[[email protected]]

Hi, anyone knows about MIDI implementation in OS X? When we can get Logic Audio or Cubase for OS X? Is that on developers only or OS X had poor or no MIDI implementation...? Steinberg and Emagic have no info on their sites.

Thanx

Midi has great support on X.
Apple has built in a framework that resembles, and even surpasses OMS! and its all built into the system.

The graphical userinterface is up to the application though!

Yes, They've been talking about it for two years, Opcode creator of OMS is now working for Apple, and bla, bla, bla...

But no word of the real thing, no word of apple, no word of Steinberg...
Is this the secret bomb of Mac OS X?, Why anyone can tell us something about it?

On this way it seems there's no support for MIDI on OS X, an, worse, no future plans at all.

[Gerson]

Anders--
Are you saying the MIDI frameworks are actually there? I don't have OS X so I can't check, but does anyone else know whether there's any preliminary support? Or is Anders just dreaming about rumors?

Could this sort of thing require the so-called Mach real-time modes that DVD playing is also said to require? What's happening?

[griffman]

Well, I know nothing about MIDI on the Mac at all, but there is a framework for it in OS X:

[12:45pm /]% sudo find / -name "*MIDI"
/Developer/Examples/CoreAudio/MIDI
/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreMIDI.framework/CoreMIDI
/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreMIDI.framework/Versions/A/CoreMIDI

One example file on the DevTools CD, and then the MIDI framework bundle from the Frameworks directory.

-rob.

[This message has been edited by griffman (edited 05-07-2001).]

[DV]

Originally posted by Gerson:
Anders--
Are you saying the MIDI frameworks are actually there? I don't have OS X so I can't check, but does anyone else know whether there's any preliminary support?

Well, I'm not Anders, but I can tell you that MIDI implementation is already in OS X. Just open up any midi file in Quicktime (in OS X) and you'll see-- well, if you had it. Also, I've been using Notability Pro-- a music-transcription program originally developed for OpenStep that uses MIDI as well (check out http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/~opus1/N...welcome.html).

Also, if you look in /System/Library/Frameworks you'll see the CoreMIDI framework, which provides MIDI services to the OS.

DV

[Todd Madson]

All I can say is "Wait for summer". I'd get shot otherwise.

http://pod.ath.cx/

From a presentation by Apple's director of core os engineering, brett halle. Talking about quicktime, brett added that the new sound architecture in os x would not have been possible in os 9. This includes support for multi channel sound, allows multiple applications to produce sound at once, enables live mixing, is capable of 5.1 channel audio and makes efficient use of altivec. (http://tiexp.com/042601.html)

WWDC session descriptions (http://developer.apple.com/wwdc2001/descriptions.html ) relating to audio:

208 - Audio Services in Mac OS X
This session discusses audio services available to applications, including the basic Audio I/O model and how audio hardware is presented to an application. Java APIs that provide access to these services will also be discussed.

209 - Audio Processing & Sequencing Services
Mac OS X provides developers with advanced audio processing capabilities. This session details how to create and use custom Audio Processing Units for applications. It also provides an introduction to creating Music Sequences using the Audio Toolbox. Java APIs that provide access to these services will also be discussed.

210 - MIDI in Mac OS X
With Mac OS X, MIDI developers have access to professional quality MIDI services as a core part of the operating system. This session will discuss the MIDI APIs and services available to applications and how to interface with MIDI hardware. Java APIs that provide access to these services will also be discussed.

[Mr K]

Woooooooooo Hoooooooooooo!

Finally some word on Audio and MIDI in X!

Apple has been pushing the music bit with itunes etc, but has been a bit of a worry because they pulled out audio in on the macs etc, but no pro or close would use that anyway - they's use firewire or usb(hmm).

Yes, that would be b2ful, being able to route sound(and MIDI) back and forth between totally awesome programs like Cubase VST and absyth(cutting edge virtual synth).

