Original: Nick P

Jim - I wouldn't use the word "better". And I'm definitely not making any assumptions here. It could be that Cakewalk has done extensive MIDI tweaking which we don't know about. We've yet in this thread to hear from any of the Cakewalk guys.

Actually, we have: Noel has posted a number of times.

What I'm saying is that it looks (sounds) like this is an issue much more general than applied to any one software package. It very well may be an issue relating to the whole way computers deal with MIDI input and output as opposed to hardware sequencers (which of course have small computers within them, but not with Microsoft operating systems!).

It is a more general issue. Some companies have dealt with it by creating integrated hardware/software packages. MOTU did this with Digital Performer and their inhouse MIDI interfaces (the combination has very low jitter, although I'm not sure about their jitter figures). Digidesign used a similar approach with their "MIDI I/O" box (10 ports, $595 list; timing is claimed to be "accurate to far less than one millisecond").

In tracking down the Digidesign reference, I came across people complaining bitterly about MIDI performance with PTLE on a Mac. So, it's not just a Windows issues (although I suspect that CoreAudio generally does a better job of handling MIDI I/O than XP... I won't talk about Vista).

Note that Windows does have the necessary APIs to support high-resolution time-stamped MIDI (e.g. DirectMusic Core). However - an awful lot of software still uses the old "MM" APIs, which do not directly support time-stamped MIDI I/O. Further, the DirectMusic Core APIs probably have issues (The earthvegaconnection guy reported long-standing bugs with how DirectMusic handled SysEx, and there may also be issues with high-res system clock stability). Also, DirectMusic Core is not being developed any further, and I don't know what (if anything) Microsoft plans to replace it with. DAW users are a very small market....

It may be that the industry (music software industry) needs to develop their own standard for high-resolution MIDI ports, and not depend on Microsoft (or Apple) to provide it. Consider ASIO, VST and the like. Consider the MFX and DXi standards that Cakewalk pioneered. Of course, any such standard would need to be cross-platform (that's been a huge advantage for ASIO, VST, Rewire over the years). There is an open-source effort underway to do just that ("PortAudio", which includes "PortMIDI"), but it hasn't gotten much traction in the commercial software world. (See papers at http://www.portaudio.com/docs/, including the ACMC2003 paper that has lots of detail on Windows-specific issues).

Possibly Ableton is just a bit ahead of the curve in recognizing and dealing with the issue.

Now, here I think you are making an assumption. Unless you've tested Ableton and Cakewalk products head-to-head, you've got no basis for that statement. It seems equally likely that Ableton's MIDI performance was somewhat lacking until recently, and they're only now catching up to their competition (e.g. Sonar). Of course, I don't know either way.

I'm looking forward to seeing Ableton's promised "MIDI Engine Fact Sheet", which "documents MIDI timing tests on both Windows and Mac platforms using various MIDI interfaces and describes exactly what users can expect in terms of MIDI timing accuracy." Once that's available, we'll have a better idea what's what. (I wish that Cakewalk would publish a similar document).

Further, Cakewalk has doing things for years, like the 'Windows Audio Professional Roundtable' events at NAMM shows, to promote quality improvements for MIDI and audio on Windows. Cakewalk has also pushed hard on Microsoft, to get them to turn a 'consumer multimedia' operating system into something that professionals could use. I'm not aware of Ableton doing anything like that.

- Jim

Edit: I just rechecked Nick's post. He wrote:

>> I still think I will stick with the "ears" test if I ever get around to it

Okaaayyyy - so Nick haven't tested anything himself. He hasn't even done a listening test. He's just going on hearsay, and buying Ableton's marketing. That's not cool.

To be fair - Live 7 is not shipping yet, so probably Nick can't do a listening test - unless he's a beta tester, and presumably under NDA. Without any hard evidence, any assertion that Live has better MIDI timing -- is just hot air.

Nick,

As covered by Jim already, most of the "known" midi timing issues we've been talking about are related to the Windows operating system and there is nothing that Cakewalk or Ableton or anyone else can do about it. Its not that Ableton is ahead of the game, but rather its that up until recently they were BEHIND the game. They are playing catch up and marketing it. Cakewalk has long been known for being the leader in this area....having solid midi timing on the DOS/Windows platform. I'm talking about the timing related to hardware interactions.

The only possible thing they could do IMHO is perhaps provide an option to use DirectMusic for those people that have appropriate hardware. And that is really a speculative suggestion, I don't even know for sure it would be an improvement.

In any case, in terms of midi hardware, you will not find anything better on the windows platform. Period. Not Ableton, not anybody.

The only company that could improve the midi timing at the hardware level is Microsoft. Plead to them. Write your senator.

Now related to the rendering of audio from midi, that is a completely different topic and it sounds like the design is such that bugs in plugins could cause a resulting jitter as much as bugs in the DAW. Me personally, I have experienced some timing abnormalities with S6PE while using the audio metronome. Others have experienced it while freezing some soft instruments, etc.. On that KVR thread I started there are some very interesting ideas presented about some of the possible things that could cause this to happen, both from the DAW and/or the plugin. Short of looking at the source code of both products its impossible for us to determine who is at fault. The only thing you might be able to do is take the plugin that is causing trouble and try it in every DAW host you can think of to see if it has problems there too. From the sounds of it, these problems are generally work-aroundable. You can use realtime bounce instead of fast bounce, for example. For the metronome there are work arounds too.

