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?
bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) (11/29/87)
In article <528@otto.COM> rex@otto.UUCP (Rex Jolliff) writes: >In article <32160@auc.UUCP> rodney@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: <> <>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. Sorry, not this time. The Amiga hardware supports MIDI, *all* these manufacturers are supplying is the *connector*. The software interface is identical. The only difference in some of the units as opposed to others is the addition of MIDI THRU. The midi.device work should ensure that in the future if non-compatible interfaces *are* marketed, they will all talk with a clean, standard multitasking interface. |\ /| . 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. :-(
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
pmy@boole.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) (11/30/87)
In article <21987@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) writes: > The midi.device work should ensure that in the future if non-compatible > interfaces *are* marketed, they will all talk with a clean, standard > multitasking interface. What midi.device work? I'd kill for a midi.device (as would many others). Who's doing this? -- Pete Yadlowsky Academic Computing Center University of Virginia e-mail: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.EDU
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
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
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?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