Latency Monitor rather than a CPU Monitor (or both if possible)

I would rather see a Preset Latency Monitor than a CPU Monitor in the top right hand corner.
It would help us all in making choices and slimming down the grid if necessary.

Also, that CPU percentage is calculated for all rows. Kinda confusing when it (hypothetically) says 50% and you can’t add anything to Rows 1 & 2.

Or even better : an advanced menu where one would choose the buffer size (the latency).
If audio cracks, slim it down or up the buffer.
Basically like in any recording studio.

We kinda live in a digital instrument/amp/effect world now.

It seems none of the Kemper, Line6, Quad Cortex, etc. have a latency monitor (correct me if I’m wrong).
Whereas every DAW has one…

Aren’t recording engineers and musicians playing in the same park ?

What am I missing ?


I’m guessing a DAW absolutely must have a latency monitor as it runs on a general purpose computer so the DAW maybe sharing resources with other applications (and the operating system itself will not provide real time guarantees).

While a modelling device should provide real-time guarantees without the need for the user to consider it (in an ideal world of course :smiley: )

I get what you just said but that ideal world sadly doesn’t exist (on no modeler whatever the brand)

Plus, as of now, latency is variable on the QC and other modelers (so that a 1 block preset runs quicker than 10 blocks)

So why not be the first with the QC to bridge that gap between the Audio Recording World (where usually you want to know exactly what the latency is) and the Instrument World (where ideally you prioritise latency and efficiency vs looks, pedalboard or led colour)

1 Like

Oh yeah, I’m not saying it’s a good reason for not having a latency a monitor in a platform as complex as the QC, just commenting on potential reasons for the apparent gap you pointed out.

I’d like to see this feature too (hence the vote :slight_smile: )

edit and the numbers you are reporting are absolute gold by they way. Your effort is much appreciated!


Just to make sure : I wasn’t harsh at all (or trying to be)… :hugs:

While a modelling device should provide real-time guarantees without the need for the user to consider it (in an ideal world of course :smiley: )

I guess the tech isn’t there yet for a modeler that would eat up 4 rows of Blocks and FXLoops in under 6ms.

We’re (us humans) still running after Moore’s law with greater and greater difficulty.
Maybe one of these days we’ll witness a breakthrough.
But wait… What am I going to moan about ? And what am I going to geek out on ?

:thinking: :roll_eyes: :rofl:


Please don’t get too hung up on measuring latencies!

I know many professional guitar players who use a digital wireless system, a digital effects and/or amp modeller, goes into a digital mixing desk, and uses digital IEM.
Each component in that chain is adding latency, but it’s not perceived as a problem by the guitar player.

So many of us will not have a problem with the latencies in the QC and those who are sensitive to even the lowest latencies will know if the latency is to high when they build a patch, without having to measure it.


We will. Take a look at some of the recent advances with quantum computing. Theoretically capable of operating in 11-dimensional space. “Eleven dimensions” hah! I would have laughed at this in the past as being strictly the province of comic books and straight-to-video sci-fi ‘B’ movies. Nope, it is actually a thing.

Who knows how long, if ever, before we start seeing quantum computing in modelers though? Tricky I would imagine getting this tech down to a consumer price point and moving from theoretical to technical know-how so developers can take advantage of it.

Quantum computing could represent a paradigm shift though shattering Moore’s incremental gains into at least eleven :grin: pieces.

This is such a great idea, upvoted!

I find the CPU Monitor to be pretty useless since a single number doesn’t capture many important important details (how busy each individual core is, memory usage, etc.), so it’s a rather poor predictor of where you might run into limitations.

I would find it very helpful to be able to monitor and optimize latency of my presets without employing a complicated external measurement setup.


Probably the most important think I would like to improve :love_you_gesture:

1 Like

@thomasotto great idea! and we hope Neural listens to you (us) !! :+1:

actually shitty from neural to close all threads that talk about latency.
My preset is at 12ms (checked today).
I have meddled with the QC for months now trying to figure out why I don’t like the sound regardless of me tweaking along.
I have to basically get rid off 90% of the things that actually separate the QC from the competition to get a sound/feel that I like. OD/AMP/Impulse on one row.

Rather than having a latency monitor, I would like them to completely separate CPU1 and 2 so that row 3/4 can work completely separate from row 1 /2.
All rows sharing latency is such a major bummer. man…