In any case, I wouldn't get all up in arms and make it out like Ableton is ahead of Cakewalk with ANYTHING related to midi. On the contrary, Cakewalk is WAYYYYYYY ahead of Ableton and they are just playing catch up now and apparantly doing a great job of marketing their efforts.

ORIGINAL: Jim Wright

Now, here I think you are making an assumption.

Edit: I just rechecked Nick's post. He wrote:

>> I still think I will stick with the "ears" test if I ever get around to it

Okaaayyyy - so Nick haven't tested anything himself. He hasn't even done a listening test. He's just going on hearsay, and buying Ableton's marketing. That's not cool.

To be fair - Live 7 is not shipping yet, so probably Nick can't do a listening test - unless he's a beta tester, and presumably under NDA. Without any hard evidence, any assertion that Live has better MIDI timing -- is just hot air.

Jim - without wanting to stir up any conflict, you are waay off base in interpreting the intent of my comments here. Note that I used the word possibly. That means I'm not making an assumption.

As regards testing, I consider close to 25 years of working with all manner of MIDI hardware and now software sequencers and drum machines enough of a "test", at least as applies to the ears. While it's true I haven't done the waveform interrogation thing using an audio editor, I sure know what my playing comes back like via using different manner of sequencers, hardware and software. And to my ears, hardware boxes like the MPC do a better job of accurately recording unquantized MIDI and playing it back than do software solutions. While certainly subjective, I trust my ears as well.

ORIGINAL: Nick P
While it's true I haven't done the waveform interrogation thing using an audio editor, I sure know what my playing comes back like via using different manner of sequencers, hardware and software. And to my ears, hardware boxes like the MPC do a better job of accurately recording unquantized MIDI and playing it back than do software solutions. While certainly subjective, I trust my ears as well.

Interesting that this should come up. I just recently advised someone in another thread, discussing mixing techniques, to trust their ears even if it meant disregarding certain "rules" or apparent meter readings.

One of the points I tried to make in an earlier post in this thread - and at the time, it seemed like people were receptive to and understanding of the idea - is that as much as we can measure all of these quantifiable characteristics (latency, jitter, etc.), it's ultimately all for the purpose of explaining why certain things *feel* certain ways, timing-wise. I also suggested that many more people are capable of perceiving these subtleties than are capable of articulating them in precise musical or mathematical terms. I still believe that, and so I hesitate to discount Nick's observations, suggestions and comments simply because he chooses to use his *ears* as his testing mechanism.

As noted, though, an individual's ears can be very subjective, and there's no "control" mechanism for comparing one person's "ear" results with another's, and so we resort back to the mathematically quantifiable test results to substantiate to ourselves and others, and to explain to ourselves and others, what it is that we are hearing and feeling.

Beyond that, I'm afraid it appears to me that we are reaching the point where we have discussed many aspects of this issue quite thoroughly, and while many of us have similar findings and conclusions, and some of us have useful suggestions, we may all be at that figurative "brick wall" beyond which we can not move forward without getting more developers and / or manufacturers on board.

Any suggestions?

ORIGINAL: RTGraham
Any suggestions?

The only things I can suggest for now is to record hi-res midi on a good hardware sequencer, or record live audio from an external synth, or only use midi for instruments with a slow attack, and/or curse at Windows. :)

ORIGINAL: dstrenz

ORIGINAL: RTGraham
Any suggestions?

The only things I can suggest for now is to record hi-res midi on a good hardware sequencer, or record live audio from an external synth, or only use midi for instruments with a slow attack, and/or curse at Windows. :)

LOL.

Actually, I meant suggestions for keeping this discussion, and any associated development process, moving forward. I'm wondering what manufacturers might be interested in tackling the issue, using some of the ideas discussed in this thread. One post indicates that Digidesign has indeed done so with their MIDI I/O box (which of course is part of the TDM system, and so ties directly in with their software, as is the case with all Digidesign TDM hardware) - perhaps companies like MOTU, Edirol, etc. might be interested in competing with that type of product on a broader, non-software-specific basis. I don't know whether M-Audio, being a subsidiary now of Digidesign, will rise to the challenge, but they might be a good candidate as well.

Do we need to start contacting these companies directly? I missed NAMM and AES this year; other than that type of trade show, I don't have direct connections to these manufacturers at this time, but maybe someone else reading this thread does. Or maybe Cakewalk can initiate the necessary communications.

Just (still) thinking out loud.

I suppose the most logical place to start would be the MMA (Midi Manufacturers Association) http://www.midi.org

If you click on 'About MIDI', the bottom of the page lists companies that contributed to the document: Yamaha Corp US, Korg USA, Cakewalk, Edirol, Evolution, BitHeadz, MadWaves, PreSonus, Steinberg, E-Mu Systems, Berklee Media, Keyboard Magazine, Electronic Musician.

