BomeBox708-035

MIDI is a magical lingua franca between, well, sort of everything. But that’s only if you get it connected. And then once you do have it connected, you might want to tame its messages so they accomplish what you want.

Now, the buzz is wearing off following last week’s avalanche of new music gear announcements. You might realize you don’t have $30,000 for a modular. But then, in the wake of that gear, comes one that flew under the radar – and it’s one of the most powerful-looking bits of kit we’ve seen recently.

For years, Bome’s Midi Translator has been the secret sauce used by drummers and beatboxers and other performers to make their MIDI gear perform amazing tricks. The software’s approach is simple – get messages in, do something to them, send messages out. But by providing an insanely powerful set of rule-based operations on those messages, it has been the one piece of software that solves your needs when others can’t.

And now it’s hardware.

BomeBox708-010

Yes, the Bome Box is a device that loads up MIDI Translator Pro project files and does all these MIDI-mangling tricks without a computer required.

And more than that, it’s hardware that connects MIDI via whatever you want. In and out, of course, low latency, of course. But there’s also a USB host – necessary for all these USB devices that lack MIDI DIN ports. And there are two Ethernet ports, for long-distance network cabling of MIDI.

And there’s WiFi, too.

BomeBox is also the first hardware I’ve seen to advertise itself as HD-ready. No, we’re not talking televisions – we’re talking the next generation of MIDI. The MIDI makers are near to releasing the HD version of their protocol, which will happily make use of the added bandwidth of these connections with higher-resolution data (among other new features – more on that soon).

BomeBox is due in spring. No pricing yet.

I love boxes that solve problems – even if not terribly sexy problems. And BomeBox looks very intriguing, indeed. We’ll have an eye on this box.

http://www.bome.com/products/bomebox

  • Hard to tell immediately from the web site, but: if it does ethernet, might it do OSC?

    • Mutis Mayfield

      It will be a solution for missing link users… But maybe it is more focused to ipmidi and new midi HD (which should be a net protocol with some of the features of OSC or not be never… XD )

    • OSC is planned. The BomeBox is “HD Protocol Ready”, i.e. it will support it as soon as the protocol is published (Bome is actively working on the standardization of the HD Protocol).

      • PaulDavisTheFirst

        How is OSC even remotely related? As a protocol it has nothing in common with MIDI at all.

        • neurogami

          I don’t follow. OSC was created to address perceived shortcomings of MIDI. As it happens OSC has applications beyond music, but music was the motivation.

          I prefer to use OSC instead of MIDI whenever possible. For one reason is that it’s much easier to hand-roll custom OSC clients, and I find it easier to reroute/transform OSC.

          What I don’t get is what “HD Protocol” has to do with OSC.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            OSC and MIDI are utterly different from each other. There are no defined semantics in OSC for anything (there is no way, for example, to send a message that means “start making a sound at 440Hz”), and the basic protocol is point to point rather than MIDI which is bus-based.

            Everything you do with OSC has to be based on knowing the messages sent by the transmitter and the messages that will be understood by the receiver. This is utterly different from MIDI, which is actually a standard, not just an agreement to deliver strings via UDP or whatever.

          • mfxpyro

            If you look at it from the simple view of playing notes then yes MIDI is standardised but once you get into the realm of sysex messages and MIDI show control then it starts to become just as undefined as OSC. Parts of the MSC message format are defined and set in stone but other parts are just as manufacturer/equipment specific as OSC.

            “and the basic protocol is point to point rather than MIDI which is bus-based.”

            Not entirely correct, traditionally and historically it is sent over the standard 5 pin din bus type setup but there are really two parts to the MIDI spec, the “Standard” hardware layer definition (the 5 pin din bus) and the protocol specification, however there is nothing to stop the MIDI protocol from being send over exactly the same sort of networks/connections as OSC (IP, USB, Wireless) and it often is. So they are not “Utterly” different from each other and there is no real technical reason why MIDI mapping software should not also be able to handle OSC in exactly the same way as MIDI (and even alongside it) as long as you have the message definitions (which as pointed out above you often need for Sysex MIDI messages anyway).

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Sysex is of no interest to device interoperability, except for the parts that are … standardized (e.g. MMC, MTC, MIDI Show Control). There is nothing device specific about MMC or even MIDI Show Control except that the MMA in their infinite wisdom chose to specify different levels of implementation conformity.

            MIDI is bus-based at a much deeper level than the transport protocol. MIDI messages have no intended recipient. All messages are sent out to “whoever cares, and is appropriately connected”. Even those standardized sysex messages that include a device ID are semantically delivered to “everyone”, with no recipient really specified.

            This contrasts entirely from OSC which to date has always been delivered via a point to point protocol. Sending OSC via multicast is possible, but almost never done and generally pointless unless you run replicas of the same receiver at each end point, since otherwise they will not all understand the message.

            MIDI mapping software changes the contents of MIDI messages, not the intended recipient. MIDI routing software is a better analogy, but works in a totally different way than an OSC one would.

            Lest you suspect that I don’t know what I am talking about, I’m the lead author of the most heavily OSC-enabled DAW in the world, I helped write (a small) part of liblo (one of the best libraries for dealing with OSC) and also have extensive experience with MIDI. Oh, and that DAW will likely sequence OSC one day too.

            Suggestions that the two protocols are similar is naive, except for end users who see them both as “music control protocols”. From a technical perspective, they have nothing in common. OSC is nothing but an agreement to send /slash/separated/strings “with” “N” “stringified” “arguments” across some sort of transport mechanism (historically, and almost always, UDP) that is point to point. There are no semantics, no mechanism to address multiple receivers in the protocol (only the transport mechanism can enable that), and absolutely no useful standards.

          • Mutis Mayfield

            But it could/should be? (midi hd and OSC)
            Getting the best of booth (used or not by regular users and with some “standarization” to keep things in Midi realm)

            What would you love to ser implemented in midi HD?

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Note identifiers. Nothing else really bothers me. But I’m a developer, not a user.

          • mfxpyro

            I don’t doubt your skills but your statement
            “How is OSC even remotely related? As a protocol it has nothing in common with MIDI at all.”

