
equipment. The use of an extension cable on the data
communication equipment is permitted. An extension cable with a
male connector shall be provided with the data terminal
equipment [Ha! --Bill]. The use of short cables (each less than
approximately 50 feet or 15 meters) is recommended; however,
longer cables are permissible, provided that the resulting load
capacitance (CL of fig. 2.1), measured at the interface point
and including the signal terminator, does not exceed 2500
picofarads.
3.1.1 When additional functions are provided in a separate unit
inserted between the data terminal equipment and the data
communication equipment (See section 1.7), the female connector,
as indicated above shall be associated with the side of this
unit which interfaces with the data terminal equipment while the
extension cable with the male connector shall be provided on the
side which interfaces with the data communication equipment.
That's it. But Appendix I suggests:
Interface Connector
While no industry standard exists which defines a suitable
interface connector, it should be noted that commercial products
are available which will perform satisfactorily as electrial
connectors for interfaces specified in RS-232C, such as those
connectors meeting Military Specification MIL-C-24308 (MS-18275)
or quivalent.
It is not intended that the above reference be considered as
part of RS-232C or as a standard for the devices to which
reference is made.
Holy avoiding the issue, Batman.
Ahhh, the beauty and simplicity of Midi cables. One pin
arrangement, one set of allowable pins, one baud rate.
Enjoy the Holidays,
--Billelg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (12/24/87)
in article <467@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) says: > In article <2267@tekig4.TEK.COM> brianr@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Rhodefer) writes: >>If only all the originators/promulgators of RS232 had just one neck, >>and I could get my hands around it.... > > There is an RS-232 standard. You can get it from (I think) the American > National Standards Institute. I've got a copy somewhere around here > myself. In that standard, everything having to do with an RS-232 interface > is defined, carefully, from the rise times of the signals to their meaning > to the pins and connectors they are supposed to go to. Unfortunately, even if you adhere completely to the standard, half the devices in the world still won't talk to you without a breakout-box or cable switching. When the only devices extant were computers and terminals, that was no big deal, but tell me, how about hooking up a terminal concentrator/network node to printers, computers, terminals, .... We're talking BIG-time troubles here, we're talking about cabling nightmares to end all nightmares, even if the standard IS followed (and it usually isn't -- e.g. a switcher which arbitrarily decides to ignore an outgoing line if certain transitions don't occure at certain times, and a network node which refuses to give the switcher those transitions -- thus FUbaring things horribly.). I hated having to mutilate my cable to flop RxD and TxD when I hooked up an Amiga to a C-64 to transfer files at 9600 baud (yes, there's some magic involved :-). -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 "There's someone in my head, but it's not me...." -PF