Good people:
OK, I give up . . . SoundDiver bundled with my JV1010 gives no mercy, and I cannot figure out how to accomplish simple system tasks. It's been fun examining the actual hex contents of MIDI files . . .
Of course, my desire is to allow certain MIDI channels to be routed to specific devices along the chain (I have two - a Yamaha synth and the JV1010, and will be adding others soon), and I cannot see how I'm any closer. If anyone can steer me towards some supplement to the woefully inadequate SD help files, or any other way of learning this tool, I'd love to hear it.
A gentleman on this forum by the name of Fred mentioned that the eMagic AMT-8 would accomplish channel routing. Before I finally make the plunge to a hardware solution, I'd like to make sure I understand what this can accomplish. Will such a device . . .
1) Route specific MIDI channels to one MIDI out and not another?
2) Mute specific MIDI channels in one MIDI out and not another?
3) Work transparently with a computer sequencing program which does not have the capability to be aware of its presence, or communicate with it directly?

Mark of the Unicorn seems to also make products which claim to accomplish this, but their website is completely inadequate in describing the capabilities of their own products, and correspondence with their sales department has not been enlightening either. Does anyone out there have any experience with the MOTU MidiExpress or MicroExpress? Will either do the above as well?
Forgive my newbie ramblings - I have so much to learn, and miles to go before I sleep . . .


------------------
It's really about music, isn't it?

Hi OldSchool,

Yes, it should be about music, not routing.

My life was simplified greatly by a MOTU MIDI Express XT, an 8 in, 9 out device that can merge every input and send all data to every output. No latency noted, and it works seemlessly. You can hook it up to a computer to create set up routings, but I choose not to, as I don't really need to.

I assign desired channels to different instruments, and control different instruments from a master keyboard with 4 assignable output channels.

My sequencer has a feature where it ignores all data it outputs at it's own input, so this avoids 'data loops' when recording MIDI. I push record, and play. I push playback, and it works (depending on which channel I recorded).

I have a complex system: V-Drums, an XV-5080, an A-90EX, an A-70EX, two other rack modules, effects, VS-1880Ex etc., and have tried figuring out routing like you're doing with less sophisticated devices with limited merge capability. I found it required too much effort to re-configure and think it through. Maybe I'm lazy, but the XP XT let me stay that way.

They can be had used on eBay for about $200.

Mine came without a manual, but a glance at one gave me all the info I needed to know to fix my initial difficulties with MIDI loops (namely, be sure to hook inputs and outputs to the same device, i.e. input #1 and output #1 to device #1, etc. otherwise, you'll have problems).

Hope it helps,
Chris

[This message has been edited by feefer (edited 11-20-2000).]

Chris:
Yes, your remarks were quite helpful. However, it's obvious to me we're doing very different things. Correct me if I'm wrong - it sounds like you're primarily performing, or recording performance on a keyboard for MIDI playback; and you depend on your keyboard(s) to address and route MIDI information. It sounds like your MOTU unit is just broadcasting everything.

My nick-name on this forum is revealing. I'm a classically-trained pen-and-ink writer who actually manuscripts every note. I, of course, now use a software package for that purpose, but I still enter every note. I have somewhat recently discovered that the package I use (Noteworthy Composer) also provides the ability to control MIDI - up to a point.

Since I'm quite new to the MIDI game, I've managed to learn how to assign specific voices to channels through the software, and have become somewhat proficient at extracting some semblence of realism from the MIDI sequences through coded software controls rather than performance MIDI recordings. I'm a terrible keyboard player (as a performer, I'm primarily a vocalist with some guitar chops), so that's how it must happen.

I intend to use my sequences for performance as well as sound recording. I want to be able to separate channel destinations through the sequencing software, or (and this was the reason for my question) an intermediate device, so all modules don't play all channels. I've seen some modules providing on-panel controls for channel muting, but mine don't. (That'd just be TOO easy!)

My latest correspondence from MOTU implies that I'd be better advised to upgrade the software (and hence my ability to control devices directly through it), though they have yet to specifically state whether their devices will do exactly as I've asked.

The thing that is so maddening is that there seems to be no literature of any kind on this subject. The only decent MIDI book I've found so far is Lehrman/Tully's "Midi for the Professional," but it's too general to be of much use here. How do folks learn these things?!

Thanks for tolerating an ol' man's ramblings . . .

Hi OS,



Yes, it can do merging and 'broadcasting' at all outputs, or only selectively at certain outputs (with the aid of a interfaced computer to create custom routings). Look at a manual before buying to confirm it'll do what you want.



MIDI devices don't really care how the data got into the device; one note at a time thru editing, or played and recorded: it makes no difference to the sequencer. Just out of curiosity: are you entering monophonic instrument passages only, or chords, as well?



MIDI allows for something called 'Device ID', but this is used to identify different modules when sending bulk dump data, etc.

Someone help out if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can do music sequencing with device ID (or is it possible to address specific modules with sysex?).

MIDI was created to assign different parts/sounds/instruments (whether monophonic or not) to separate channels: it may be easiest to accept that basic tenet (unless you were serious about liking to examine hex contents). The MIDI model is like an old-fashioned T.V.: all stations send their signals out, but the receiver filters out all the rest to get messages from one transmitter, only.

However, even my old 16-track hardware sequencer (QX-3) allows me to assign which channels go to which output: either MIDI OUT 1 or 2 (or both).

OS, your answer is out there: maybe someone more up on MIDI specs can take it from here.

Chris

Chris:
I'm definitely chording. My software allows me to send all the staffs to one channel and voice if I want, though I generally do things the traditional way - treble/bass grand staff to one channel for keyboard voices. After 6 years of college theory (culminating in a failed Masters in music theory and composition back in my dark and foggy past) I know how to write traditional keyboard.

I found pretty early on that my little JV-1010 can get a bit "laggy" when one or more channels using a layered voices has to handle a lot of notes. It's amazing how thin proported "64 note polyphony" can be when someone actually calls the bluff . . .

SysEx, as you state, is supposed to provide remote configuration of hardware, including muting channels - that much I've garnished. But it seems obvious to me that Roland intended their little module to be used as a performance tool. They made the dang thing cheap enough to entice MIDI dabblers like me to try it for other things, but I'm getting the impression that its lack of on-board controls has created more problems than it's cheapness can solve.

I WAS serious about enjoying seeing the Hex contents of messages. Amongst my various hats, I have been an on-again, off-again data management programmer and web developer, and I'm constantly looking at what my WYSIWYG interface does to the code. My knee-jerk reaction to my difficulties is to have at the hex, and find a way to deliver it to the module, but there's too many barriers in the way - time being the most obvious.

By now, of course, I would have completely read the posted documentation of the MOTU units in question, if they were, in fact, posted - which they're not. And there is nary a supplier of such equipment within 100 miles of my home. Ah, well!

Thanks so much for your remarks.