Latency "solved"

@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.


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.

And what would you say to a Preset Latency Monitor Feature Request as a start ?

That way we can :

  • see the real numbers.
  • troubleshoot our own patches and see what is causing the latency.
  • and if there’s an issue (that is other than stacking tons of blocks), report it with method and documentation (this block on this row in this situation, for ex)
1 Like

@xush I understand, I just hope that Neural understands that this problem is unacceptable! Thank you for vote

1 Like

@Guitarquaduser1 latency is there because I feel it and because I MEASURED it! and there is also a lot of it!

Hey @DavideAru !

Out of curiosity, could you post the list of blocks on your grid (on and off ones, all of them) ?

Maybe I can measure the latency of some of these and come back with numbers… Since it’s geek mode day for me :wink:

1 Like

@thomasotto raw 1 ----------comp—wha—4 capture (over drive)
raw 2 -------amp (capture) ----cab (qc) ----gain block----tremolo----chorus-----delay-reverb

@DavideAru ,

I’m trying to reproduce your chain but stuck on gain block.
Can’t add anything more to row 2 (not enough CPU)

Could you have meant Row 3 instead of row 2 ?
Are you linking row 1 and row 2 via a splitter or does your row 1 output say Row 3 or Row 3/4 ?

@thomasotto yes sorry raw 3

Did some quick measurements :

Total latency on Row 1 > Row 3 : 8.75ms

With a splitter from Row 1 to Row 2 and putting the amp + cab + gain block (and not using Row 3) : 5.42ms

The sad news is that you can’t add anything more to Row 2 after the Gain Block.
Reminds me of myself a month or so ago when I thought I could have a “do it all” preset : Big disappointment.

I’d suggest for now (while a miracle update comes along) to split your Preset into multiple ones (depending on what you need for the track/song) and only put the blocks you need on the Preset.

And keep everything strictly on Rows 1 & 2 (with a Splitter)
Row 3 adds 2.67ms of latency (Is it hardware related ? software related ? I have no idea).

This is what I’ve been doing for the past month.

1 Like

@thomasotto I hope it’s SOFTWARE related! !

@thomasotto Exactly ! but you also think like me that such a machine cannot have these limitations! for me it’s unthinkable and I didn’t use the loops because as you know they have a huge unity gain problem! In short, I thought I had bought a Ferrari and I find myself with an 1989 Opel …broken !

I hope so @Ringo !

Otherwise we’re stuck with a QC MK1 on our hands when the MK2 comes out with the hardware fixed (if it’s even possible!)

We might just be in a time where the tech (the processor) isn’t ready for 4 rows of blocks under 5ms !

@Ringo I hope so for them because otherwise these are the extremes for a class act!!!

@thomasotto it would be enough to make a firmware with buffer size control like in the DAW! someone had suggested it here on another thread always on this issue

With gear (and the years) I’m kinda used to seeing the limits very quickly (even with the analog stuff).

Although the QC is the first modeler that makes me smile when I do a capture of my own analog gear, it still has limits…