Roland A-88MK2 / MIDI 2.0 / High-Resolution MIDI Velocity

Hi, thank you! – I am well aware that Pianoteq supports high resolution MIDI in two ways as notes in the FAQ:

However, I am still looking for an answer to the three questions in my original post and would appreciate very much input on them.

Have to admit I was maybe just overly anxious and caught up in the semantics of MIDI 2.0.

At the MIDI organization link even the word Semantic appears a few times within that organization's official description.

Imagine that Semantic now as a specification...

Man, I'm telling you!

I suppose some of the authors likely will want next to use Oxymoron...

Hey everyone,

Two years later, I don't think there is an answer to this ?
A88MKII does support midi2.0 at least on Logic for Apple,
However it is unclear what pianoteq (as a vst) would do with the messages,
And as the OP asked initially, it is unclear if Pianoteq supports midi 2.0 in standalone mode

Well I think we both agree on the "false start" of midi 2.0, especially regarding the A88MK2 keyboard
This thing is out since 2 years and the midi support is still said to be "future" on the homepage.

As such, it is unclear what plugging a A88MK2 keyboard into a Mac with Logic and its Midi2 feature activated exactly do
(I don't have one to test, but it's on my shortlist as a master keyboard for PQ)

Wether or not Midi 2.0 makes sense is a difficult debate. It's similar (imho) to the debate about ipv4 vs IPV6 or color gamuts.

In my view, it makes sense as
- it's clearly a long term replacement for MPE (on devices where it makes sense, eg not in a hammer system - granted)
- the reduced latency looks interesting.
- the 7 bits resolution is just not acceptable for "sampling" anything measuring human creativity. Think about colors on your screen : you're all happy with your millions of colors display, yet it's impossible to display 16million colors on a display with just 4 millions pixels  . So it's a bit of a theoritical situation here as well. In the unlikely even your screen would be filled only with shades of blue would you ever use your 16million colors. Many people even use 10 bits displays or advanced color gamut displays in 2023, even for a phreaking phone display - and it's unlikely the difference can be seen by the naked eye on such tiny things or in bright sunlight.
Don't get me wrong ; it's bloat, overkill in multiple way : yes, but it's how technology works for everything nowadays. Except for MIDI !
The argument about wether or not >7bits velocity can be heard at the end is not an argument , that's just not how technology has worked since the 80s. I would put 16 or even 32 bits sampling on everything (note on, note off, velocity, pedal; everything). Just like there are more ipv6 IPs than particles in the known universe.

There's also a creativity/copyright/watermarking argument ; 127 levels can nearly be drawed by hand in logic (it's just 127 pixels!), wheras a hires sampling would really make the recording (the midi file) unique and very specific to you, your equipment, your finger style. Kind of an invisible watermark of your artistic work. Nobody would "draw" a 16bits velocity curve by hand in logic the way you would do yours with a midi 2.0 wheel, knob, or just aftertouch keyboard (when measured in 16 bits). Again similar to the way a photocopy of Leonardo's Monalisa doesn't make it another monalisa - even if thru the naked eye they would be difficult to differenciate on display in the Louvres

We're talking about 7 bits but there is worse, there is also the 1 bit sustain pedals. Okay this is not exactly a midi 2.0 problem but it's a good example of vintage tech being served to musicians in 2023. To me, an on/off sustain pedal is an abomination. It's only because a minority of musicians are tech nerds that such a thing can still exist. I see musicians wondering about the proper finger technique or temperament tuning, yet I see nobody complaining about on/off sustain pedals. Worse, I see many people arguing a pedal supporting intermediate positions (the musicians sometimes call half pedaling) is useless. Clearly the way you push/release your sustain is a good example of something that is unique to your performance (the way your foot moves, etc) and should be sampled in 16 bits, (for the brief duration of the switch), to "record" your pedalling style into a curve representing the way your foot went on and off the pedal - on your particular pedal, on that particular move on that particular day. The software instrument must react accordingly, of course.
The tech project managers at Casio, Yamaha, Roland and other DP companies are in a really confortable situation serving us the same dish since the 1980s, talking about sympathetic ringing in their marketing material and yet shipping the darn 800$+ thing with on/off sustain pedals. (eg : Roland FP30X.)
Worse, some equipment turn progressive pedals (like the roland DP10 pedal) into on/off pedals ( the Roland FP10X is a good example) the midi implementation chart confirms it turns a perfectly smart "progressive" pedal, theoritically allowing an infinity of levels but let's say at least 16 bits, into just 3 levels : 0, 64 or 127. 
Devices like the Casio PXS1000 (and other) make the exact same "pedal noise" in your speakers (simulating felt going on and off the strings) wether you hit your pedal full speed or barely touch it.
This "pedal problem" is a good example of something that needs more "bits", more accurate sampling, and goes into the same direction as increased resolution in midi2.0.

Musicians with all their analog talent are beeing forcely put inside "binary" boxes since far too long. Midi 2.0 will free them up.

All in all to get back on topic, from all my research ;
- it's not even sure a Roland A88MK2 does ANYTHING when connected on a mac with Logic supporting midi 2.0. The midi implementation chart in the Roland doc only speaks about midi 1.0. The website talks about "future" support. I'm just surprised nobody seems to have tested this in 2 years with pq/logic.
- it seems likely Pianoteq does not support midi 2.0, either as a VST or as a standalone
- interestingly, there seem to be no "retro compatibility" in midi 2.0 devices, in the sense that even if your device samples Hires input, it won't send CC88 or MPE or anything else than plain midi2.0. (It won't use any of the midi1.0 "hacks" to send increased resolution on some events)

A false start indeed !

I like to think maybe the acoustic pianos —unlike electronics— from manufacturers indeed permit a lot more than just 127 noticeable velocities or only those broad limitations exactly duplicated on each and every key of their —different— non-electric, mass produced, acoustic pianos.  Which also they manufacture and of course intend for a price to sell to consumers —musicians— seeking true artistic freedom…

As corporate entities, obviously, they’ve been no less than businesses banking opportunely or capitalizing off the consumer who is anyone average to them and to whom they can chiefly still regulate and reach or confine to and even sell on just 127 dynamics in the name of something as unique as artistic expression, nay art appreciation!

If you think you in electronic music need ever to provide a resolution following your chord that might just sounded too dissonant to you, you likely got only 127 dynamic possibilities now, and, from which you will decide upon your next resolution or improvisation however avant-garden you’d like it to come off to your listeners.  And if you in the age of electronics think you easily can afford the higher variety in dynamics previously only the acoustics accurately could reproduce, you may have to think again since electronic boards having over 127 velocities are very high priced closer to the acoustics.

(Although in an age of supposedly affordable electronics, higher resolutions already gotten by high priced acoustics seem still reserved for members of high society or those who —while aspiring toward that— can just afford to pay for any expensive sought-after-acoustic.)

Note to self: No doubt I’m feeling a bit underserved by electronic instrument makers who refuse to produce a reasonably priced board to take advantage of modeling instruments in PIANOTEQ fully.  (This feeling of mine goes without the availability of fully software drum set modeling to me also.)