MIDI vs MP3

[midimart]

What are your views on Midi files verses mp3 files.

What are the pro's and con's - Does midi have advantages over mp3' or are mp3's more convenient. Does anyone actually use our mp3 files on gigs, or do you always take midi files.

These are just a few questions to get you started, please add your own on this subject.

Please cast your vote on the poll and give us reasons, by posting a reply.

We would love to hear your views and comments - Remember honesty is the best policy, and be as critical as you like.

[spike]

Although mp3 files are more convenient and you don't have to carry heavy equipment around, I still prefer the good old fashioned midi files.

Having to play the keyboard, I sync my midi files with the keyboard, and play along.... With midi I mute the Instrument or instruments that I'm playing along with (split keyboard), where I can't do that with mp3.

I do however download all the mp3 as I'm an avid collector.

I play in a 3 piece band once a month and if I fancy introducing a new track, the mp3's are very useful to give to the other two band members. This gives them a solid idea of the way the track goes and to practice with. When we meet for rehearsals, we all have a good knowledge of the track and get it right within a couple of sessions. I also use the mp3 to give myself an idea of the phrasing of the sounds.

But for someone who does not play an instrument, I would think the opposite. mp3 files and not midi, as these can be recorded directly to minidisc or other media and give the performer of a more flexible and direct selection.

Weather midi or mp3, both from midimart are superb, even the ones sent in by the members..... I use nothing else than the best, of which midimart is the tops.

Long live midi - (oh and mp3).....

[Emerald Midi]

Weather midi or mp3, both from midimart are superb, even the ones sent in by the members..... I use nothing else than the best, of which midimart is the tops.

Agree totally with young Spike

I also play the keyboard and I do like both formats but I prefer the versatility of midi. For example, if I have a sore throat when gigging I can immediately transpose the files to a lower key. And also, I can adjust the tempo there and then if necessary

Another advantage for me is I can store thousands of midi files on one, small sound card - which saves me carrying tonnes of disks around. I have a fairly extensive repertoire

But having said that the MP3s are perfect for practising while on the way to a gig, or when you're just driving around

[Stephanie]

MIDI for me; I need the versatility to be able to edit to fit sheet music arrangements. Much of our vocal group's repertoire is from SATB arrangements, generally written with piano accompaniment, twiddly intros, extra bars and repeats and (sometimes gratuitous?) key changes. MP3s can't do that. Starting out with a good MIDI (like those you find here, folks) makes life much easier. In all of our repertoire there is only ONE song where the sheet music actually matched the MIDI out of the box.

[a.j.]

Definitely Midi, for all the reasons above.

Although we run differently - through a notebook PC, using Power Tracks as the midi sequencer, and Virtual Sound Canvas (no need to carry a separate sound module). Using a notebook to run midi is very common in South Africa, usually combined with a hardware-based sound module - I get the feeling that it is not so popular in the UK.

Having said all this, I usually comvert our tweaked midi files that we are going to work with, and burn them onto a CD - just in case...

[a.j.]

Oops - in my last post, I meant to say that we convert our tweaked midi files to MP3 just in case.

[davesasinger]

I have also stayed with MIDI for live work. Why?

There's more to MIDI than playing songs. My files also run a harmonizer which is programmed with exact harmonies. My lighting also runs from MIDI, again, each song having its own lighting scene. And finally, my Allen & Heath powered desk (and previously a Studiomaster) has the facility to operate the effects section from MIDI. Switch off effects between songs (my pet hate - performers talking to the audience from a cave!!), switch on any one of 18 effects, and even change them mid song if need be. No footswitches or stomp lighting controllers - I just get on with the music.

None of this would be possible if I used audio. Haven't yet sussed how to get MIDI to take down the gear at the end, but I'm working on it

Dave

[vee]

Definitely midi for me.I tried few songs using mp 3 files on a gig recently and I was not impressed with the sound quality ; somehow the "live feel" was lost. I am using Cakewalk Sonar with Roland VSC 88 and I find it easier if I need to make last minute changes to instruments, tempo or levels to the midi file while I am performing.
VEE

[Emerald Midi]

Welcome Vee to the forum.

I also prefer midi for all the reasons you mentioned. They are really the most convenient for performing a gigs.

[mark]

Re Midi versus MP3

I have to say I prefer midi every time. Far more easier to adapt.

Regards
Mark

[ian]

Definately midi for 90% of the time, but sometimes MP3 if I find a good track in the right key with good backing vocals, which are helpful when doing solo performances.

[stivy]

Hi all,

In my opinion I prefer to use midi rather than mp3 on stage, but I don't carry all the hardware to the gig, (sequencer, sound canvas etc.....), I just lay the midi's onto a pc mutlitrack, lay the backing vocs down if need be and then save the edited song to minidisc.

I have listened to mp3's through my gear (Peavey 3K rig) from stage front as a punter would do and you can instantly tell the lack of quality of a song every time, due to the compression format of an mp3. They don't have the natural "feel" of a midi. The bass drum always sounds harsher than normal, i.e. a C1 instead of a B1 bass drum, and other instruments can sound very "tinny".
If overly compressed (i.e. down to 48hz) you can occassionally get compression on the track itself due to their being too many instruments playing at once. I have seen people messing with their desks on stage, changing the settings of vocs and allsorts but the compression has been on the track itself.
Playing a normal backing track CD thats been converted to mp3 always sounds great but thats because the song has already been professionally compressed to fit onto the CD.