All the 'live performance software' stuff for mac seems to be hanging back until 'second half of 2001' - there's abletons 'live' and cycling 74's 'radial' to name a few.

This could explain it (speculation)

I mean, imagine being able to send audio + MIDI around OS X like you do currently in Cubase (or logic).

Probably take a while to iron out the multitasking bugs (which app gets the most control when) etc.

To Todd Madson, I assume you're an apple emp, or close. Just a note to say - the mac audio + MIDI world is BIG!

taa

-K

Steinberg's Nuendo for OS X is promised, it will be interesting to see if that takes advantage of these new services. A rumor is that Apple will have a new i-app ready by summer to promote the audio architecture, such as iMusic, for basic recording of sound and MIDI alongside iMovie. July hardware is also rumored to have new audio features. And Firewire Audio should also be promoted, alongside the OS's support for mLAN. All in all, a great step forward.

[aholckp]

On the Developer Tools Cd there is an example of the midi capabilities, with many descriptions of the advanced midi frameworks.

It would be cool though to incorporate ReWire functions in the Os too, and maybe a 'Patch-bay' gui to hook up internal midi and audio connections on-screen.

This could really make the Macintosh 'RULE' like the ATARI 1024 did in the eighties!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by aholckp:
This could really make the Macintosh 'RULE' like the ATARI 1024 did in the eighties!

Actually, this was only the case in Europe, where Macs were insanely expensive by comparison (to US prices; they still are slightly more expensive today). The rest of the world was definitely using Macs for rock'n'roll.

------------------
...the original Genie Junkie�

[Mr K]

Spheric, this was the case in Australia as well..as far as I know..for a while...mostly due to the wonderful tight timing of the Ataris.

Good machines for MIDI, Notator ruled, good for dance..quite(not fan) big benifit as well.

Mac had relative sloppy timing until a little while ago.

trans4: Yes, it's strange that nuendo did not come out...obviously they are waiting for the final specs on X...with the surround sound and all.

Adholckp... can you tell us a little more about the 'advanced MIDI frameworks'... like are they OMS built in..more..or less?

Finally, is there any site specially dedicated to audio+MIDI on the mac?

Taa,

Keith

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Mr K:
Adholckp... can you tell us a little more about the 'advanced MIDI frameworks'... like are they OMS built in..more..or less?

From someone who knows the programmer:
"Some features are very similar
but OMS is very old code and not really usuable on OSX.

> Will it be OMS-compatible?

Not built in and not really feasible to add as far as I know."

-chris.

------------------
...the original Genie Junkie�

[Todd Madson]

Gibson Guitar scuttled Opcode development quite a while ago.

There's a webpage out there that documents all the horrible stuff
that happened.

My understanding is that Apple hired the former Opcode OMS engineers
to create the framework for MIDI on OS X which, while not exactly
OMS (as it's owned by Opcode aka owned by Gibson guitars, scuttler
of many fine music related businesses over the years such as
Steinberger guitars, Tobias basses, etcetera.), the MIDI architecture
in OS X has a framework that works somewhat similarly.

That's the first I'd heard that Nuendo will be available for X. That
is one seriously heavy app. Cubase is a monster, but Cubase is like
iTunes compared to Nuendo - Nuendo was really designed for things such
as film scoring, tons of audio tracks, audio/video synchronization and
of course virtual instruments and tons of effects plug-ins.

[Oneota]

It sounds like there's hope after all for all us Finale users out there!

I've heard it from some folks who know the Coda folks that there will, in all likelihood, be a Carbonized Finale this summer.

Rejoice!

------------------
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"

Its pretty sad that Windows95 has better sound archetecture, including MIDI, then OS 9 will ever have.

Apple's lack of support for MIDI stuffs for OS X is getting them rejected by professional MIDI guys. This advanced MIDI framework you talk about is all nice and good, but until someone uses it it might as well not be there.

And playing a midi file DOES NOT mean the system has MIDI capabilities. That is simply a software synthesizer that's built into Quicktime, and blows goats as well.

[JB72]

Good thread, learning stuff I didn't know. Nice change from the nonconstructive complaints thread (hey maybe I should start one with that title .)

While it sounds like OS X has great possibilities for MIDI, it doesn't seem like they're very far along. Which is why I think the OS X focus right now is getting developers to take a look. It certainly has made some waves in the Unix community, which is great. But it seems like it offers very little advantage to the multimedia and games people at this point. I hope this will be the main focus after this summer's 10.1 release.





------------------
JB71.34.1b

Dock Perverts still rule OK?

[mumble]

Originally posted by mrastudent:
Its pretty sad that Windows95 has better sound archetecture, including MIDI, then OS 9 will ever have.

It's pretty sad you clearly don't have the merest hint of a clue what you're talking about. Please explain Windows95's superiority to Sound Manager etc. If you can.

Apple's lack of support for MIDI stuffs for OS X is getting them rejected by professional MIDI guys. This advanced MIDI framework you talk about is all nice and good, but until someone uses it it might as well not be there.

How does other people not shipping apps acquaint to your claim of "Apple's lack"? the frameworks are there, that is Apple's support for "MIDI stuffs".

And playing a midi file DOES NOT mean the system has MIDI capabilities.

You've no idea how the Quicktime Music Architecture works, have you?

That is simply a software synthesizer that's built into Quicktime, and blows goats as well.

Best tell Roland that, I'm sure they will value your feedback.

Everyone else should read http://sonosphere.dyndns.org/SaveOMS

[Big Red]

It is my understanding that developers don't even know what the final midi and audio implementation is going to look like in OSX. MIDI playback is there, but that is a relatively insignificant portion.

The OMS type stuff is going to be there, but without patch names capabilities, which they plan on leaving to third parties (a really dumb idea to leave this out, IMO). The multitasking abilities of OSX should really help out, and if VST2 is built in as a service, it should be fine. I'm curious what the MLan implementation is going to look like. Firewire is going to change a lot, especially if it doubles its bandwidth like is promised.

I'd really like to see some internal routing of sound like Rewire built into the system.

OSX isn't ready for audio or midi. Give it about 6 months.

message from Jon at the cubase boards in late April.

I read that to say that there won't be apps ready for some time after that.

I've come to quite some peace about the whole thing. My MIDI/Audio setup in 9.1 is working fantastically right now. And whoever thinks that midi is better under Win95 than 9.1 is just off their rocker. I've worked on both, and I've completely given up on using my windows machine for anything audio related, which makes me very, very sad (so many free VSTi's).

[Mr K]

If those OMs guys are working on it, then at least there is direction. There are so many possiblities. Isn't there a 'mixer' in windows...there should be one in mac os X to say turn up the CD playing but less system sound(I know you have a separate control panel...but you gest the idea)

There is a wonderful opportunity to write this stuff right from the ground up.

People think the Graphic designers love their macs, well check out the pro musicians + studios.

Imagine that you could have a program that let you route audio from anywhere to anywhere.

You could have a 3rd party effect as a separate program and run cubase audio , through it, then to pro-tools, for eg.

I understand setting this up would take a LOT of work - esp because X is set up for multichannel sound.

Then, it could be useful, even before the big guys ship, because you would have lots of little programs starting to appear, and they could patch into each other....so you have like absynth running into sound edit or similar, and have it mixed with itunes play-back.

Also, the benifit is if a virtual FX box, for eg, crashes then you just need to load it up again.

mmm REAL stability. Reliable as a drumkit or a sax.

