@BuffsOP hello, I believe that each one of us has his own needs, but there is one thing of which I am sure and I repeat, a latest generation pedal board with all this power (as advertised by the neural) cannot have all this latency !! ! it is unacceptable! and in addition with a patch where the processor is at 50% ! the neural must do something ! and I think we should all demand it! This is my thought! it is not enough to have a machine that plays and reproduces our amplifiers well or something else, it must also put us in a position to be able to work professionally without putting a spoke in our wheels! I personally bought this pedalboard to be able to use it on tour but I canāt because it has too many shortcomings (besides this latency problem and a thousand others, it doesnāt even have the preset swap letās realize!!)
@DavideAru
I feel Iām in the same boat.
(BTW, my job has been and still is playing live and recording music for the last 30 years or so)
Got my QC in December and so far Iāve been compromising to get a giggable/recordable unit.
And so far my compromises have been :
- avoiding Rows 3 & 4 (latency)
- avoiding FXLoops (latency)
- removing blocks if I need external pedals via FXLoop (latency)
- having an extra iPad & forScore to call presets via USB for last minute setlist changes before a show (no drag/drop & swap/insert between on setlists)
Had the most horrible experience in January with a ādo it allā preset that had 9.75ms latency (didnāt start to measure latencies at the time, I sincerely thought it could never happen with the power advertised)
It felt like I had smoked bags of w**d (which I donāt) and I spent the evening physically compensating and playing ahead of time (fucked up my brain)
Being the man I am, I wanted to have an explanation on that abnormal feeling (this is why I started measuring stuff)
And yes, I too am sensitive to latency.
Imagine playing with a drummer that has 10ms of latency !
Even if you donāt/canāt analyse the situation, you know somethingās off !
Itās what I call sloggish or sloppy or lazy.
Sloggish or sloppy or lazy doesnāt get you called or recommended for gigs.
Iām still evaluating the pros and cons of the QC and I still canāt say for sure that itās a keeper for me.
- I love (I really do) that I can capture my gear and stack pedal and amp captures (only the QC does this with that quality of sound)
- I hate all the other points mentioned above.
All the bestā¦
@thomasotto the thing that pisses me off the most is that the Neural is silent and does not admit the problem that must be absolutely solved! but it is not possible to implement a class act? everyone do something?! I am firmly convinced that people do not notice because they are focused (perhaps in their bedroom) to hear how good it sounds (and it is true) but if for a moment they shifted their focus to this problem or used it for work they would realize it ! just like we needed it! @Ringo ā¦I hope the neural does something otherwise Iāll be forced to use it as a pasta strainer!
I am firmly convinced that people do not notice because they are focused (perhaps in their bedroom) to hear how good it sounds (and it is true) but if for a moment they shifted their focus to this problem or used it for work they would realize it
I think itās even worse than what you describe !
Colorize Scene Labels + Footswitches 166 Votes
This latency issue feature request 7 Votes (ok, the request isnāt as old but stillā¦)
Latency is an issue for just a few people (what a crazy world we live in ! Sadā¦)
With all due respect for people who might be much more professional than me:
The reason why I am not voting for this request is not because Iām only playing in my bedroom.
The reason is that this request is not written in an understandable way.
Title says ālatency solvedā and the rest is mostly a rant about how bad Neural is.
If you would have a proposal like āOptimize latency: Latency should be below x ms using all rows and FX loopā I believe that more people would join your cause.
Hey @Andyjcp !
With all due respect to ANY musician (professional or notā¦ hell, I know some amateur musicians that play better than some professionals),
The reason is that this request is not written in an understandable way
But you do know now what the request is about ?
Isnāt that putting form before substance ?
Title says ālatency solvedā and the rest is mostly a rant about how bad Neural is.
I donāt think itās as extreme as you say.
Itās not that black & white.
Neural isnāt bad
Neural does some serious code & conception that a regular bloke like me couldnāt do in this lifetime.
I believe I have bought a potentially great piece of gear with some issues (that were mentioned nowhere at the time of purchase)
My honest point of view is : the QC is expensive (1849ā¬) and is not a kickstarter project.
Okā¦
I can confirmā¦with my personal DIY analog splitter (output completely isolated with trasformers) that we have 10ms with your preset Thomas
First track Is splitter in cubase 12
Second track Is splitter qc cubase 12
And
YES, It Is CLEARLY audibleā¦
Ouch!
ā¦voted
Editā¦qc Is completely stand alone , info for all.
I think also as Andy that the title Is to renameā¦with more sense of action from neural
Hi @thomasotto!
While you were concentrating on the facts and on the problems you face, there were a lot of toxic comments in this thread and even suggestions to sue Neural (for what?), which really held me off from supporting this request.
On the issue itself:
I think there are many QC users who donāt use FX loops and whoās presetsā latency is around 5ms or lower. This is the case for most of my presets and thatās why it is not an issue for me at all.
Having said that, I totally understand that if you have other use cases that cause more latency, it can be a showstopper for you.
Nevertheless, I give you my vote now because I think Neural should look at the issue and optimize latency in one of the next updates so that everybody can enjoy their QC again.
@Andyjcp hello forgive me my manner has certainly been abrupt in the last few comments! but Iām frustrated by the fact and I donāt understand how this problem (for me really huge and serious) canāt arouse in all those like me who have spent 1890ā¬ a big pity to discover such a big bug! I apologize again but I didnāt want to be offensive to anyone but the fact remains that Neural must surely give explanations and solve the problem and not focus on the colors of the scenes which surely can wait!
@thomasotto Exactly!
@Niksounds cāmon ! is absurd !!!just send the link to the neural in the support email if we do it everyone will listen to us! they must listen to us!!!
No problem @DavideAru, no offense taken.
I sure hope the issue will be solved by Neural in future updates so that you can enjoy the QC as much as I do.
Email sent with screens and Two Focuses :
- an optimization of the latency in general
- the fact that, using the row 3 WITHOUT increase the blocks numbers or Total CPU load, the sistem introduces additional latency (simply moving a block to row 3)
I think too that Neural Will solve this aspect, the team Is earing us
@Niksounds send me too if we do it everyone will listen to us! they must listen to us!!
Just sent an email too with a description of the problem and the link to the QC numbers report.
Leo Gibson also made another comparison of latencies. However, his presets were a bit less complex, like my usual presets. So his measured latenc was max. around 5ms.
Hi @Andyjcp yes but if you notice its proof is only on one line ! if you patch with the second line you have another 3ms more! and if you go to about 4.32 it says that an idle block does not add latency on the Kemper while on the Qc it does! which in my opinion is much more correct! and that maybe it could solve at least a little the QC latency problem! @thomasottohe made a perfect and super detailed table to show where the problems are and I think Neural should see it too!
Hi @DavideAru, yes I think Leoās tests are not contradicting @thomasottoās, it only shows that if you have a āsimpleā preset with amp+cab and reverb, latency is ok, but if you use all rows and FX loop, it gets problematic.
@Andyjcp 
Yes correct! actually even without Fx loop you have 9ms! just have about 10/11 blocks spread over raw 1 and raw3 and the latency goes up! the right thing that Leo points out in his video is precisely that in the kemper the blocks if they are inactive do not generate latency while in the QC they do! and perhaps the problem is right here!
yep, iā m in line with you,
Also the most important thing to solve is the latency introduced by lines three and four, even just moving the blocksā¦without adding new ones
Itās a Little bit nonsense in dual DSP unit from software pov.