Question What do MIDI Names Mean?

[mobius017]

I have what's probably a really basic question: what do the MIDI names mean? For instance, the names you see for vocaloids' optimal tonal ranges, like C4, F3, etc.

I had been thinking that they basically corresponded to the keys on a piano roll, with the letters proceeding A-G from left to right (lower to higher pitch), and the numbers going up similarly, numbering each occurrence of each letter. So you would start with A1, proceed through B1-G1, and then begin again with A2. A2 would then be 1 octave higher than A1.

However, when working in Anvil Studio, I've just seen that A4 is apparently a higher pitch than F4. Checking where it's plotting the notes on the piano roll, F4 is actually not the fourth occurrence of F--it's putting F4 where I would expect F3 to have been. So it seems like there's something wrong with my understanding.

Can anyone explain this to me, or link to an article? (The articles I've seen want to talk about how MIDI relates to tonal pitches in hertz, or else discuss the MIDI specification without any indication of how the note names work.)

 

[Move->Forward]

It is exactly what you are thinking! Sometimes, though, the numbers will be a little off, such as VOCALOID's A1 may sound like the same pitch as a DAW's A2, meaning one of them is a lower octave than the other.

 

[mobius017]

Oh, cool, thanks! Maybe Anvil's being weird. I'm in C Major scale on the bass clef, and it says that the line at the top of the staff is A4, and the line immediately underneath that is F4. It should be F3, I would've thought. I'm glad at least that I know what the names are supposed to be!

 

[owls]

On a piano, the numbering starts with the C
So, it'll be C4 D4 E4 F4 G4 A4 B4 C5 D5... in that order

 

[mobius017]

Ohh...! That would do it. Thank you!

 

[owls]

Ohh...! That would do it. Thank you!

Glad to helps!
Fire any other music production question you have my way if so you wish!

 

[squeaky_chair]

There are three main note numbering schemes.

The first is scientific pitch notation, which defines middle C as C4. If you're classically trained, go to Juilliard, or anything like that, this is the note numbering you will learn.

The second is MIDI pitch notation, which defines middle C as C5. MIDI uses 7-bit variables for notes, which allows for 128 possibilities. When defining the MIDI standard in the early 1980s, middle C was plonked somewhere roughly halfway, and because a range of 128 notes extends both lower and higher than "normal" instruments, middle C found itself positioned at C5 instead of C4.

Finally, there Yamaha pitch notation, which defines middle C at C3. Nearly only Yamaha uses this system. Why does Yamaha use its own system? I have no idea. I guess they like to be different.

The real question is, what pitch notation system is used to advertise Vocaloid pitch ranges? I suspect that the Yamaha system is used, simply because Yamaha owns Vocaloid technology. This mean you have to add two to get the MIDI note values.

 

[Leon]

That's really interesting! Thank you for taking the time to explain :)

 

[mobius017]

Finally, there Yamaha pitch notation, which defines middle C at C3. Nearly only Yamaha uses this system. Why does Yamaha use its own system? I have no idea. I guess they like to be different.

The real question is, what pitch notation system is used to advertise Vocaloid pitch ranges? I suspect that the Yamaha system is used, simply because Yamaha owns Vocaloid technology. This mean you have to add two to get the MIDI note values.

Oh, that's really interesting. That might be something to keep in mind when using Yamaha's Vocaloid editor, too. Anyone know if it uses Yamaha notation, also? If it does, wouldn't that skew everything when you import your vocaloid stuff into whatever DAW you're using (i.e., it'd throw off your vocaloid pitches relative to the instrumental pitches)?

(Though it's kind of hard to believe that's the case. That seems like the kind of thing users would hate.)

 

[squeaky_chair]

...wouldn't that skew everything when you import your vocaloid stuff into whatever DAW you're using (i.e., it'd throw off your vocaloid pitches relative to the instrumental pitches)?

If I write a middle C in my notation software, it is labelled as C4 (scientific pitch notation middle C). If I then export that as a MIDI file, middle C is converted to note #60, which is how MIDI actually stores note pitches. If this file is imported into my DAW, note #60 will be labelled as C5. Most DAWs (in my experience) will label middle C as C5, with the notable exception of Cubase, which is owned by Yamaha. However, if I import the same MIDI file into Piapro Studio, note #60 is labelled as C3 (Yamaha pitch notation middle C). In all cases, the correct pitch is maintained, so you shouldn't have to worry.

(I don't use Yamaha's Vocaloid editor, but it's reasonable to assume that it also correctly interprets MIDI pitch.)

Personally speaking, I wish manufacturers would just settle on the old-school scientific notation.