K

Take it from someone that owns a commercial recording studio, and has worked at many other world class facilities. Every single computer I have ever used to track MIDI, or make any sort of noise has been a mac. When someone is paying you $100-$300 per hour, you don't want to waste their time rebooting a computer with a second rate, bloated OS that has nothing but driver conflicts and hardware issues. We have had a G4 400 for over a year now running a full blown Pro Tools TDM rig and we beat the crap out of that thing every day. 64 Tracks of heavily edited audio streaming off of four SCSI hard drives, coupled with a MOTU USB Midi Timepiece controlling 10 different samplers and keyboards, networked to a ProControl, and all synced to video and a TiBook running Reason, all in perfect sync! EVERY DAY!!! It has YET to cost us any money from downtime. I doubt a PC would hold up as nearly as well. All the good music software comes out for mac first, and there are actually way more TDM plug-ins available for the mac than the PC. Why? Because that's what the pros use. The only time I have ever seen a PC in a studio is at Audioworks in PA. They use one as a disc burner, and that's it. And it collects dust because they have a rackmount standalone that does a better job. Bottom line, if you are serious about getting work done (music, or otherwise) you get a tool that lets you create without you even having to worry about it. A mac.

The MIDI frameworks ARE in place in Mac OS X. What's missing is the UI. For some unknown reason, it appears that Apple is leaving it up to each developer to create their own interface instead of providing a central control panel! That is recipe for disaster, as every app will have a different implementation.

It's my guess that the major players are waiting this one out to see if Apple will do the right thing.

[DV]

Originally posted by mrastudent:
Its pretty sad that Windows95 has better sound archetecture, including MIDI, then OS 9 will ever have.

Windows 95 doesn't have a native sound architecture-- that's why you HAVE to have a sound card in order to hear anything other than system sounds. Any way, sound "architecture" pretty much depends on your hardware and software (i.e. audio programs), and not the OS. All the OS does is pass the digital information to and from hardware and software.

If Windows is that much better, than why is Pro Tools (the professional standard in digital audio) only available for Mac? Those pros must not know what they're doing, buying a crappy Mac to run their $100,000 studios.

Dallas



[This message has been edited by DV (edited 05-11-2001).]

[wyz]

Windows doesn't do a lot more than Fruityloops, Soundforge and Cubase... Most of the hardware for audio in Win is reaaally crappy.

This guy (mrastudent) obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. 90% of Pros in Audio and Music use Macs. On Hollywood the figure goes up to 99%, they are even taking Powerbooks fitted with ProTools to do live on-set recording for film. No Wincrap allowed.

[iHolger uMax]

Originally posted by mrastudent:
Its pretty sad that Windows95 has better sound archetecture, including MIDI, then OS 9 will ever have.

Apple's lack of support for MIDI stuffs for OS X is getting them rejected by professional MIDI guys. This advanced MIDI framework you talk about is all nice and good, but until someone uses it it might as well not be there.

And playing a midi file DOES NOT mean the system has MIDI capabilities. That is simply a software synthesizer that's built into Quicktime, and blows goats as well.

How come that you never ever can get a Win 95/98 PC to play midi and audio in sync with each other if they have better sound archetecture?

I�ve been working in a musicshop selling many, many Cubases/Logic�s over the years and I can tell you that we almost stopped selling PC Cubases because of the support costs. Sell a program for 299$ and spend 10 hours giving free support. That is bad business.

The support for Mac OS X is annunced for both Digidesign-Protools (I just love our 5 x MixFarm setup), Emagic-Logic (love it for midi) and Steinberg-Cubase/Nuendo. If these players give their support to X then it is defacto accepted by the softwaremakers in music. The others have to follow.

I better get back to the mac continue mixing the next hitsingle!

Cheers


------------------
Holger Netterby
ACSE

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Mr K:
Imagine that you could have a program that let you route audio from anywhere to anywhere.

You could have a 3rd party effect as a separate program and run cubase audio , through it, then to pro-tools, for eg.

If I've understood correctly, this program with completely free routing possibilities is in fact the Kernel/BSD architecture itself.

All that's needed is tying all that together with audio and MIDI support, and building a GUI.

