Cubase 12 and MIDI 2? Has the idea died?

Well, I thought we might have a MIDI 2 compatible Cubase 12… but…hmmmm… nahhh

There seems to be absolutely nothing happening in the MIDI 2 world and the new MIDI features ion C12 seem to be doing the job of easing hardware connections.

What’s the rub?


For some idiotic reason, the MIDI association charges $260 a year for anyone that wants to use MIDI 2.0. This shouldn’t be a show-stopper for Steinberg, but I guess it stops a lot of smaller players from entering the MIDI 2.0 arena. And if there aren’t that many to talk MIDI 2.0 to, why implement MIDI 2.0?

In MIDI 1.0 times, MIDI was free. Has everything become about money?

1 Like

In MIDI 1.0, a “Manufacturers Sysex ID” is required if you want to define a manufacturer unique Sysex message, and you probably need to pay for it. There are a couple of hundred manufacturers that have requested such an ID.

In MIDI 2.0, the response message you must send to acknowledge that you can talk MIDI 2.0 MUST have a manufacturer Sysex ID. If you don’t have a Sysex ID, you cannot respond to a MIDI 2.0 negotiation (MIDI-CI), and the other party will assume that you cannot talk MIDI 2.0. So - everyone that wants to use MIDI 2.0 must have a Sysex ID, and on to the “Details about MIDI 2.0” page, the MIDI Association says: “To implement MIDI-CI and MIDI 2.0, you need a manufacturers SysEx ID. A SysEx ID by itself is $260 a year…”

There is a maximum of 16.383 unique SysEx IDs. If the MIDI Association claim is correct, everyone on the planet that wants to implement MIDI 2.0 (however simple) needs a SysEx ID. That will (IMO) lead to a situation where all IDs will be occupied, and no additional companies (large or small) can implement MIDI 2.0. And the MIDI Association will have annual revenue of $4.259.580, pretty good for a non-profit organization.

I have in forum and support questioned whether this really is the case and have not got any claim otherwise.

1 Like

Wow. What a great way to push a standard! Maybe it is time for another specification if the “MIDI association” can’t do better than that.

Roland had Rainlink which did not go anywhere. I have given up hope for MIDI 2. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years MIDI 3.0 will catch on but at this rate, I’m about ready to switch to eurorack. It has more momentum.

MIDI 1.0 took awhile to gain any traction

Won’t they just add a zero value byte prefix to claim a new block of ID’s? It’s what they done in the past. Infact the second byte is region (Europe/NA etc.) so it’s not even 16,383 unique ID’s if they stick to what’s in place. It’s around 128*16 per region I guess looking at sample listing:-

Majority of development will just use a generic ID (7D) you’d hope. But it seems very cloudy right now, I can’t imagine that you MUST require a unique ID to connect software or development hardware to MIDI 2.0 - but maybe they are going for a cash grab? Hope not as it will kill take up.

Maybe if we wait another 40 years, MIDI 3 will have 64 bit sysex-ids? :rofl:

1 Like

Be a bit more patient… :slight_smile: MIDI 2.0 was only fully released two years ago. That’s nothing. Look at how long it took for IPv6 to get some traction (at least fifteen years).

That’s the problem when you have an ubiquitous, comparatively simple standard that works surprisingly well in most situations and has done so for forty years. Without knowing the details, my guess is that the new spec is just a lot more complex without offering serious advantages in a lot of basic constellations. Plus you have the classic chicken-egg situation.

IMHO, your guess is dead wrong. Proper bi-directional communication with ID and feature announce together with a 32-bit depth of MIDI CCs is enough to make it a game changer.

True, but both Steinberg and Yamaha (now the owner of Steinberg) have historically both been on the forefront of development.

64k Baud is da shiznit. Who needs faster? Ha