Sim'n Tonic Forums

To me, it would be very useful if the Midronome itself had a separate MIDI IN for controlling it. I.e. not just USB, which is very computer-oriented. This would enable me to integrate it into my pedal board, which already has a MIDI controller. I could then use my MIDI controller to set tempo, and trigger the Midronome clock to start and stop.

I would be perfectly happy with using the already present input jack for this, i.e. to add TRS-MIDI to its capabilities.

To make this a really tight fit, the Midronome would also need to forward any other messages it receives to its MIDI OUTs, i.e. send a merged stream of its generated MIDI clock and the received MIDI. This would enable to insert the Midronome into an already established chain of MIDI control, e.g. like this:
The merge functionality is really a key part to enable integrating the Midronome as streamlined as possible. If the Midronome does not merge, I would need to use an extra merge component, like this:
(since my MIDI controller actually have 2 MIDI outs, but if that was not the case, I would need a splitter after the MIDI controller as well)

I realize this would of course compromise on the promises of the low jitter of the Midronome clock output, but the messages have to be merged somewhere either way. Perhaps also better to have a tight merging algorithm in the Midronome which prioritises clock over other messages? The merging functionality could also be a toggleable opt-in feature, making the user explicitly allowing the consequences it could potentially have for jitter.

Admittedly, the MIDI controller I have on my board already has a MIDI clock, but it is not as stable as I would want it to be. Which is why I am hoping that I could integrate the Midronome into my setup The E-RM Multiclock seems to be able to do this, as it has the merging capabilities, but it is really an overkill device for my use-case. If their smaller midiclock unit had MIDI In, and the merging capabilities, I think it would be a perfect fit, so maybe this is a way for the Midronome to offer a nice value somewhere "in between" the two E-RM devices?

Hi

Thanks for the long and very detailed explanation. You make a very good point!

A lot of people keep asking for the very few functionalities that the Multiclock has and the Midronome has not (MIDI merging f.ex.), but at the same time call the Midronome an "in-between" device (between the Midiclock and the Multiclock).

Truth is I think that is just because of its price, because it just needs a few features like the MIDI merging to be "just as good" as the Multiclock, having on top of that tons of other features, like the Pedal control, Drum Pad, the Metronome, the small size factor, and the module expansions ability.

There is already a topic on the MIDI merging: viewtopic.php?t=36 . I'm still considering it but it will be a lot of work because of the way the MIDI clock is sent.

As for accepting MIDI commands not only over USB but over a normal DIN-MIDI - yes I like that idea and you do make a very good point
But I think this can easily be done with a module - even a DIY one, and with the coming Midronome Module which will have Bluetooth Control you'll be able to buy for example a CME WIDI device, connect it to the output of your MIDI controller, and then send the MIDI commands to the device wirelessly using Bluetooth

Then yes you would still somehow need to merge the clock with other MIDI messages coming from somewhere. I have a few ideas in mind regarding how to tackle that problem, I'll keep munching over it and come up with a solution eventually

Cheers
Simon

Thanks for your reply!

Wanted to mention that I have actually (for my case) figured out a way to avoid needing the Midronome to merge its MIDI IN, but it would suffice to have a TRS-MIDI IN for control. I do have MIDI INs as well on my MIDI controller, which have merge capabilities, so I could get away with this setup: (sorry for all the "ASCII-drawn" diagrams, I hope they are legible )
This of course assumes that the merging in my controller is not mangling up the clock from the Midronome, or I would need to use a single purpose good quality merger box before the splitter. I have tested this with a separate MIDI clock (the Molten Voltage Master Control), though I have not managed to do any deeper inspection of the resulting clock jitter just yet. The Molten Voltage pedal is a stable clock, but it lacks any MIDI IN, which I was hoping to maybe have as a feature in the Midronome, so I could recall any tempo settings from my MIDI controller. As you say, I could achieve this with the Midronome using e.g. a USB MIDI-host box (I actually own one of those too), though I am trying hard to limit the amount of "boxes" on my board

Well your ASCII drawings are awesome And very clear

I understand the point with a TRS MIDI, but as I said this would be easily done with a simple DIY module, or by doing it over bluetooth once the official Midronome module is out.
I will keep in mind to add it to the device, in case other people also ask for it. But adding an extra plug is a big deal in terms of change: changes to the metal case, the size, the PCB, etc.

Just wanted to be clear about that I am actually not asking for an additional plug/connection, but to consider the possibility to add TRS-MIDI input to the already existing Multi-function input jack

E.g. the so-called Flexiports on the PirateMidi Bridge pedals have both MIDI capabilities as well as switches, tap-tempo, etc. What you use it for can be configured in the pedal software. So I do realize this would impose internal changes to the current design, maybe both hardware and software, but it should not change anything about the externals (plugs, casing, size), of course given that this is possible within the current dimensions of the casing.

Well you would notice that the *one* thing the Flexiports do not do, is MIDI Input

There is a reason for that: a MIDI Input is actually isolated from the rest of the circuit (I technically belongs to the device sending the MIDI), that is to avoid interferences and ground loops and so on.
So even though it would be possible (because everything is possible when you really put your mind to it), it would require a big hardware change, and complex circuits to deactivate the MIDI Input circuit when not used.

In short: much easier to have an extra TRS for the MIDI Input

But I stand my point with the DIY module, this can very easily be made with a few components on a small board. DIY is great because:
1) anyone can do it
2) anyone can copy it
3) it goes FAST - with someone that knows what they're doing (like me), you can make something in a few hours
4) the case is not that important, it can just be 3D printed or even hand-built with glue

Designing the exact same module professionally would take me at least 6 months...

Ah, did not know that MIDI input was such a different beast
TIL, thanks!

Hi, me again.
I wanted to mention, solely for reference, that the Alexander Pedals Rewind offers a multi function input jack for either foot switches, expression, or MIDI. Though I have no idea how/if they have addressed the issues you mentioned about interference and ground loops.

MultiJack enables expression pedal, foot switch, or MIDI input

There, now I'll shut up
Best of luck with the Kickstarter!

Thanks for the info - that definitely picked my interest, I checked it out!!

Well everything is possible really nowadays with a good combination of electronics and firmware. It could also be that they have not implemented the MIDI in according to the standard (i.e. not doing the isolated loop), which still work as long as the other end does follow the MIDI Standard, so they know what they are getting.

But stuff like this can easily raise the manufacturing price, which clearly has an impact on the the retail price (it is a pretty smart one though - so I'm sure they have loads of code to handle which justifies the price). I've worked really hard on the hardware to keep it simple and maintain a low manufacturing price, so that the Midronome stays affordable.

But you know what, you really picked my interest, and I guess I just cannot help but to like the challenge, so I'll investigate it. The nice thing about the upgradable firmware is that if the hardware is there I can always make the code to implement that function later on

Cheers!
Simon