Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: MIDI through ...or Out/Through

you are correct, dont know why I remembered 1MHz clock. MIDI is incredibly 
slow and thus the thru cannot be below 2ms…
anyway, we defined final dimensions yesterday and the thru is present :-)

On 13.Apr, 2014, at 5:50 PM, cpr@musetrap.com wrote:

> Matthias,
> Regarding the numbers you mentioned about midi timing, if I recall 
> correctly,  it takes 1ms to read a midi message (at 31.250 baud), and 
> another ms to send. Am I misunderstanding what you've written?
> -cpr
> Quoting Matthias Grob <matilists@gmail.com>:
>> you are right Andy, I did not sell the without version at all :-)
>> sure I will merge the input to the output just like the EDP
>> I must that this ads a delay, which is small compared to laptops and 
>> older gear with slow processor or new gear that often runs with Linux 
>> because we have a 500MHz ARM processor without OS (they call bare metal 
>> programming now what we naturally did in the past, the EDP was even 
>> bare assembler :-),
>> [  I hope we can treat everything within 8 audio samples = 180us (the 
>> EDP used 32, the laptops usually 64 or more)
>> still, we need to let the 3 bytes come in to analyse and then send out 
>> again. MIDI is 1MHz: 1us/bit, 24us/message
>> so its 24us to read, 180us to treat and 24us to write and we should 
>> stay below 0.25ms right?  ]
>> but tradition says that in to out adds delay and it will be difficult 
>> to convince everyone with such calculations :-)
>> another good argument for the thru might be that the out is ocupied
>> for example:
>> in - the pedal
>> thru - to another unit that is controlled by the same pedal
>> out - sync to some drum machine
>> the cost is not shocking. parts with drilling, soldering, testing 
>> probably adds less than 5$ to the end price
>> its a rather big connector, I asked because I wanted to save space.
>> but it looks like the lack of the connector hurts more people than a 
>> 15mm longer box :-)
>> thank you!
>> Matthias
>> On 12.Apr, 2014, at 10:06 AM, andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk> 
>> wrote:
>>> well,
>>> there *will* be a bunch of yes answers for a question put like this.
>>> Lets remember that every feature has a cost, either $$$
>>> or in terms of *other features*.
>>> Question:-
>>> For Evoloop, is there good reason why the midi Thru function.
>>> can't be handled by merging the input to midi Out?
>>> Is there a real need for a *dedicated* Midi Thru socket?
>>> andy
>>> On 11/04/2014 23:17, Louie Angulo wrote:
>>>> Yes yes yes midi thru!