            Is simply wrong. If they where not “REMOTELY” related and had “NOTHING” in common then how is it there are so many OSC->MIDI->OSC Converters, patchers, bridges out there? It they were totally unrelated as you say then such tools would be pointless. Yes they are not the SAME and yes you have to have an understanding of OSC but to say they are not related is just plain wrong. There is nothing to stop people patching OSC to MIDI and vice versa as long as the software allows for it/the user has sufficient knowledge and there are many cases where this could be useful patching an OSC mobile phone App to a MIDI keyboard for an interactive installation for example.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            If a user has sufficient knowledge, they could translate english into MIDI too. That doesn’t make english and MIDI somehow related. The fact that OSC is used for similar purposes is a detail of its origin, not the design of the protocol.

            There’s nothing to stop anyone patching any protocol to and from MIDI. I could send you some binary stream of bits and if you understand them you could generate some MIDI equivalent of some of them.

            But how would Bome or PD or SuperCollider or any other “translator” handle a message such as

            /flibbity/jibbity/jib 1.2 3.9 “wheee!”

            This is a perfectly legal OSC message, and there may even be an OSC-capable application that understands it. But is it related to MIDI? No.

            Can you come up with a set of OSC messages that map fairly precisely onto the MIDI command set? Of course. Has anyone done it yet, after 17 years of the protocol’s existence? No.

            If you want Live to make a noise via OSC, you have to send it a Live-specific message. If you want Reaktor to make a noise via OSC, you have to sent it a Reaktor specific message. This is utterly different from MIDI which consists of a set of commands whose meaning and syntax is agreed upon by everyone.

            It isn’t impossible for OSC to evolve a set of standards that would make it similarly useful. But it has happened yet, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody has tried to make it happen.

          • mfxpyro

            “The fact that OSC is used for similar purposes”

            So you admit they are related then. If they are used for similar purposes then they must be related.

            “But how would Bome or PD or SuperCollider or any other “translator” handle a message such as

            /flibbity/jibbity/jib 1.2 3.9 “wheee!””

            If would handle it in the way the user told it to.

            “This is a perfectly legal OSC message, and there may even be an OSC-capable application that understands it. But is it related to MIDI?”

            Yes if you want it to translate to moving a MIDI pitch wheel command.

            How do you not understand that the statement :-

            “How is OSC even remotely related? As a protocol it has nothing in common with MIDI at all.”

            Is wrong when you’ve just said they are used for similar purposes !?!?!

          • neurogami

            Fair point. MIDI is a more high-level standard than OSC.

            In practice the lack of one-size-fits-all message details is not terribly difficalt to resolve.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            The protocol is 17 years old and counting. It hasn’t been resolved yet. Adding arbitrary message converters into the signal flow isn’t a solution that can be taken seriously.

          • neurogami

            “Adding arbitrary message converters into the signal flow isn’t a solution that can be taken seriously.”

            Well OK then. It’s not for you

            Works for others.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Sure, it works if you know enough about (a) the sender (b) the receiver (c) the message translation tool.

            Hardly the stuff of plug-n-play MIDI, is it?

          • foljs

            MIDI Translator and BomeBox are not for “plug-n-play” either, so I’m not sure where you’re getting at or what your point is…

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Somebody upthread was suggesting that OSC might substitute for MIDI in some way. This isn’t realistic, that’s all my point is.

        • foljs

          How is his phrase difficult to parse? It’s pretty standard english.

          To make it clear to people with comprehension skills (or smart-alecing on purpose): when asked about OSC, he answered AND ALSO took the chance to report on their HD support status.

          To quote:

          1) OSC is planned.

          2) The BomeBox is “HD Protocol Ready”, i.e. it will support it as soon as the protocol is published.

          • foljs

            And for those who still struggle, from the Bome support forums:

            “””[OSC] is not yet done. There’s a lot happening for the next release, though! OSC is among the top 2 big features for MT though (the other being integration of a scripting language).”””

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            My point is that I have no understanding of why you’d make a box like do OSC. For reasons I explained in more detail in other comments made earlier.

  • Hard to tell immediately from the web site, but: if it does ethernet, might it do OSC?

    • Mutis Mayfield

      It will be a solution for missing link users… But maybe it is more focused to ipmidi and new midi HD (which should be a net protocol with some of the features of OSC or not be never… XD )

    • OSC is planned. The BomeBox is “HD Protocol Ready”, i.e. it will support it as soon as the protocol is published (Bome is actively working on the standardization of the HD Protocol).

      • PaulDavisTheFirst

        How is OSC even remotely related? As a protocol it has nothing in common with MIDI at all.

        • neurogami

          I don’t follow. OSC was created to address perceived shortcomings of MIDI. As it happens OSC has applications beyond music, but music was the motivation.

          I prefer to use OSC instead of MIDI whenever possible. For one reason is that it’s much easier to hand-roll custom OSC clients, and I find it easier to reroute/transform OSC.

          What I don’t get is what “HD Protocol” has to do with OSC.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            OSC and MIDI are utterly different from each other. There are no defined semantics in OSC for anything (there is no way, for example, to send a message that means “start making a sound at 440Hz”), and the basic protocol is point to point rather than MIDI which is bus-based.

            Everything you do with OSC has to be based on knowing the messages sent by the transmitter and the messages that will be understood by the receiver. This is utterly different from MIDI, which is actually a standard, not just an agreement to deliver strings via UDP or whatever.

          • mfxpyro

            If you look at it from the simple view of playing notes then yes MIDI is standardised but once you get into the realm of sysex messages and MIDI show control then it starts to become just as undefined as OSC. Parts of the MSC message format are defined and set in stone but other parts are just as manufacturer/equipment specific as OSC.

            “and the basic protocol is point to point rather than MIDI which is bus-based.”

            Not entirely correct, traditionally and historically it is sent over the standard 5 pin din bus type setup but there are really two parts to the MIDI spec, the “Standard” hardware layer definition (the 5 pin din bus) and the protocol specification, however there is nothing to stop the MIDI protocol from being send over exactly the same sort of networks/connections as OSC (IP, USB, Wireless) and it often is. So they are not “Utterly” different from each other and there is no real technical reason why MIDI mapping software should not also be able to handle OSC in exactly the same way as MIDI (and even alongside it) as long as you have the message definitions (which as pointed out above you often need for Sysex MIDI messages anyway).

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Sysex is of no interest to device interoperability, except for the parts that are … standardized (e.g. MMC, MTC, MIDI Show Control). There is nothing device specific about MMC or even MIDI Show Control except that the MMA in their infinite wisdom chose to specify different levels of implementation conformity.

            MIDI is bus-based at a much deeper level than the transport protocol. MIDI messages have no intended recipient. All messages are sent out to “whoever cares, and is appropriately connected”. Even those standardized sysex messages that include a device ID are semantically delivered to “everyone”, with no recipient really specified.

            This contrasts entirely from OSC which to date has always been delivered via a point to point protocol. Sending OSC via multicast is possible, but almost never done and generally pointless unless you run replicas of the same receiver at each end point, since otherwise they will not all understand the message.

            MIDI mapping software changes the contents of MIDI messages, not the intended recipient. MIDI routing software is a better analogy, but works in a totally different way than an OSC one would.

            Lest you suspect that I don’t know what I am talking about, I’m the lead author of the most heavily OSC-enabled DAW in the world, I helped write (a small) part of liblo (one of the best libraries for dealing with OSC) and also have extensive experience with MIDI. Oh, and that DAW will likely sequence OSC one day too.

            Suggestions that the two protocols are similar is naive, except for end users who see them both as “music control protocols”. From a technical perspective, they have nothing in common. OSC is nothing but an agreement to send /slash/separated/strings “with” “N” “stringified” “arguments” across some sort of transport mechanism (historically, and almost always, UDP) that is point to point. There are no semantics, no mechanism to address multiple receivers in the protocol (only the transport mechanism can enable that), and absolutely no useful standards.

          • Mutis Mayfield

            But it could/should be? (midi hd and OSC)
            Getting the best of booth (used or not by regular users and with some “standarization” to keep things in Midi realm)

            What would you love to ser implemented in midi HD?

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Note identifiers. Nothing else really bothers me. But I’m a developer, not a user.

          • mfxpyro

            I don’t doubt your skills but your statement
            “How is OSC even remotely related? As a protocol it has nothing in common with MIDI at all.”

            Is simply wrong. If they where not “REMOTELY” related and had “NOTHING” in common then how is it there are so many OSC->MIDI->OSC Converters, patchers, bridges out there? It they were totally unrelated as you say then such tools would be pointless. Yes they are not the SAME and yes you have to have an understanding of OSC but to say they are not related is just plain wrong. There is nothing to stop people patching OSC to MIDI and vice versa as long as the software allows for it/the user has sufficient knowledge and there are many cases where this could be useful patching an OSC mobile phone App to a MIDI keyboard for an interactive installation for example.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            If a user has sufficient knowledge, they could translate english into MIDI too. That doesn’t make english and MIDI somehow related. The fact that OSC is used for similar purposes is a detail of its origin, not the design of the protocol.

            There’s nothing to stop anyone patching any protocol to and from MIDI. I could send you some binary stream of bits and if you understand them you could generate some MIDI equivalent of some of them.

            But how would Bome or PD or SuperCollider or any other “translator” handle a message such as

            /flibbity/jibbity/jib 1.2 3.9 “wheee!”

            This is a perfectly legal OSC message, and there may even be an OSC-capable application that understands it. But is it related to MIDI? No.

            Can you come up with a set of OSC messages that map fairly precisely onto the MIDI command set? Of course. Has anyone done it yet, after 17 years of the protocol’s existence? No.

            If you want Live to make a noise via OSC, you have to send it a Live-specific message. If you want Reaktor to make a noise via OSC, you have to sent it a Reaktor specific message. This is utterly different from MIDI which consists of a set of commands whose meaning and syntax is agreed upon by everyone.

            It isn’t impossible for OSC to evolve a set of standards that would make it similarly useful. But it has happened yet, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody has tried to make it happen.

          • mfxpyro

            “The fact that OSC is used for similar purposes”

            So you admit they are related then. If they are used for similar purposes then they must be related.

            “But how would Bome or PD or SuperCollider or any other “translator” handle a message such as

            /flibbity/jibbity/jib 1.2 3.9 “wheee!””

            If would handle it in the way the user told it to.

            “This is a perfectly legal OSC message, and there may even be an OSC-capable application that understands it. But is it related to MIDI?”

            Yes if you want it to translate to moving a MIDI pitch wheel command.

            How do you not understand that the statement :-

            “How is OSC even remotely related? As a protocol it has nothing in common with MIDI at all.”

            Is wrong when you’ve just said they are used for similar purposes !?!?!

            There’s a clue in the name “Open SOUND control” your translating English to MIDI example is contrived English is not normally used to control electronic instruments.

            BTW I didn’t say they were “similar” I said they were related. You said they weren’t related.

          • neurogami

            Fair point. MIDI is a more high-level standard than OSC.

            In practice the lack of one-size-fits-all message details is not terribly difficalt to resolve.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            The protocol is 17 years old and counting. It hasn’t been resolved yet. Adding arbitrary message converters into the signal flow isn’t a solution that can be taken seriously.

          • neurogami

            “Adding arbitrary message converters into the signal flow isn’t a solution that can be taken seriously.”

            Well OK then. It’s not for you

            Works for others.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Sure, it works if you know enough about (a) the sender (b) the receiver (c) the message translation tool.

            Hardly the stuff of plug-n-play MIDI, is it?

          • foljs

            MIDI Translator and BomeBox are not for “plug-n-play” either, so I’m not sure where you’re getting at or what your point is…

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Somebody upthread was suggesting that OSC might substitute for MIDI in some way. This isn’t realistic, that’s all my point is.

        • foljs

          How is his phrase difficult to parse? It’s pretty standard english.

          To make it clear to people with comprehension skills (or smart-alecing on purpose): when asked about OSC, he answered AND ALSO took the chance to report on their HD support status.

          To quote:

          1) OSC is planned.

          2) The BomeBox is “HD Protocol Ready”, i.e. it will support it as soon as the protocol is published.

          • foljs

            And for those who still struggle, from the Bome support forums:

            “””[OSC] is not yet done. There’s a lot happening for the next release, though! OSC is among the top 2 big features for MT though (the other being integration of a scripting language).”””

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            My point is that I have no understanding of why you’d make a box like do OSC. For reasons I explained in more detail in other comments made earlier.

  • Hard to tell immediately from the web site, but: if it does ethernet, might it do OSC?

    • Mutis Mayfield

      It will be a solution for missing link users… But maybe it is more focused to ipmidi and new midi HD (which should be a net protocol with some of the features of OSC or not be never… XD )

    • OSC is planned. The BomeBox is “HD Protocol Ready”, i.e. it will support it as soon as the protocol is published (Bome is actively working on the standardization of the HD Protocol).

      • PaulDavisTheFirst

        How is OSC even remotely related? As a protocol it has nothing in common with MIDI at all.

        • neurogami

          I don’t follow. OSC was created to address perceived shortcomings of MIDI. As it happens OSC has applications beyond music, but music was the motivation.

          I prefer to use OSC instead of MIDI whenever possible. For one reason is that it’s much easier to hand-roll custom OSC clients, and I find it easier to reroute/transform OSC.

          What I don’t get is what “HD Protocol” has to do with OSC.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            OSC and MIDI are utterly different from each other. There are no defined semantics in OSC for anything (there is no way, for example, to send a message that means “start making a sound at 440Hz”), and the basic protocol is point to point rather than MIDI which is bus-based.

            Everything you do with OSC has to be based on knowing the messages sent by the transmitter and the messages that will be understood by the receiver. This is utterly different from MIDI, which is actually a standard, not just an agreement to deliver strings via UDP or whatever.

          • mfxpyro

            If you look at it from the simple view of playing notes then yes MIDI is standardised but once you get into the realm of sysex messages and MIDI show control then it starts to become just as undefined as OSC. Parts of the MSC message format are defined and set in stone but other parts are just as manufacturer/equipment specific as OSC.

            “and the basic protocol is point to point rather than MIDI which is bus-based.”

            Not entirely correct, traditionally and historically it is sent over the standard 5 pin din bus type setup but there are really two parts to the MIDI spec, the “Standard” hardware layer definition (the 5 pin din bus) and the protocol specification, however there is nothing to stop the MIDI protocol from being send over exactly the same sort of networks/connections as OSC (IP, USB, Wireless) and it often is. So they are not “Utterly” different from each other and there is no real technical reason why MIDI mapping software should not also be able to handle OSC in exactly the same way as MIDI (and even alongside it) as long as you have the message definitions (which as pointed out above you often need for Sysex MIDI messages anyway).

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Sysex is of no interest to device interoperability, except for the parts that are … standardized (e.g. MMC, MTC, MIDI Show Control). There is nothing device specific about MMC or even MIDI Show Control except that the MMA in their infinite wisdom chose to specify different levels of implementation conformity.

            MIDI is bus-based at a much deeper level than the transport protocol. MIDI messages have no intended recipient. All messages are sent out to “whoever cares, and is appropriately connected”. Even those standardized sysex messages that include a device ID are semantically delivered to “everyone”, with no recipient really specified.

            This contrasts entirely from OSC which to date has always been delivered via a point to point protocol. Sending OSC via multicast is possible, but almost never done and generally pointless unless you run replicas of the same receiver at each end point, since otherwise they will not all understand the message.

            MIDI mapping software changes the contents of MIDI messages, not the intended recipient. MIDI routing software is a better analogy, but works in a totally different way than an OSC one would.

            Lest you suspect that I don’t know what I am talking about, I’m the lead author of the most heavily OSC-enabled DAW in the world, I helped write (a small) part of liblo (one of the best libraries for dealing with OSC) and also have extensive experience with MIDI. Oh, and that DAW will likely sequence OSC one day too.

            Suggestions that the two protocols are similar is naive, except for end users who see them both as “music control protocols”. From a technical perspective, they have nothing in common. OSC is nothing but an agreement to send /slash/separated/strings “with” “N” “stringified” “arguments” across some sort of transport mechanism (historically, and almost always, UDP) that is point to point. There are no semantics, no mechanism to address multiple receivers in the protocol (only the transport mechanism can enable that), and absolutely no useful standards.

          • Mutis Mayfield

            But it could/should be? (midi hd and OSC)
            Getting the best of booth (used or not by regular users and with some “standarization” to keep things in Midi realm)

            What would you love to ser implemented in midi HD?

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Note identifiers. Nothing else really bothers me. But I’m a developer, not a user.

          • mfxpyro

            I don’t doubt your skills but your statement
            “How is OSC even remotely related? As a protocol it has nothing in common with MIDI at all.”

            Is simply wrong. If they where not “REMOTELY” related and had “NOTHING” in common then how is it there are so many OSC->MIDI->OSC Converters, patchers, bridges out there? It they were totally unrelated as you say then such tools would be pointless. Yes they are not the SAME and yes you have to have an understanding of OSC but to say they are not related is just plain wrong. There is nothing to stop people patching OSC to MIDI and vice versa as long as the software allows for it/the user has sufficient knowledge and there are many cases where this could be useful patching an OSC mobile phone App to a MIDI keyboard for an interactive installation for example.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            If a user has sufficient knowledge, they could translate english into MIDI too. That doesn’t make english and MIDI somehow related. The fact that OSC is used for similar purposes is a detail of its origin, not the design of the protocol.

            There’s nothing to stop anyone patching any protocol to and from MIDI. I could send you some binary stream of bits and if you understand them you could generate some MIDI equivalent of some of them.

            But how would Bome or PD or SuperCollider or any other “translator” handle a message such as

            /flibbity/jibbity/jib 1.2 3.9 “wheee!”

            This is a perfectly legal OSC message, and there may even be an OSC-capable application that understands it. But is it related to MIDI? No.

            Can you come up with a set of OSC messages that map fairly precisely onto the MIDI command set? Of course. Has anyone done it yet, after 17 years of the protocol’s existence? No.

            If you want Live to make a noise via OSC, you have to send it a Live-specific message. If you want Reaktor to make a noise via OSC, you have to sent it a Reaktor specific message. This is utterly different from MIDI which consists of a set of commands whose meaning and syntax is agreed upon by everyone.

            It isn’t impossible for OSC to evolve a set of standards that would make it similarly useful. But it has happened yet, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody has tried to make it happen.

          • mfxpyro

            “The fact that OSC is used for similar purposes”

            So you admit they are related then. If they are used for similar purposes then they must be related.

            “But how would Bome or PD or SuperCollider or any other “translator” handle a message such as

            /flibbity/jibbity/jib 1.2 3.9 “wheee!””

            If would handle it in the way the user told it to.

            “This is a perfectly legal OSC message, and there may even be an OSC-capable application that understands it. But is it related to MIDI?”

            Yes if you want it to translate to moving a MIDI pitch wheel command.

            How do you not understand that the statement :-

            “How is OSC even remotely related? As a protocol it has nothing in common with MIDI at all.”

            Is wrong when you’ve just said they are used for similar purposes !?!?!

            There’s a clue in the name “Open SOUND control” your translating English to MIDI example is contrived English is not normally used to control electronic instruments.

            BTW I didn’t say they were “similar” I said they were related. You said they weren’t related.

          • neurogami

            Fair point. MIDI is a more high-level standard than OSC.

            In practice the lack of one-size-fits-all message details is not terribly difficalt to resolve.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            The protocol is 17 years old and counting. It hasn’t been resolved yet. Adding arbitrary message converters into the signal flow isn’t a solution that can be taken seriously.

          • neurogami

            “Adding arbitrary message converters into the signal flow isn’t a solution that can be taken seriously.”

            Well OK then. It’s not for you

            Works for others.

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Sure, it works if you know enough about (a) the sender (b) the receiver (c) the message translation tool.

            Hardly the stuff of plug-n-play MIDI, is it?

          • foljs

            MIDI Translator and BomeBox are not for “plug-n-play” either, so I’m not sure where you’re getting at or what your point is…

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            Somebody upthread was suggesting that OSC might substitute for MIDI in some way. This isn’t realistic, that’s all my point is.

        • foljs

          How is his phrase difficult to parse? It’s pretty standard english.

          To make it clear to people with comprehension skills (or smart-alecing on purpose): when asked about OSC, he answered AND ALSO took the chance to report on their HD support status.

          To quote:

          1) OSC is planned.

          2) The BomeBox is “HD Protocol Ready”, i.e. it will support it as soon as the protocol is published.

          • foljs

            And for those who still struggle, from the Bome support forums:

            “””[OSC] is not yet done. There’s a lot happening for the next release, though! OSC is among the top 2 big features for MT though (the other being integration of a scripting language).”””

          • PaulDavisTheFirst

            My point is that I have no understanding of why you’d make a box like do OSC. For reasons I explained in more detail in other comments made earlier.

  • Will

    This is cool. Glad to see them making boxes.

    Wonder if Translator Pro will be included with it or if the cost will be hardware+$80 for access to its guts.

    • Mutis Mayfield

      I will love an ipad app due I haven’t pc with windows anymore…

    • I wonder about that, too. Seriously though, MIDI Translator will be bundled with the BomeBox. We plan for an LE edition without the desktop features like keystroke emulation. That way, previously bought MT Pro licenses will not be devalued.

      • Will

        Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

  • Will

    This is cool. Glad to see them making boxes.

    Wonder if Translator Pro will be included with it or if the cost will be hardware+$80 for access to its guts.

    • Mutis Mayfield

      I will love an ipad app due I haven’t pc with windows anymore…

    • I wonder about that, too. Seriously though, MIDI Translator will be bundled with the BomeBox. We plan for an LE edition without the desktop features like keystroke emulation. That way, previously bought MT Pro licenses will not be devalued.

      • Will

        Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

  • Will

    This is cool. Glad to see them making boxes.

    Wonder if Translator Pro will be included with it or if the cost will be hardware+$80 for access to its guts.

    • Mutis Mayfield

      I will love an ipad app due I haven’t pc with windows anymore…

    • I wonder about that, too. Seriously though, MIDI Translator will be bundled with the BomeBox. We plan for an LE edition without the desktop features like keystroke emulation. That way, previously bought MT Pro licenses will not be devalued.

      • Will

        Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

  • shredd

    If midi then midi with some globals but maybe wait 20 ms

  • shredd

    If midi then midi with some globals but maybe wait 20 ms

  • shredd

    If midi then midi with some globals but maybe wait 20 ms

  • Brent Williams

    Very cool. Looks like just the thing I need…again. I thought the same thing about midipaI and iconnectmidi. I was hoping Iconnectmidi4+ would do everything I needed, and it is a great product, but they really missed the boat by not stepping up its filtering and remapping game.

    • Bome is listening! what kind of snapshot would you like to store and recall?

      • Brent Williams

        Glad you are paying attention! I would like to be able to use PC, note or CC commands to change entire mapping/filtering setups; specifically, to change one midi port or channel to another port or channel with a midi message.

        • that is quite easy with MIDI Translator Pro (and hence with the BomeBox, too).

          • Coreyyy

            Forgive me, Brent. But I want to ask, just how many translators will the bome box be able to handle? I thought the iconnect midi 4+ was going to be my solution and then it turned out it can only remap eight….EIGHT midi messages total. I’m looking for a LOT more than that. I want my virus indigo to act as a control surface for my blofeld, meaning every knob on the thing being remapped to the cc’s blofeld recieves on(including the indigo’s doubled up pages for the second filter and oscillator, etc) I’m just guessing but that may be 30-40 or more cc’s remapped. what will be my limits here on the bomebox? Please don’t let me down….

          • Coreyyy

            This was meant to be directed at Bome’s

          • virtually unlimited translators. I have tested with a few hundred, but thousands should be possible, too.

  • Brent Williams

    Very cool. Looks like just the thing I need. Then again I thought the same thing about midipaI and iconnectmidi. I was hoping Iconnectmidi4+ would do the trick, and it is a great product, but they really missed the boat by not stepping up its filtering and remapping game. If anyone at Bome is listening, please make it have snapshots that are recallable by midi! As far as I know, there is no small, off the shelf product that does this.

    • Bome is listening! what kind of snapshot would you like to store and recall?

      • Brent Williams

        Glad you are paying attention! I would like to be able to use PC, note or CC commands to change entire mapping/filtering setups; specifically, to change one midi port or channel to another port or channel with a midi message.

        • that is quite easy with MIDI Translator Pro (and hence with the BomeBox, too).

          • Coreyyy

            Forgive me, Brent. But I want to ask, just how many translators will the bome box be able to handle? I thought the iconnect midi 4+ was going to be my solution and then it turned out it can only remap eight….EIGHT midi messages total. I’m looking for a LOT more than that. I want my virus indigo to act as a control surface for my blofeld, meaning every knob on the thing being remapped to the cc’s blofeld recieves on(including the indigo’s doubled up pages for the second filter and oscillator, etc) I’m just guessing but that may be 30-40 or more cc’s remapped. what will be my limits here on the bomebox? Please don’t let me down….

          • Coreyyy

            This was meant to be directed at Bome’s

          • virtually unlimited translators. I have tested with a few hundred, but thousands should be possible, too.

  • Brent Williams

    Very cool. Looks like just the thing I need. Then again I thought the same thing about midipaI and iconnectmidi. I was hoping Iconnectmidi4+ would do the trick, and it is a great product, but they really missed the boat by not stepping up its filtering and remapping game. If anyone at Bome is listening, please make it have snapshots that are recallable by midi! As far as I know, there is no small, off the shelf product that does this.

    • Bome is listening! what kind of snapshot would you like to store and recall?

      • Brent Williams

        Glad you are paying attention! I would like to be able to use PC, note or CC commands to change entire mapping/filtering setups; specifically, to change one midi port or channel to another port or channel with a midi message.

        • that is quite easy with MIDI Translator Pro (and hence with the BomeBox, too).

          • Coreyyy

            Forgive me, Brent. But I want to ask, just how many translators will the bome box be able to handle? I thought the iconnect midi 4+ was going to be my solution and then it turned out it can only remap eight….EIGHT midi messages total. I’m looking for a LOT more than that. I want my virus indigo to act as a control surface for my blofeld, meaning every knob on the thing being remapped to the cc’s blofeld recieves on(including the indigo’s doubled up pages for the second filter and oscillator, etc) I’m just guessing but that may be 30-40 or more cc’s remapped. what will be my limits here on the bomebox? Please don’t let me down….

          • Coreyyy

            This was meant to be directed at Bome’s

          • virtually unlimited translators. I have tested with a few hundred, but thousands should be possible, too.

  • Mutis Mayfield

    And the question is… Hub usb possible or it is like the kenton and focusrite dock?
    @Peter don’t forget to mention the mobile phone/tablet snapshot control feature… 😉

    • vanceg

      I asked if the USB HOST port would support a MIDI Hub and multiple USB MIDI devices and the designer told me yes it would. I’d be planning on connecting a Softstep and a Hot Hand and a Guitar Wing via USB and converting the MIDI over USB from these devices to 5 Pin. He indicated that this should work.

      • Mutis Mayfield

        I saw it at flyer.pdf at bomebox web (and correct myself) so, yes! It seems that will support usb hub 🙂

  • Mutis Mayfield

    And the question is… Hub usb possible or it is like the kenton and focusrite dock?
    @Peter don’t forget to mention the mobile phone/tablet snapshot control feature… 😉

    • vanceg

      I asked if the USB HOST port would support a MIDI Hub and multiple USB MIDI devices and the designer told me yes it would. I’d be planning on connecting a Softstep and a Hot Hand and a Guitar Wing via USB and converting the MIDI over USB from these devices to 5 Pin. He indicated that this should work.

      • Mutis Mayfield

        I saw it at flyer.pdf at bomebox web (and correct myself) so, yes! It seems that will support usb hub 🙂

  • Mutis Mayfield

    And the question is… Hub usb possible or it is like the kenton and focusrite dock?
    @Peter don’t forget to mention the mobile phone/tablet snapshot control feature… 😉

    • vanceg

      I asked if the USB HOST port would support a MIDI Hub and multiple USB MIDI devices and the designer told me yes it would. I’d be planning on connecting a Softstep and a Hot Hand and a Guitar Wing via USB and converting the MIDI over USB from these devices to 5 Pin. He indicated that this should work.

      • Mutis Mayfield

        I saw it at flyer.pdf at bomebox web (and correct myself) so, yes! It seems that will support usb hub 🙂

  • Mutis Mayfield

    I correct myself, from the flyer at bome web it says hub and web based interface, so only need to know how much it will be and if it will be earlier than new appletv (which I expect similar features an appstore)

  • Mutis Mayfield

    I correct myself, from the flyer at bome web it says hub and web based interface, so only need to know how much it will be and if it will be earlier than new appletv (which I expect similar features an appstore)

  • Mutis Mayfield

    I correct myself, from the flyer at bome web it says hub and web based interface, so only need to know how much it will be and if it will be earlier than new appletv (which I expect similar features an appstore)

  • gary

    Whoa. I guess that means that Nativekontrol’s scripts (which use Bome’s) could run standalone. Ableton Push as a (computer-less) midi instrument including note mode and poly aftertouch anyone?

  • gary

    Whoa. I guess that means that Nativekontrol’s scripts (which use Bome’s) could run standalone. Ableton Push as a (computer-less) midi instrument including note mode and poly aftertouch anyone?

  • gary

    Whoa. I guess that means that Nativekontrol’s scripts (which use Bome’s) could run standalone. Ableton Push as a (computer-less) midi instrument including note mode and poly aftertouch anyone?

  • foljs

    Fuck! This is EXACTLY was I was googling for a 2 weeks ago!

    To find a box that lets me do MIDI transforms (like “MIDI plugins”) without a computer.

    Had found some DIY kits with boards etc, but this is exactly what I needed, already build, and sturdy.

  • foljs

    Fuck! This is EXACTLY was I was googling for a 2 weeks ago!

    To find a box that lets me do MIDI transforms (like “MIDI plugins”) without a computer.

    Had found some DIY kits with boards etc, but this is exactly what I needed, already build, and sturdy.

  • foljs

    Fuck! This is EXACTLY was I was googling for a 2 weeks ago!

    To find a box that lets me do MIDI transforms (like “MIDI plugins”) without a computer.

    Had found some DIY kits with boards etc, but this is exactly what I needed, already build, and sturdy.

  • Kinetic Monkey

    I said this about the monome modules – while this is an elegant solution to an issue that a lot of performers might have, I’m not sure if it’s more driven by this “MUST GO HARDWARE, DO NOT WANT A COMPUTER IN MY RIG” mentality. Which I don’t really understand.

    • Tom Ritchford

      A computer is a stress point. It’s delicate. It takes a chunk of table space. It grabs your eye as a performer as well as at an audience member. It’s dependent on software updates all working.

      If you’ve never had trouble with your computer or its connection to your interface in a gig, then you are a very lucky musician.

      In particular, the boringness of shows where the musician stares at a computer screen cannot be overstated. As my wife said at a show by a famous electronic musician, “What are they doing? Checking Facebook?” This is why I’m doing my setup so that I cannot see the computer now. It’s more work, but it makes for a better show for the audience.

      There are lots of advantages to a box you can throw on the floor, plug in and turn on with no fuss. I personally have to have the computer anyway, but others do not.

      • mfxpyro

        But this box IS a computer, it’s just one with no screen or keyboard, running an embedded version of the bome software and with all the interfaces you need in one handy place, yes it MAY be more reliable/rugged than a laptop but there’s no reason someone couldn’t roll their own Bome box using a small embedded PC and the same interfaces in a nice box, of course the price (when it’s announces) may not make that a worthwhile thing to do. As you say it’s probably of limited value to people that have to have a computer there anyway.