Bonus: What's extra sucky about Yamaha pitch notation is that even "real" instruments, such as some pipe organs, require the use of negative numbers, which has the potential for confusion. For example, is "C-1" Yamaha's numbering for the lowest note (C0) of an octobass? Or was somebody just trying to be fancy by adding a dash between the note letter and the note number, and "C-1" is actually scientific notation for the lowest note (C1) of a doublebass? Of course, negative numbers can also be used with scientific pitch notation, but scientific C0 is already a lower frequency than human ears can hear.

 

[mobius017]

If I write a middle C in my notation software, it is labelled as C4 (scientific pitch notation middle C). If I then export that as a MIDI file, middle C is converted to note #60, which is how MIDI actually stores note pitches. If this file is imported into my DAW, note #60 will be labelled as C5. Most DAWs (in my experience) will label middle C as C5, with the notable exception of Cubase, which is owned by Yamaha. However, if I import the same MIDI file into Piapro Studio, note #60 is labelled as C3 (Yamaha pitch notation middle C). In all cases, the correct pitch is maintained, so you shouldn't have to worry.

(I don't use Yamaha's Vocaloid editor, but it's reasonable to assume that it also correctly interprets MIDI pitch.)

Personally speaking, I wish manufacturers would just settle on the old-school scientific notation.

Oh, that's good. Thank you for the explanation!

What you're describing uses notation software as a base and then converts to the Vocaloid software/DAW. So there's like an unbiased standard from which the other two take instructions and convert accordingly to suit themselves. If you didn't do that, though, am I right in thinking you'd still have to keep an eye on it, though? For instance, suppose you had C5 in your DAW, and you wanted to get the same pitch from your Vocaloid. If you just put C5 into Piapro/the Vocaloid Editor, wouldn't it then render sounding like C7 from the DAW's perspective (which is what you were trying to match)?

(Though, having said that, I've actually been doing what you talked about. I don't have the most solid pre-existing music education, but I've been doing notation with Anvil Studio and converting. Off-topic, but what notation software are you using? I sometimes have issues with Anvil.)

Yeah, I'm all for standards--better for using, and better for learning, too.

 

[squeaky_chair]

If you didn't do that, though, am I right in thinking you'd still have to keep an eye on it, though?

Yeah, knowing the range before you start composing is important. In fact, when I first bought Hatsune Miku, I figured the advertised pitch range of A3 to E5 was scientific notation. This was because: A) I didn’t know that Yamaha had their own pitch notation system. B) If the pitch range used the note naming scheme used by most MIDI software, E5 would be just slightly above middle C, which would be ridiculously low.

At the time I did think that E5 was a tad lower than expected, but it was quite workable, so I went with that. The result is that all five of my Miku tracks are an octave too low. (Sort of. I did discover that going higher was fine, so there are some notes that sound above what I thought was Miku’s range.)

I only learned about Yamaha pitch notation a couple of months ago when I began looking at the advertised ranges of other Vocaloids. Something seemed amiss, and with a bit of searching I learned that Yamaha labels middle C as C3. Yikes. A third naming system? Why does this even exist?

But despite completing five Vocaloid songs while being ignorant of Yamaha pitch notation, using Miku an octave lower sounds perfectly fine. Kinda smooth, in fact, so I have no intention of going back to “correct” my work.

For instance, suppose you had C5 in your DAW, and you wanted to get the same pitch from your Vocaloid. If you just put C5 into Piapro/the Vocaloid Editor, wouldn't it then render sounding like C7 from the DAW's perspective (which is what you were trying to match)?

I’ve never used Anvil Studio, but a quick search found that according to their history page ( Anvil Studio Release History ), on 2013.01.07 they added a checkbox in View / Options / Staff that allows the user to set middle C to C4, which is scientific pitch notation. (Presumably the default is C5.) So you may only have to add one from the advertised Vocaloid range to get the correct octave, depending upon your settings.

Off-topic, but what notation software are you using?

In the not-so-distant past I used manuscript paper, a pencil, and (most importantly) eraser for initial composing. I then cleaned things up and did the arrangement in Notion, which is a terrible notation software package that lacks features and corrupts save files—avoid. Then I would export as MIDI and import into FL Studio. The idea was to make electronic music, but I have no talent for sound design, and although messing with synthesizers is fun, I ironically don’t care for electronic music.

Currently, I still use pencil, paper, and eraser for intial composing, but then input everything into Sibelius. Sibelius is a full-featured notation package, but it’s terrible to use. I bought it because it was the only notation software that NotePeformer2 supported. However, shortly after buying Sibelius, NotePeformer3 was released, which supports Sibelius, Finale, and Dorico. Finale is also awkward to use, but Dorico looks promising, even though it’s the new kid on the block. I’ll probably switch in a year or two, when Dorico’s feature set has stabilized.

