using more than one iConnect MIDI interface

onthe1

I'm thinking of upgrading my mio4 to either a mio10 or instead getting another iConnectivity interface in addition to the mio4.  I'm tryng to figure out if it would add a layer of incompatibility or inconvenience by adding a second interface as opposed to replacing my current mio for a new one.

I understand that a second iConnectivity interface can be plugged into the host port of the first and then they will both show up in iConfig or Auracle.  In that case will they both show up in iConfig on the same matrix of inputs and outputs?  Can ports be freely connected between two iConnectivity interfaces when used together?

dirk

Hi, has this been sorted out? This question is pending for me as well.

rodney

Here's a screenshot using the latest released version of Auracle. It's a mio4 with a MIDI2 connected to its USB-MIDI Host port. This is how it will look when you plug it in without changing any of the port names:

dirk

Hi, if I plug in a iCM4+ into the host port of another iCM4+, how many ports of the second will be available to the one that hosts? I understand that if I interconnect them using ethernet and a switch, I'll only have 4 gateway ports (correct me if I'm wrong) but what about USB? Limited to 8? Thanks

rodney

Yes, 8 virtual ports in total on a USB-MIDI Host port.

If you connect each of them to a computer via Ethernet you will have 4 virtual ports per interface.

dirk

Ok thanks. But if there's no computer involved, just a ethernet switch, each interface will see the other one's 4 ethernet ports, is that correct? Sorry to ask possible redundant questions.....

The case is: my iCM4+ is totally populated, including 7 of the 8 USB host ports, routing and filtering has been used in extenso, and I need to add some more equipment that needs bi-directional midi AND individual routing/filtering (so daisy-chaining via thru ports using separate channels is not an option). Because 7 out of 8 USB ports are populated, it makes not much sense to plug in an additional iCM4+ in the 8th slot because I only will have 1 gateway port. I could do with 4 gateway ports over ethernet but as I said, there's no computer involved in this set-up so I just want to make sure I order the right product . So same issue as OP: expand by adding a box, or change for a mio10. I'd rather expand.... my current set-up took me over 6 months to fine-tune.

rodney

But if there's no computer involved, just a ethernet switch, each interface will see the other one's 4 ethernet ports, is that correct? 

Yes.

Tricky choice. You would probably be better off with a mio10.

onthe1

To resurrect my old thread here, now that new interfaces are out and I have a mio10 now instead of a mio4, what routing limitations would be manifested if I got a mioXL and plugged them both in via ethernet? (to each other, to a switch- whichever works better)

Thanks for the infoformation, and for making such great interfaces.

onthe1

PS. I wish other companies would jump on board the rtp-MIDI train, like Bome.  I need as much MIDI connection options as possible and with the best latency and error free operation.

P.P.S.

I'm hesitant to buy a mioXL as although the increased networking possibilities look great, Auracle for X series still doesn't offer all of the options of the older software, correct?  CC remapping for example?

Thanks again.

glm1051

Hi,
The boards are not that active unfortunately... Did you ever figure this out? I have a MiO 10 and consider adding an XL... I'm not sure if it works well.

studiogibon

Hello,

we have 4x mio10 and 4x mioXL and it's the best solution we've found so far so we definitely recommend it. We also have the AMT8, which still works great, but it's via USB, so it's only a short distance away from the computer. We also had a couple of Midex, but they ended due to drivers. Again, we really recommend the mioXL even though it has less physical I/O than the mio10, but the RTP is priceless.