        • Tom, I agree, but not entirely with the “roll their own…” part. I don’t say that there is anything particularly special about the BomeBox, but it has a number of features which would be impossible or very difficult to achieve with just a PC or Mac. For example: webconfig (e.g. from an iPad), WiFi access point, power over ethernet, very low latency and pretty much no jitter for MIDI and Ethernet, run off a standard cell phone battery for days… If you don’t need all that, you may not need a BomeBox and that’s totally fine.

        • Some people just don’t want to roll their own, and now there is an off-the-shelf solution for them. Everybody wins.

          • gggg

            more like “most” people…..gimmie a break embedded pc boy

    • I agree this is partially driven by the current hardware-only hype, we had the exact opposite hype back when laptop-based rigs became feasible a couple of years ago. The pendulum swings back and forth, as usual.

      Looking beyond the hype, it’s just down to personal preference and circumstances. My current setup is 100% computer-based, but I have been thinking about going the hardware route. I already spend most of my waking hours in front of a computer, and sometimes it’s just not inspiring to do more of that when writing music, which is supposed to be fun and creative. Right now it feels like the continuation of work, just with different software. Obviously, YMMV.

      • DreamHike

        There is absolutely an elegance to a machine that was built for the sole purpose of creating music without the psychological ghosts of data entry and countless other mundane tasks. My octatrack will never have the ability to go on facebook and I love it for that.

  • Kinetic Monkey

    I said this about the monome modules – while this is an elegant solution to an issue that a lot of performers might have, I’m not sure if it’s more driven by this “MUST GO HARDWARE, DO NOT WANT A COMPUTER IN MY RIG” mentality. Which I don’t really understand.

    • Tom Ritchford

      A computer is a stress point. It’s delicate. It takes a chunk of table space. It grabs your eye as a performer as well as at an audience member. It’s dependent on software updates all working.

      If you’ve never had trouble with your computer or its connection to your interface in a gig, then you are a very lucky musician.

      In particular, the boringness of shows where the musician stares at a computer screen cannot be overstated. As my wife said at a show by a famous electronic musician, “What are they doing? Checking Facebook?” This is why I’m doing my setup so that I cannot see the computer now. It’s more work, but it makes for a better show for the audience.

      There are lots of advantages to a box you can throw on the floor, plug in and turn on with no fuss. I personally have to have the computer anyway, but others do not.

      • mfxpyro

        But this box IS a computer, it’s just one with no screen or keyboard, running an embedded version of the bome software and with all the interfaces you need in one handy place, yes it MAY be more reliable/rugged than a laptop but there’s no reason someone couldn’t roll their own Bome box using a small embedded PC and the same interfaces in a nice box, of course the price (when it’s announces) may not make that a worthwhile thing to do. As you say it’s probably of limited value to people that have to have a laptop etc. there anyway.

        • Tom, I agree, but not entirely with the “roll their own…” part. I don’t say that there is anything particularly special about the BomeBox, but it has a number of features which would be impossible or very difficult to achieve with just a PC or Mac. For example: webconfig (e.g. from an iPad), WiFi access point, power over ethernet, very low latency and pretty much no jitter for MIDI and Ethernet, run off a standard cell phone battery for days… If you don’t need all that, you may not need a BomeBox and that’s totally fine.

        • Some people just don’t want to roll their own, and now there is an off-the-shelf solution for them. Everybody wins.

          • gggg

            more like “most” people…..gimmie a break embedded pc boy

    • I agree this is partially driven by the current hardware-only hype, we had the exact opposite hype back when laptop-based rigs became feasible a couple of years ago. The pendulum swings back and forth, as usual.

      Looking beyond the hype, it’s just down to personal preference and circumstances. My current setup is 100% computer-based, but I have been thinking about going the hardware route. I already spend most of my waking hours in front of a computer, and sometimes it’s just not inspiring to do more of that when writing music, which is supposed to be fun and creative. Right now it feels like the continuation of work, just with different software. Obviously, YMMV.

      • DreamHike

        There is absolutely an elegance to a machine that was built for the sole purpose of creating music without the psychological ghosts of data entry and countless other mundane tasks. My octatrack will never have the ability to go on facebook and I love it for that.

  • I said this about the monome modules – while this is an elegant solution to an issue that a lot of performers might have, I’m not sure if it’s more driven by this “MUST GO HARDWARE, DO NOT WANT A COMPUTER IN MY RIG” mentality. Which I don’t really understand.

    • Tom Ritchford

      A computer is a stress point. It’s delicate. It takes a chunk of table space. It grabs your eye as a performer as well as at an audience member. It’s dependent on software updates all working.

      If you’ve never had trouble with your computer or its connection to your interface in a gig, then you are a very lucky musician.

      In particular, the boringness of shows where the musician stares at a computer screen cannot be overstated. As my wife said at a show by a famous electronic musician, “What are they doing? Checking Facebook?” This is why I’m doing my setup so that I cannot see the computer now. It’s more work, but it makes for a better show for the audience.

      There are lots of advantages to a box you can throw on the floor, plug in and turn on with no fuss. I personally have to have the computer anyway, but others do not.

      • mfxpyro

        But this box IS a computer, it’s just one with no screen or keyboard, running an embedded version of the bome software and with all the interfaces you need in one handy place, yes it MAY be more reliable/rugged than a laptop but there’s no reason someone couldn’t roll their own Bome box using a small embedded PC and the same interfaces in a nice box, of course the price (when it’s announces) may not make that a worthwhile thing to do. As you say it’s probably of limited value to people that have to have a laptop etc. there anyway.

        • Tom, I agree, but not entirely with the “roll their own…” part. I don’t say that there is anything particularly special about the BomeBox, but it has a number of features which would be impossible or very difficult to achieve with just a PC or Mac. For example: webconfig (e.g. from an iPad), WiFi access point, power over ethernet, very low latency and pretty much no jitter for MIDI and Ethernet, run off a standard cell phone battery for days… If you don’t need all that, you may not need a BomeBox and that’s totally fine.

        • Some people just don’t want to roll their own, and now there is an off-the-shelf solution for them. Everybody wins.

          • gggg

            more like “most” people…..gimmie a break embedded pc boy

    • I agree this is partially driven by the current hardware-only hype, we had the exact opposite hype back when laptop-based rigs became feasible a couple of years ago. The pendulum swings back and forth, as usual.