It's a pity that we have computers 1000x more powerful than they were when midi was first introduced and the only solution to the problem seems to be to return to the MPU-401 Smart Mode concept again that was required on 4.77mh PCs.

Nick,

I've just skimmed a few of your posts:

#1 http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.asp?m=1178006
" Improved MIDI Timing
The MIDI engine has been reworked and we were able to significantly reduce timing error (jitter) of recorded MIDI."

So evidently, at least in that program, people were discerning MIDI timing error or "jitter". I definitely discern it in Sonar. Any comments on this?

#118 http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.asp?m=1182009
it appears that from a practical/pragmatic viewpoint, Ableton has both recognized the issue of MIDI jitter, and done something about it with the latest version of Live, unless it's just marketing hype.

#276 http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.asp?m=1187106
If Ableton detected and fixed this issue, then based on logic, and my ears, I will assume that it is an issue with Cakewalk sequencers as well.

#279 http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.asp?m=1187543
Possibly Ableton is just a bit ahead of the curve in recognizing and dealing with the issue.

Perhaps you can see why I thought you were implying that Ableton was more on top of MIDI timing issues than Cakewalk. It didn't help that you had just said "I just hope someone from Cakewalk will come in and let us know what is company's policy and philosophy on this issue." -- when Noel Borthwick has posted at least 10 times on this thread.

I had also assumed you had done at least an "ears" test, comparing Live and Sonar (I have no problem with "ears" tests; they often turn up things that "scientific" tests aren't designed to catch). If you ever get around to comparing Live and Sonar, I'd be interested in your findings.

I do agree that hardware sequencers generally do a better job of accurately capturing MIDI timing. Having both used and developed hardware sequencers (Korg Q1, late 80's), and used and developed software sequencers (Voyetra Sequencer Plus, DOS, mid-80's; various software apps and prototypes in the 90's), I think I have some basis for an opinion.

Regards,

Jim

RTGraham, dstrenz --

The MMA is a good place to send suggestions and concerns about MIDI timing. Tom White (head of the MMA) will make sure they are circulated (and not "put in a circular file").

If a group of Cakewalk users want to collaborate on some kind of "open letter" or other document, I can forward it to the MMA if you like (assuming I agree with it ). Of course, you can just send it directly to Tom White.

I was on the MMA Tech Board for four years, and chaired the MMA Transport Layer Working Group (which is why I did the "temporal fidelity" work, some of which is published here.) During that time (through mid-2001), I was trying to get the MMA to agree on, and endorse, standards for timing accuracy. It was not possible to get a consensus on the issue. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further on what happened back then.

Many things have changed since then (6 years -- in "tech time', that's a different era!). A new effort might be more successful. However, one fundamental issue is unchanged: to generally improve MIDI performance on PCs (or Macs) - tends to require involvement/agreement by the OS vendor (e.g. Microsoft, Apple). We (DAW users) are a very small market, without much clout. A number of companies have found that it's much more practical to just develop their own solution, and have done so. Of course, for various reasons, such solutions tend to work only with products from the same company.

Note that one big thing has changed since the late 90's. There are now OS-level APIs that handle timestamped MIDI, on both Windows (DirectMusic Core) and Mac (Core Audio). Companies that make MIDI interface hardware can write drivers for the newer APIs; companies that make sequencers can support the newer APIs as well as the older non-timestamping APIs. Then, customers have to "connect the dots" and pick the right pieces (sequence and MIDI interface) to get good performance. If you have a great sequencer and use it with a lousy MIDI interface - you'll get lousy timing performance. End of story.

Note also: a truly low-jitter MIDI interface may cost a bit more. Customers have flocked, in droves, to the cheapest MIDI interfaces they could find -- and that has affected the market (why should a company make a better MIDI interface, if they won't sell enough to even cover development costs?). Dirt-cheap USB MIDI interfaces can't do better than 2 milliseconds of jitter, at best - and may do a lot worse. (That's on XP; on Windows 2K, they would probably perform worse. On Vista? I have no idea). The low-jitter MIDI interfaces I'm familiar with - have an embedded 'micro sequencer' to fire off MIDI events at just the right instant. That costs more than a dirt-simple USB MIDI box, that just fires off MIDI events whenever they pop off the USB bus.

- Jim

Very interesting, Jim. If an open letter is created, I'll definitely sign. Don't think I'm qualified to state the case though. It seems that most people don't really know or care about the problems so there's no economic demand to improve it.

I searched and found several inexpensive interfaces available that claim to include DirectMusic drivers, such as the emu Xmidi 1x1 (about $25). But does a Windows sequencer exist that actually uses the midi timestamps made available in the DirectMusic api? If not, it's no wonder that MS/Windows is dropping support for it and no one is complaining.

BTW, another test I did which really emphasizes the jitter: In a small project with say 4 midi tracks and 4 audio tracks, record a midi bongo groove then play it back. Sounds terrible.