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 arenā€™t equal.
It seems Amps, Cabs & FXLoops are the most latency inducing

And yes, 9ms is a dragā€¦ especially using a real amp on top of that.

@thomasotto i understand but i canā€™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 itā€™s not true thereā€™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 votesā€¦

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

1 Like

Davide, Iā€™m not saying itā€™s not true, what Iā€™m saying is that NDSP doesnā€™t search the web for complaints (that I know of)- what theyā€™ve confirmed works is posting feature requests HERE.

I look at all the QC forums (that Iā€™m aware of) daily, and I havenā€™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 oneā€™s title includes ā€œSOLVEDā€ so I really donā€™t think itā€™s going to get noticed.

I donā€™t encounter issues with latency in my use of the QC, but Iā€™d be happy to vote for a properly worded feature request.

2 Likes

I donā€™t encounter issues with latency in my use of the QC, but Iā€™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 thereā€™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 numbersā€¦ Since itā€™s geek mode day for me :wink:

1 Like

@thomasotto raw 1 ----------compā€”whaā€”4 capture (over drive)
raw 2 -------amp (capture) ----cab (qc) ----gain block----tremolo----chorus-----delay-reverb

@DavideAru ,

Iā€™m trying to reproduce your chain but stuck on gain block.
Canā€™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 canā€™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 ā€œdo it allā€ preset : Big disappointment.

Iā€™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 Iā€™ve been doing for the past month.

1 Like

@thomasotto I hope itā€™s SOFTWARE related! !

@thomasotto Exactly ! but you also think like me that such a machine cannot have these limitations! for me itā€™s unthinkable and I didnā€™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 ā€¦broken !

I hope so @Ringo !

Otherwise weā€™re stuck with a QC MK1 on our hands when the MK2 comes out with the hardware fixed (if itā€™s even possible!)

We might just be in a time where the tech (the processor) isnā€™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) Iā€™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 limitsā€¦

:smiling_face_with_tear: