Latency "solved"

@Niksounds we are talking about the QC used as a pedalboard itself!

1 Like

Well, actually, I am very happy with the QC and I had some other units before. Even compared to an FM3 (have not tried FM9), I prefer the QC.
Not saying there are no things to improve, but for my use cases, it’s excellent.


@Andyjcp We are all here cause it s very good in captures, that’s a fact! But Neural should check important aspects to the professional Gtr and bass players which are latency and unity gain managing

1 Like

@Andyjcp 9ms is about 460samples ! and that’s like recording with the computer’s buffer size at about 512! I think it’s impossible to go in time!

1 Like

@xush my friend did and received a questionable answer…


Hey everyone : how about this ?

@Ringo you nailed it perfectly!

1 Like

@Ringo no you are right the problem is QC is not! and the problem is that the Neural does not say anything!! and does nothing!!!

1 Like

@xush to the neural they don’t say anything as well as when I told them about the unity gain problem of the loops!! which they still haven’t admitted to having! strange that all their influencers say nothing???

1 Like

Yes and no. If you have an audio interface and set the buffer size to 512 (with 44.1kHz), you get 12ms latency plus the latency of the AD and DA converters.
So it might easily be 14ms or 15ms.

Most of my QC presets are around 4 or 5 ms, which is not too bad.

i write because i see in several post i/o buffer size from pc based app

al volo… off topic
ma sei compagno e chitarrista di Elisa che ho visto in diversi concerti? (e che concerti!!)

Also if QC send the result with 10ms of latency is a big problem, But… how measure this timing?
For example in my case post 7ms i have problems in general, … but i don’t notice problems with QC usually.
I think that all the measures should be addressed not with the pc, as the drivers and the power of the pc can influence the result

Then anyone having issues with latency should vote on related feature requests, that seems to be what they prioritize (which makes sense)

The issues with the most feedback/complaints are being addressed. I haven’t seen that much talk of problematic latency except here.

Is there an “Improve Latency” feature request?


@xush you have to vote this topic so that the neural sees it and takes its responsibilities and solves the problem!!

1 Like

@Andyjcp yes or no me on a patch of two lines not even that much load I have 9ms latency !! for me there are many this is a certainty

1 Like

Hey @DavideAru ,

Just started to measure Block latencies.

And realised all blocks aren’t equal.
It seems Amps, Cabs & FXLoops are the most latency inducing

And yes, 9ms is a drag… especially using a real amp on top of that.

@thomasotto i understand but i can’t worry about building a latency rig!! not with the quad cortex ! is absurd! a latest generation machine that has the same latency if not more than the Kamper!!!

1 Like

@xush it’s not true there’s a lot of people complaining! search the web and you will see that there are a lot of people

I second @xush, I think the quickest way to get improvements is to add a feature request and vote for it.
If there are many people having latency issues, there will be many votes…

These are the current favorites (not counting desktop editor and plugin compatibility, which are in the roadmap anyhow):

1 Like

Davide, I’m not saying it’s not true, what I’m saying is that NDSP doesn’t search the web for complaints (that I know of)- what they’ve confirmed works is posting feature requests HERE.

I look at all the QC forums (that I’m aware of) daily, and I haven’t seen that much talk of latency, compared to other things.

The thing to do is make a Feature Request specifically addressing the issue.
This one’s title includes “SOLVED” so I really don’t think it’s going to get noticed.

I don’t encounter issues with latency in my use of the QC, but I’d be happy to vote for a properly worded feature request.