Also: CAN ALL OF YOU *PLEASE* CAN THE DAMN PLATFORM WARS!?
Just because some idiot who has no idea about music production on the Mac *or* who's just been very very lucky in his experiences with Windows 95 comes by and posts a little troll, everybody gets their knickers in a bunch and starts running around...

...could we please stick to the topic? There's precious little information on this subject anyhow, and we *really* don't need to junk this thread up with lame-ass flame wars.

FYI: The subject wasn't, "Is the Mac better than Windows 95 (no less!) for music," but, "What info can you share about OS X's audio/MIDI support."

Thank you.

-chris.

------------------
...the original Genie Junkie�

[Todd Madson]

Um, for one thing - if you're going to be a troll and try to undermine everyone here, at least have your facts straight. It's one thing to be a troll, it's still another to actually have some factual information which mr.astudent does not.

I've been a musician for sufficiently a long time (probably longer than
some of you have been alive) that I'm laughing at the thought of professional studios using Windows 95 for pro-audio work. It just doesn't happen.

Pro studios use a mixture of solutions, but the fact that ProTools (the de-facto standard even though I personally prefer the German uber-sequencer packages such as Cubase and Logic) was a MacApp, Deck II (the first digital audio workstation software package) was a Mac app, SoundDesigner II was a MacApp, MasterlistCD was a Mac app. I could go on, but these are not only ubiquitous but they also were the progenitors of this kind of idea.

I'm not an Apple employee but I am a musician and I've been given some information about what's coming and suffice it to say that we musicians will have long forgotten about Mr. Student when we're doing paying work under a certain operating system.

[noisefloor]

"than why is Pro Tools (the professional standard in digital audio) only available for Mac?"

PT *is* available for WinNT, but it's missing many features, it's a version behind the mac release, and virtually nobody is using it.

And Nuendo Mac should be seeing the light of day pretty soon (although not X compatible yet).

[mumble]

http://sonosphere.dyndns.org/SaveOMS
9 Apr 2001 - OMS update / MIDI on OS X

A lot of people are wondering what's happening with OMS and MIDI on OS X. Here are some frequently-asked questions and answers:

Q: Is OMS compatible with Mac OS 9.x?

A: Yes, to the best of our knowledge, and contrary to some persistent rumor-mongering. All of the significant problems we're aware of have been due to bugs in other developers' OMS drivers.

Q: Is OMS compatible with Mac OS X?

A: Some parts of it appear to run in the Classic environment, but in general, the Classic environment is not well-suited for MIDI; not all hardware is accessible from it. OMS is not accessible from native OS X applications.

Q: Has Gibson shown any signs of being interested in finding new caretakers for OMS, Vision and Opcode's other intellectual property?

A: To our knowledge, no.

Q: What's Apple doing for MIDI on Mac OS X?

A: Apple is providing a new MIDI Services API, unrelated to OMS and QuickTime. It has a new MIDI driver plugin model and new OMS-like programming interfaces (API's) for applications to talk to MIDI hardware. There aren't any user-visible MIDI features; Apple just provides system support for hardware makers to write drivers and applications to access them.

Programmers who have used OMS before find that the new system shares some of OMS's concepts, many of which were in turn based on Apple's old MIDI Manager. MIDI Services supports efficient MIDI I/O with precise timestamping and scheduling, but it does not have some of OMS's higher-level functionality such as studio and patch name management, and musical timing services.

Q: Are MIDI Services part of Carbon? Are they accessible from Classic?

A: No.

Q: So what should developers who wish to support both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X do?

A: Use OMS on 9, and MIDI Services on X. Many developers are already familiar with the issues involved in writing code to run on multiple platforms and should be able to create abstractions to facilitate portability.

Q: How can developers learn more about Apple's MIDI Services?

A: The application interfaces are in the CoreMIDI framework (docs in MIDIServices.h) and the driver plugin interface is in the CoreMIDIServer framework (docs in MIDIDriver.h). Sample code and a bit of additional documentation is in /Developer/Examples/CoreAudio/MIDI.