      Looking beyond the hype, it’s just down to personal preference and circumstances. My current setup is 100% computer-based, but I have been thinking about going the hardware route. I already spend most of my waking hours in front of a computer, and sometimes it’s just not inspiring to do more of that when writing music, which is supposed to be fun and creative. Right now it feels like the continuation of work, just with different software. Obviously, YMMV.

      • DreamHike

        There is absolutely an elegance to a machine that was built for the sole purpose of creating music without the psychological ghosts of data entry and countless other mundane tasks. My octatrack will never have the ability to go on facebook and I love it for that.

  • Ryan Laws

    I haven’t worked with Bome before, but can you use programmatic constructs like variables, arrays, and conditional statements? If so, this could be a great tool for building a modal interface for live use with a USB controller and a hardware sequencer or two.

    • Currently, MT (and the BomeBox) offer a very simple scripting language with just a few commands and variables. But it gives a lot of power already. You can connect more MIDI interfaces and gear via a USB hub.

      • Paranormal Patrol

        USB hub functionality is great! Now all you need to do is make a modular GUI environment out of the functions and allow users to plug the in a creative fashion. Port the patch on the BomeBox and BAM! you’re going to sell a ton of these.

  • Ryan Laws

    I haven’t worked with Bome before, but can you use programmatic constructs like variables, arrays, and conditional statements? If so, this could be a great tool for building a modal interface for live use with a USB controller and a hardware sequencer or two.

    EDIT: Would also be sweet if you could attach a hub for connecting multiple devices. Or a MIDI interface with multiple ports to expand the I/O.

    • Currently, MT (and the BomeBox) offer a very simple scripting language with just a few commands and variables. But it gives a lot of power already. You can connect more MIDI interfaces and gear via a USB hub.

      • Paranormal Patrol

        USB hub functionality is great! Now all you need to do is make a modular GUI environment out of the functions and allow users to plug the in a creative fashion. Port the patch on the BomeBox and BAM! you’re going to sell a ton of these.

  • Ryan Laws

    I haven’t worked with Bome before, but can you use programmatic constructs like variables, arrays, and conditional statements? If so, this could be a great tool for building a modal interface for live use with a USB controller and a hardware sequencer or two.

    EDIT: Would also be sweet if you could attach a hub for connecting multiple devices. Or a MIDI interface with multiple ports to expand the I/O.

    • Currently, MT (and the BomeBox) offer a very simple scripting language with just a few commands and variables. But it gives a lot of power already. You can connect more MIDI interfaces and gear via a USB hub.

      • Paranormal Patrol

        USB hub functionality is great! Now all you need to do is make a modular GUI environment out of the functions and allow users to plug the in a creative fashion. Port the patch on the BomeBox and BAM! you’re going to sell a ton of these.

  • cooptrol

    It is amazing that it had to come to people designing this kind of things just because MIDI controller manufacturers have a childish reluctance to put some damn DIN connectors on their products. We cant just be using BCR2000s and Novation SLs forever!!

  • cooptrol

    It is amazing that it had to come to people designing this kind of things just because MIDI controller manufacturers have a childish reluctance to put some damn DIN connectors on their products. We cant just be using BCR2000s and Novation SLs forever!!

  • cooptrol

    It is amazing that it had to come to people designing this kind of things just because MIDI controller manufacturers have a childish reluctance to put some damn DIN connectors on their products. We cant just be using BCR2000s and Novation SLs forever!!

  • Gabriel Rey-Goodlatte

    This is totally awesome. Congratulations, Bome!

  • Gabriel Rey-Goodlatte

    This is totally awesome. Congratulations, Bome!

  • Gabriel Rey-Goodlatte

    This is totally awesome. Congratulations, Bome!

  • vanceg

    This was one of the very most useful looking devices I saw at NAMM. Bome translator is excellent and having it in a hardware form where I can run it without a laptop attached will be a great addition to live rigs.

  • vanceg

    This was one of the very most useful looking devices I saw at NAMM. Bome translator is excellent and having it in a hardware form where I can run it without a laptop attached will be a great addition to live rigs.

  • vanceg

    This was one of the very most useful looking devices I saw at NAMM. Bome translator is excellent and having it in a hardware form where I can run it without a laptop attached will be a great addition to live rigs.

  • poopoo

    What is the ethernet midi standard used? Is it RTP-midi?

    Currently I have second PC in my studio that just converts rtp-midi to usb-midi. It would be cool to replace it with a bome box. The named rtp-midi connections are cool. The remote midi ports can be named in rtp so the ports in Ableton match the synths connected on the remote end.

    • sorry, in the first version it does not support RTP-MIDI. We may add it later, depending on demand. We are using an own network protocol which does not require third-party drivers on Windows and OS X, and it has auto discovery, so you can select boxes/desktops by name, and you can connect BomeBoxes without the need of a computer (by way of the “pairing” button).

      • Paranormal Patrol

        Any chance you’ll be cooperating with Copperlan for the Ethernet usage?

        • Similar as with RTP-MIDI — depends on demand.

  • poopoo

    What is the ethernet midi standard used? Is it RTP-midi?

    Currently I have second PC in my studio that just converts rtp-midi to usb-midi. It would be cool to replace it with a bome box. The named rtp-midi connections are cool. The remote midi ports can be named in rtp so the ports in Ableton match the synths connected on the remote end.

    • sorry, in the first version it does not support RTP-MIDI. We may add it later, depending on demand. We are using an own network protocol which does not require third-party drivers on Windows and OS X, and it has auto discovery, so you can select boxes/desktops by name, and you can connect BomeBoxes without the need of a computer (by way of the “pairing” button).

      • Paranormal Patrol

        Any chance you’ll be cooperating with Copperlan for the Ethernet usage?

        • Similar as with RTP-MIDI — depends on demand.

  • poopoo

    What is the ethernet midi standard used? Is it RTP-midi?

    Currently I have second PC in my studio that just converts rtp-midi to usb-midi. It would be cool to replace it with a bome box. The named rtp-midi connections are cool. The remote midi ports can be named in rtp so the ports in Ableton match the synths connected on the remote end.

    • sorry, in the first version it does not support RTP-MIDI. We may add it later, depending on demand. We are using an own network protocol which does not require third-party drivers on Windows and OS X, and it has auto discovery, so you can select boxes/desktops by name, and you can connect BomeBoxes without the need of a computer (by way of the “pairing” button).

      • Paranormal Patrol

        Any chance you’ll be cooperating with Copperlan for the Ethernet usage?

        • Similar as with RTP-MIDI — depends on demand.