Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
Two years ago, I studied Midi 2.0 to see if it was something I could use in my software. I found that the main description of Midi 2.0 clearly stated that to use Midi 2.0, a Manufacturer Sysex ID was required, a Sysex ID with an annual cost of $260.
I used the contact page to ask whether this was the case since it would block indie developers like myself from using Midi 2.0. I got no reply.
I had a long thread in this forum discussing the issue, hoping someone could say that a Sysex ID wasn't required, without getting a definitive answer. Many people agreed that this probably shouldn't be the case, but no one could give a clear answer.
Now, two years later, the site description of Midi 2.0 still states: "To implement MIDI-CI and MIDI 2.0, you need a manufacturer's SysEx ID. A SysEx ID by itself is $260 a year...". The protocol spec for MIDI-CI discovery/reply includes a field for "Device Manufacturer (System Exclusive ID Number)," and there is no indication that this field is optional or what should be defined if a Sysex ID isn't available. So, the situation is the same as two years ago. To use Midi 2.0, you must be able to perform the MIDI-CI discovery/reply transaction, and to do that, you need a Manufacturer Sysex ID at an annual cost of $260.
I used the contact page again to ask whether this was the case since it would block indie developers like myself from using Midi 2.0. Again, I got no reply.
Now, I raise the question here once more, hoping that someone can give me some definitive answer: will I be able to develop software that uses Midi 2.0 without having a Manufacturer Sysex ID?
To be honest, I don't understand the purpose of the Manufacturer Sysex ID in Midi 2.0 at all. Midi 1.0 had Sysex as a mostly undefined blob (apart from a header including a Sysex ID), and in that environment, the Sysex ID had a clear purpose. Midi 2.0 has a predefined protocol that can define every single bit of an endpoint; in what way could a Sysex ID add to that information? And how can this possibly be so important that the Midi association states, "To implement MIDI-CI and MIDI 2.0, you need a manufacturer's SysEx ID. A SysEx ID by itself is $260 a year..."?
Posted : 24/10/2023 3:13 am
Atsushi reacted
Maybe there is some ID for general use, this is ID 0x7D -> educational, although it could be a manufacturer, I don't know, they are not very creative with names. 😀
Source: https://github.com/jazz-soft/JZZ-midi-Gear/blob/master/data/vendors.txt
Posted : 24/10/2023 3:38 pm
Topic starter
[quotePost id=20238]Maybe there is some ID for general use, this is ID 0x7D -> educational, although it could be a manufacturer, I don't know, they are not very creative with names. 😀
Source: https://github.com/jazz-soft/JZZ-midi-Gear/blob/master/data/vendors.txt [/quotePost]
Posted : 24/10/2023 11:39 pm
But if you only want to use MIDI 2.0, could you send a UMP 0xf "Stream Configuration Request" status=0x05 with protocol=0x02 (MIDI 2.0)? I really don't know how this works, I can't even try it on Linux because the library alsa They haven't implemented it yet and I also don't have any MIDI 2.0 device.
Posted : 25/10/2023 2:18 pm
UMP Discovery / notification do not use any manufacturing ID. Check the (UMP) specs. MIDI-CI, like legacy MIDI uses sysex and it does have those field, Even the MIDI 1.0 spec states that a sysex must have those fields, Though manufacturers may omit them for example for firmware updates. w/o an ID a perfectly working USB MIDI 1 or 2 device can be made. BTW if you use MIDI 2.0 you need a USB device/product ID which is even far more costly , add MIDI BLE and norice the cost or an commercial MIDI device ,which for many small device developers may be a no-go . Not using an official USB device/product ID or MIDI SysEX ID does not cause the device to become non-functional. Only could cause some legal issues (if any).
This post was modified 5 months ago 4 times by Muzak
Posted : 25/07/2024 5:28 pm