But hey!!! I could talk nonsense clap trap for hours. This is only my opinion and it has to be midi for me.

Yours Stivy

[midimart]

Can I disagree with stivy on this one.

I don't actually think the lack of quality has anything to do with the compression. The glitches and too many notes being played at once is due to the polyphony of your instrument. If you have a keyboard or sound module that has a polyphony of 32 then some notes are cut due to the lack of notes that can be played. Some instruments actually take two notes to be played (strings is one) and some actually take 3.

This means if you have a track that comprises of all strings or a track that uses instruments with a value of 3, you can only play tracks with 16 or 10 notes respectively. If the track has say 30 notes all played at once, there will be a cut off point where some of the notes do not play.

The more polyphony an instrument has (mine is 128), there should be no lack of quality however high the compression.

The compression factor is the lower the compression, the more white noise or distortion you get, but the file is smaller. The more compression 48000Hz gives a more crisper sound with no white noise (hiss) but the files are larger. I go for quality myself. You can always use more MD's (mini disk's) with good quality compared with less MD's with bad quality. An MD does not take up a lot of room. Quality Quality Quality ----- Every-time.!!!

If you convert to audio file by whichever means, you will only get the quality that the instrument gives. IE - If you record using something like VST (I'm not knocking this fantastic little program), you will get a poorer quality compared with a dedicated midi instrument like a Roland or Yamaha among others. You only get what you pay for.

stivy wrote ---

I just lay the midi's onto a pc mutlitrack, lay the backing vocs down if need be and then save the edited song to minidisc.
.

All that is being done here is the midi file and the vocals are being converted to Audio before recording to Mini-Disc, of which Mp3 is one method.... I can't see (or hear) any difference.

Just my observation stivy - Please don't shoot me now....!!!

[lucky1950]

I prefer midi on stage because when we play in different configuration - from 2 to 6 person - ones with sax , another with drums , is much easier to switch off the truck from sequencer , especially that we used Roland module with 6 separate outputs , it's really make easy to check the sound or change the balanse immediately during the gig .

[guilty]

I'm a bit different to all of the above in that I download midi files then re-mix them to my liking before recording them direct to Mini Disc via my Yamaha mixer. Less gear to lug and the Mini Discs have never let me down at a gig. I can carry over 100 discs in one briefcase and use 2 Sony Mini Disc Players rack mounted. (and one portable player as a spare). Obviously I can't change the mix at the gig but if something isn't quite right, I just re-mix it before the next gig. My stage line-up never changes so muting tracks etc. isn't required although I am jealous of Dave's midi light show.

[levi2]

I record my midis thru a yamaha MU50 direct to minidisc. I used to use a midi file player but with each file being sequenced by different people i found the volume of each file varied so when i record to minidisk i just turn the recording level up or down so each file is the same volume. If i could get a mp3 player that was the same size and control layout as my minidisc player i would prolly give the mp3 a try

[midimart]

Hi levi2.

Take a look at this, it may solve your problems and those of others too....

midimart.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=links&action=display&thread=1141646404

It was posted 6th March 2006, by myself.

[rosetchfie]

Interesting discussion so far - I started out playing everything live on a Roland keyboard using styles ( spent hours looking for the right ones and setting them up plus frustrations of slow access on gigs etc.) then started to play some songs via midi live - then got to the point where they sounded so much better ( in most cases) than live playing ( only 2 piece group - guitar and keyboard) so then tried to find a midi file for every song that we did to make them all sound good -not just some.
Then got into recording CDs for singers and found the world of MP3 backing tracks and they sounded better again ( especially ones with real audio vocal backings) and now currently have a mix of midis, MP3s and live playing. I have converted the midis to MP3s via Roland VSC and get a reasonable quality result on CD that sounds OK at stage volume.
However I do have Mini discs ( used them for discos for many years and brilliant for that) and have converted output from keyboards to them as well in the past.
Since then I have acquired a Roland Discover5 midi player that Ihave also used on some gigs - in view of the above discussions I will now try recording through that and also to MDs to see if there is any noticeable difference - my theory is that a lot of the public can't really tell the difference anyway but I will be interested to see - will post results in due course

Just one question on the Roland Discover 5 if anyone has one - when I play some files it seems to drop out some tracks on playback - I have not pursued this yet but thought maybe because it is a newer sound module it is not mapping some of the older instruments properly - any ideas anyone?
Roy Setchfield
Waiuku
New Zealand

[themd21]

Hi Roy

Have been using a Discover 5 for a few months and to be honest haven't noticed the problem you pointed out.
You will of course have noticed that when you go into the Cover mode the patches can change to something completely different.
So if your expecting to hear a patch or sound it just wont be there. I've been using a Roland VA 5 keyboard for a few years and it basically uses the same map as the Discover 5 so maybe I'm just used to hearing what I've always heard.
Does that make sense?
Anyway All the Best.

[rosetchfie]

Hi Jimmy
Yes that does make sense - I am comparing it with what I used to hear from a Roland EM2000 which presumably has an earlier sound module than the VA5 -anyway it is bugging me now so I will keep checking it out
regards
Roy NZ