On 14 Jul 2005 at 1:20, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005, at 10:19 PM, Rocky Road wrote:
Are you sure about this? MIDI's 1980 technology is so slow
Not *that* slow.
Right, and the issue is not the amount of data that MIDI produces,
but coordination of the MIDI data with the
On 14 Jul 2005, at 1:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
That would suggest that each USB device adds its own timecode to the
data. If it didn't, the hub shouldn't be causing any bottlenecks,
because in computer terms, there really *isn't* much data involved.
Hi David,
My understanding is that a
On Jul 14, 2005, at 1:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 at 1:20, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005, at 10:19 PM, Rocky Road wrote:
Are you sure about this? MIDI's 1980 technology is so slow
Not *that* slow.
Right, and the issue is not the amount of data that MIDI produces,
On 14 Jul 2005 at 14:31, Christopher Smith wrote:
I don't have a hub. All I have (right now) is my MIDI interface
plugged into one of the two available USB ports in the back of the Mac
G4, and my keyboard plugged into the USB port for that purpose on the
back of my Apple Cinema Display. There
Hi David,
That probably wouldn't work. IIRC, the USB port on the Apple keyboard
is only designed to take 1.5 Mb/s devices (like a mouse).
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 14 Jul 2005, at 8:59 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 at 14:31, Christopher Smith wrote:
I
There's another reason it wouldn't work; the MIDI interface is powered
off the USB bus, and takes pretty much the full 500 ma current draw
that the port supplies (if you can read the printout I sent last
message, the draw and supply are listed.) Add in the 100 ma for the
wireless mouse
On 14 Jul 2005 at 22:48, Christopher Smith wrote:
While thinking about this, I came to the hypothesis that one of the
first replies here (David, was that you?) was correct; that the MIDI
may be time stamped, but the keyboard input is not; it is just read in
the order that the keys are pressed
Darcy James Argue / 2005/07/07 / 07:14 PM wrote:
I agree, USB 1.1 is inadequate for MIDI + everything else, but that's
why the pros get a FireWire or USB 2 MIDI interface.
Boy, takes long time to go through all the list traffic :-)
Just for the record, USB 1.1 was fine in my MIDI setup. My
Darcy James Argue / 2005/07/07 / 07:14 PM wrote:
I agree, USB 1.1 is inadequate for MIDI + everything else, but that's
why the pros get a FireWire or USB 2 MIDI interface.
Are you sure about this? MIDI's 1980 technology is so slow I can't
understand how even USB 1.0 wouldn't be miles faster
On 13 Jul 2005, at 10:19 PM, Rocky Road wrote:
Are you sure about this? MIDI's 1980 technology is so slow
Not *that* slow.
Or are you saying that using a Qwerty keyboard, mouse, scanner,
digital camera, etc on USB alongside MIDi is creating a data
bottleneck?
Yes. Especially if you use
On Jul 14, 2005, at 1:20 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005, at 10:19 PM, Rocky Road wrote:
Are you sure about this? MIDI's 1980 technology is so slow
Not *that* slow.
Or are you saying that using a Qwerty keyboard, mouse, scanner,
digital camera, etc on USB alongside MIDi
11 matches
Mail list logo
