HW suggestion: Larger unit

I have mio10 from iConnectivity and it is a great device with lots of inputs and outputs, not only on DIN MIDI but also support lots of USB devices.
It can handle some basic routing and filtering but it is not at all as intuitive as the Midihub when doing some quick connections to get the exact filtering to different outputs.
But the Midihub is way to small to handle my studio.
So my question is; would you consider making a version of the Midihub with 10-20 DIN connectors and support for USB hubs and a system for managing multiple devices connected over USB?
Would be good with USB host for connecting keyboards, USB device for connecting to a PC or Mac and a separate USB port for iPad connection.
I could really see myself having the Midihub as my main router with different presets for different situations.
Some standard preset where everything just works and is connected and then some other more specialized routing configurations. Would be great to have that flexibility to just switch back and forth.
And also to have a SW that has focus on flexibility to do some more advanced routings to make everything work.

Similar wishes in multiple topics, including here Midihub Hardware Suggestions topic. Wouldn’t hold my breath…

I ended up dedicating all routing to MIO which is far better equipped for that purpose, and use MH only for the more creative parts. It seems like a fairly good combination that way.

P.S. I keep reading the title as “HW suggestion: Lager unit” :joy:

1 Like

I realize they will not build a different unit just because I ask for it, but I think there might be a market for that, I would definitely want one, that is why I suggested it.
I do not really see why the iConnectivity stuff such as the mio10 is far better equipped for routing purposes than the MidiHub?
The only real advantage of the mio10 is the number of DIN MIDI slots and the support for both USB host, device and also iPad compatibility connection.
But software vice I really think iConnectivity basically sucks.
Their original SW: iConfig was a bit messy and buggy, but had some decent features, in new SW such as the Auracle, they basically simplified the SW by removing functionality!
Really strange move if you ask me.
But no iConnectivity SW have ever managed even simple filter tasks. I mean I think it would be a given to be able to filter each input to each output. That is I can have a drum machine connected on input one only send time code to output 3 and only send note information to output 2.
But mio10 can only filter the full input or output, so if I filter for only MTC on that output, I can send no notes to that device from some other device and if I filter on MTC on the input, well then I just turned my drum machine into a clock only…
There are tons of these little annoyances all which the MidiHub solves quite elegantly.
So if I had a MidiHub with the mio10 connectivity I would gladly scrap all iConnectivity stuff and never look back…

With more inputs and a broader USB support I would however like a better device management section in the MidiHub SW…

I didn’t really understand the problem with the title, but maybe I’m just slow…

1 Like

As for being Mio better for routing, I’m of course speaking of the current generation devices because that’s what we have for the foreseeable future. And actually I doubt the MH editor model would scale too far beyond what MH now has, to dozens of ports like the larger Mio models have, almost certainly not.

At least to me, once I begun treating the Mio as a patchbay, and MH just one of the things attached to it for its own functionality (a Swiss army knife MIDI shaper), things started making a whole lot more sense. See Midi Routing vs Midi Effect Processing for some deeper thoughts on the topic, that’s where I got the inspiration too.

So, while there likely is a market for a larger MH model, the current generation sits quite nicely in its own pocket. It’s just not the “center of everything MIDI” it was touted as one point (I think the web-page wording has changed wrt that), it’s too small for that, but that’s not necessarily a flaw at all.

As for the title, nothing wrong with it. It was just a supposedly amusing side remark.

Thank you, this is very good input for us for designing future iterations of the device. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I’d like to see a mk2 Midihub, physically almost identical to the current version, but with the addition of a pair of connectors to carry I2C data. The idea being that a user could connect two Midihubs by I2C to achieve an 8x8 MIDI matrix. Maybe even 3 or 4 Midihubs to achieve 12x12 or 16x16 matrices. A limit would need to be set somewhere – I guess up to 16x16 would satisfy most people. :slight_smile:
I don’t know how much data can be sent over I2C. I do know that Haken use it to convey hi-res data from their Fingerboard controllers to their poly CV/gate converter, and they take this approach because I2C offers greater bandwidth than DIN MIDI.
I guess this approach would increase the cost of a single 4x4 unit, but having the ability to incrementally expand it sounds appealing to me, and would allow users to tailor a setup to their specific needs.
With this scheme in place, you could then release a Midihost box (using the same enclosure as the Midihub) that also uses I2C to connect to a Midihub. A Blokas eco-system. :slight_smile:
I appreciate that coding the firmware to achieve this would not be a simple task.

1 Like

I2C is mainly a short distance interface made to interface different parts on the same PCB.
It does not have handshakes, balanced connection and other fault correction mechanisms that you would typically want on an interface that is leaving the protective casing and PCB ground plane of the unit.
Also if you really wanted a 16x16 unit, 4 separate units with separate casings, power supplies etc, would be much more expensive than making one larger unit in one box.
Evan today it is possible to do what you are saying by connecting several boxes via MIDI or USB (don’t know if it would work through a USB hub?).
But it is just a cumbersome way of doing it and you end up with many boxes and power supplies.
I would much rather have one larger version as my center MIDI hub for everything.
That version could then of course be complemented with smaller boxes of today’s form factor.
Then you can have it conveniently rackmonted and mange the cables with the rest of your cables.

2 Likes