I have read with great interest the postings about this subject.
I am completely stumped by the oxymoron contained in some of them.
How can people who revere the ingenuity of the inventors of our
mechanical musical instruments, in one breath, turn around and
belittle the ingenuity of the modern inventors who are trying to
improve on those inventions in the next?

I have seen demonstrations of several instruments that have had MIDI
interfaces installed.  If anything, those instruments have sounded
better with the modern interface.  When original rolls are scanned
using an optical scanner like those developed in the Rollscanners group
and converted to MIDI, it is usually impossible to tell the difference
between a performance from a roll and one from the MIDI interface.

The only time you can tell a difference is when the MIDI performance is
better because of the lack of tracking errors and "discords" created by
non-flat paper or speed variations due to paper slippage.  In addition,
anyone who has heard a demonstration of a Violano fitted with the Ames
MIDI system playing the "Flight of the Bumblebee" cannot help but be
impressed by the potential of that machine.  If that piece were cut in
paper, it would probably fall apart due to insufficient paper left to
hold it together!

I work in the audio industry.  I have heard all the arguments from
misguided audiophiles who claim that vacuum tube amplifiers sound
better than solid state ones, and that analog is better than digital.
In blindfold tests, these people often choose the "wrong" system as
their "better" choice, and then spend countless hours explaining that
they must have had a cold which blocked up their ears so that they
couldn't really select the "right" system.

It is this same "expert opinion" attitude that makes people think they
can tell the difference between a MIDI controlled performance and a
paper roll controlled one.  Yes, there are bad MIDI arrangements out
there, but there are also bad paper roll arrangements.  But for
comparable arrangements, they are equivalent.

The advantages of a properly installed MIDI interface that does not
damage the integrity of the original machine far outweigh the outcries
of the misguided purists.  Adding a non-destructive MIDI interface is
much better than all the roll format conversions that have been done on
band organs, for example, yet these are done regularly.

Personally, I can't wait to get a MIDI interface installed in my Mills
Violano.  While I own over 100 rolls for my machine, most of the
original rolls are barely functional, even after extensive restoration
work.  The feeder on these machines was designed for use with new
paper.  It can destroy old rolls in the blink of an eye.  As a result,
I cannot sit back and enjoy an old roll on this machine because I have
to have my finger on the stop button "just in case".

In addition, the original rolls often have one good selection on them
and four filler tunes.  The good song is frequently at the end of the
roll, and there is no fast forward on a Violano.  This was great
marketing practice for the Mills Novelty Company for getting 5 nickels
to hear that one good song.  It is terrible for home use.  With MIDI,
I will be able to hear just the songs I want to.

There is one good thing about having so many die-hard roll-only
collectors in this hobby.  When my optical scanner is finished later
this month, and when I can afford to install a MIDI interface, there
will be a ready supply of buyers for my tired old rolls that I will
be selling!

Jack Breen
Southboro, Massachusetts