I still use FL Studio, but just to mix the stems from NotePeformer3, add reverb, and make music videos using the built-in ZGameEditor Visualizer. The makers of FL Studio treat their customers well, and give you lifetime free updates, unlike Sibelius which robs your bank account once a month, or once a year, depending upon your plan. I hope Dorico has a better billing system. NotePeformer2 to NotePeformer3 upgrade was free, and I'm very happy with the software—it's awesome!

 

[mobius017]

Yeah, knowing the range before you start composing is important. In fact, when I first bought Hatsune Miku, I figured the advertised pitch range of A3 to E5 was scientific notation. This was because: A) I didn’t know that Yamaha had their own pitch notation system. B) If the pitch range used the note naming scheme used by most MIDI software, E5 would be just slightly above middle C, which would be ridiculously low.

At the time I did think that E5 was a tad lower than expected, but it was quite workable, so I went with that. The result is that all five of my Miku tracks are an octave too low. (Sort of. I did discover that going higher was fine, so there are some notes that sound above what I thought was Miku’s range.)

I only learned about Yamaha pitch notation a couple of months ago when I began looking at the advertised ranges of other Vocaloids. Something seemed amiss, and with a bit of searching I learned that Yamaha labels middle C as C3. Yikes. A third naming system? Why does this even exist?

But despite completing five Vocaloid songs while being ignorant of Yamaha pitch notation, using Miku an octave lower sounds perfectly fine. Kinda smooth, in fact, so I have no intention of going back to “correct” my work.

That's been my experience, too. I've worked throughout her advertised range, and as I've experimented beyond that, it's been my experience that she favors going above it as opposed to going below it. I, too, was looking at going about an octave below, and it didn't come out well, but I may have been nearer her lower advertised limit than you were. It's good to hear about those lower range notes!

I’ve never used Anvil Studio, but a quick search found that according to their history page ( Anvil Studio Release History ), on 2013.01.07 they added a checkbox in View / Options / Staff that allows the user to set middle C to C4, which is scientific pitch notation. (Presumably the default is C5.) So you may only have to add one from the advertised Vocaloid range to get the correct octave, depending upon your settings.

In the not-so-distant past I used manuscript paper, a pencil, and (most importantly) eraser for initial composing. I then cleaned things up and did the arrangement in Notion, which is a terrible notation software package that lacks features and corrupts save files—avoid. Then I would export as MIDI and import into FL Studio. The idea was to make electronic music, but I have no talent for sound design, and although messing with synthesizers is fun, I ironically don’t care for electronic music.

Currently, I still use pencil, paper, and eraser for intial composing, but then input everything into Sibelius. Sibelius is a full-featured notation package, but it’s terrible to use. I bought it because it was the only notation software that NotePeformer2 supported. However, shortly after buying Sibelius, NotePeformer3 was released, which supports Sibelius, Finale, and Dorico. Finale is also awkward to use, but Dorico looks promising, even though it’s the new kid on the block. I’ll probably switch in a year or two, when Dorico’s feature set has stabilized.

I still use FL Studio, but just to mix the stems from NotePeformer3, add reverb, and make music videos using the built-in ZGameEditor Visualizer. The makers of FL Studio treat their customers well, and give you lifetime free updates, unlike Sibelius which robs your bank account once a month, or once a year, depending upon your plan. I hope Dorico has a better billing system. NotePeformer2 to NotePeformer3 upgrade was free, and I'm very happy with the software—it's awesome!

Thanks for the insights! Anvil isn't too bad, but it can get problematic if you have your score all laid out and want to change something in the middle. It tries to automatically keep things kosher for you, but that can mean that it makes changes you don't want before you can go on to do what you had in mind (e.g., if you delete a note, it may adjust things to account for the removal before you can add a replacement. I also hate what it does with rests. There's a setting for the smallest note you can show in the score, which I think is to blame, but often enough when I add a rest in, it will represent something like a quarter rest as a combination of a bunch of 16th/32nd rests. I'm not afraid of a bit of math, but adding a crap ton of 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 fractions to see what Anvil is doing and to get things to come out right is not what I want to do; anyway, math is a logical activity, and having to switch over to it every so often when Anvil does something weird kills the creative mojo. Plus, it most recently put in an 1/8 note (which was what I wanted) but treats it like a 1/16 note or something (even showing it as such in the properties, despite how it draws the note on the score). Still, it's free, and I'll probably try to use it in small doses during which I can hope to depend on it.

It's good to hear about Notion. Studio One (my DAW, which came with Miku) seems to have some kind of deal with PreSonus, so I'd thought of using it, but maybe that wouldn't be a good idea. Maybe I'll look at one of the others sometime, though, or something like MuseScore is a possibility, too.

Anyway, getting back to the main topic, thanks very much for all the insights on the MIDI stuff!