Hi everyone!
Andrea Rigonat here ,I ve been struggling to solve the latency of my QC and after many tests I ve found that if you stay on a single row it stays around 2/3ms which is gold compared to 6 to 10 ms if you use two rows of blocks.
So I hope in the future we could use two rows having less latency possible 
Really? That’s interesting. I haven’t found the QC’s latency to be noticable, even though I’ve split my presets between lanes 1 and 3. I know some folks are more sensitive to it than others.
1 Like
Those folks are the ones that have years of experience in recording studios playing to a click track or sequences 
1 Like
Hi Andrea @Ringo !
Thanks for the tipp with row1 only, will try!
Just out of curiosity and since I’m not very sensitive to latency myself (if it’s below 10ms):
Do you also notice it on stage when the amp/cab is at a certain distance?
2 Likes
thanks Andrea @Ringo for the tip!! I’m having a lot of latency issues too! about 9ms with a not too big patch! I hope they fix this soon because such a powerful machine can’t possibly have that much latency! Thanks again
2 Likes
I’ve found the same ”feel problem” when I use bigger presets. The attack when hitting strings isn’t right. No wonder, if QC adds this much latency when using both 1/2 and 3/4 lines.
This is actually really bad to be honest.
4 Likes
Hey everyone,
@PeterO and I have been doing some pretty accurate measurements of the QC here. (latency & Send levels so far)
If someone’s interested and would like to add things we missed, we could build a reference post with the real numbers for anyone wondering about latency, levels, etc.
5 Likes
Thanks to those doing latency testing. Keep 'em coming.
Although low latency measurements with no blocks loaded provides a positive baseline, ultimately it is irrelevant if using multiple rows or placing blocks on those rows jacks the latency up to easily perceptible levels.
I expect some latency to be added in effects loops due to additional D/A and A/D conversion as long as it is not excessive.
I also expect some additional latency if a particular effect block is extremely resource intensive. It is concerning though to see the use of a splitter, additional rows, or “bread & butter” amps or effects adding significant latency. That should not be happening and should light a fire under efforts to optimize the QC’s code. I would prefer not to have a squishy feel originating with my modeler when every foot of distance from my monitor is adding approximately a millisecond and only going to exacerbate the issue.
Although I am always a fan of temporary workarounds, not using rows 3&4 or being compelled to use fewer blocks to avoid latency verges on the absurd. Definitely looking forward to low latency being a top priority in future updates.
3 Likes
Thanks!! I hope they fix VERY SOON!!!
1 Like
a pedalboard with this power cannot have this problem !!! and it is very serious that Neural does not say or do anything about it! I am very angry if they don’t fix it I will be forced to sell it
1 Like
My thoughts on QC latency:
Lower is always better, of course…
At the moment, my presets have around 3 to 7ms of latency.
Which is roughly the same effect like standing 0.3 to 0.7m further away from the amp cab.
EDIT It’s actually 1 to 2.4m, thanks to @thomasotto for spotting my mistake.
For me, it is not noticable at all.
However, it seems that the perception of latency is very different for different players, so coming back to the first point, if Neural can decrease it, perfect.
1 Like
You’re right, latency is adding up to the distance from the cab.
Which works in the other direction as well, if you can move 3 ft or 1m closer to the cab, you have compensated QCs latency.
But nevertheless, I think Neural can and should optimize a bit more, so that the QC is more in the “best in class” range.
I’m starting to be super tired of all these negative findings on QC (Latency, Ground issues, Level issues…) and NDSP empty promises, slow development.
IK Multimedia might release ToneX Multi-FX unit in the near future… or maybe Fractal or Line6 puts a new unit out. Thank god we have options.
1 Like
7ms is equivalent to 2.4 meters (7.87 feet) distance from the source.
Add 1 meter / 3.28 feet (kinda the closest you would play from your amp on a tight stage) and you get 9.91ms of perceived latency.
The feeling of being 3.4 meters (7ms + 1 meter real distance) away from your amp is what you would get on a big stage. Except you’re not. The kind of thing that messes up my brain whilst playing…
Should you wish to calculate milliseconds to meters…
1 Like
You’re completely right with the 2.4m, my calculation was wrong, I think I fell in the feet / m trap somehow. Thanks for the correction.
Hey @Andyjcp !
Wasn’t meant as a “correction”…
I’m just friggin’ uptight with numbers and especially latency.
Not perceived as correction, no worries.
I’m happy that you spotted it, since I’m also quite uptight with numbers, usually 
I was wondering if I was more used to latency since I’m 2m tall, so my ears are usually at least 2m away from the cab anyhow 
Which means that if I lie flat on the ground while playing, I could compensate the QC latency
I wait the next update and see what it brings …And put real amps in standby 
@Ringo if they don’t solve it with the new Firmware, I take my QC and use it to play football
For those who are unhappy with the latency, what would be an acceptable figure from your point of view?
And don’t get me wrong, I’m really curious, I’m not trying to defend NDSP or the QC in general.