Hi!
Just wanted to chime in on that one as I never paid much attention to latency issues playing via my Axe-FX III. Now that I sold the Fractal unit and moved on to the QC, all that latency talk got me kinda paranoid.
Today I contacted the guy who bought my Axe and asked him if I could do some tests with my former unit.
And the results were kinda… not in favour of the Fractal unit at all. I was actually quite surprised that some of my former live presets that are still on the unit are beyond 10 ms.
So rest assure, as long as you can’t evade having a series of modules to process your signal, you will face latency in regards to the number of turns that the DSP requires for the complex calculations.
Boss seem to be able to do it and these gt-1000 patches have many complex mod and reverb block etc.
The qc on just a fairly simple drive → amp → reverb patch has worse latency…
I have been using the gt-1000 for 5 years and love the way it feels and sounds. Moving to the quad cortex has been a downgrade in every way so far, except for its weight and size.
@VanDaven I totally agree! same problem but from helix! neural have to get a move on! because the QC is 2 years old !!! the profiling part is great but we haven’t got all the rest of it really huge problems! let me be clear, I don’t want to sell it and I hope that neural will make a move to develop its management system and solve the problems! and of course put in more effects and maybe decent! Otherwise I’ll be forced to sell it because I can’t use it that way!
Hi. I’ve done a lot of latency measurements and got similar results. The measurements were made using RTL Utility Oblique Audio and a short test signal. It’s clear that amplifiers and cabinets introduce latency, this is normal, but some new amp models introduce more latency than other. The delay block adds 1.3 ms latency and this is strange. In the reverb block, some algorithms add latency, but some don’t. The modulation block and the wah block don’t introduce latency. Another problem is that all the blocks add latency even in a bypass. A basic preset with wah-ts-amp-cab-mod-dly has 5-6 ms latency, depending on the models. It’s already noticeable and it’s a fairly simple preset. The problem with Row3/4 has already been described. I really hope that they will pay attention to this and fix these problems in future updates.
FYI: “QC elec row new” is a preset containing two amp models without using row three or four and “QC elec” is the same preset going to row 3 instead of splitting to row 2.
The numbers 1-4 are my four scenes in hybrid mode.
As you can see, the difference is a consistent 2.3ms when using row 3 instead of splitting to two.
If i run my most transparent wireless that experiences almost no drop outs (GLXD16) into my QC using both cores, into my wireless in-ears (XVIVE U4) i’m gonna get ~20ms latency; which for me is unbearable. I truly can start feeling anything over ~8ms.
at this moment i think that the two dsp works sequential then…
and there is need of time to transfer the result from dsp1 to dsp2
if the two dsp worked in parallel starting from the first block at the same time, resolving the entire chain, there would be LESS than half the time needed now
this is weird… in the very manual they say to use row 3 so you don´t use too much of one processor and use both so it´s more efficient.
i usually leave a looper on row 3 of all my presets just to have the option whenever i want to jam. i havent noted serious latency when playing or looping so i guess no matter the number if i can play it works but it definitely scares me to try this in live settings or configuring presets this way which will eventually make 2 rows out of the 4 useless
@Cheems you are definitely right! so it is not a prdalboard that gives security! and then you can’t think of being afraid to put effects because maybe after the latency it rises too much … this is my opinion!
i took it as “instead of filling one row split it on the other processors” since getting a full row is wahat in my mind would qualify as a resource hungry preset . im sure delays and such use less resources than say a distortion but i doubt one would fill a row with a bunch of distortions… i usually get gate- compressor-od- amp- cab and on the next row i get delay reverb and looper but by the looks of it they are both equally efficient/inefficient
Hum, I’ve been measuring latency with both the Logic I/O plug-in and a completely different approach (recording both DI and processed guitar signals).
These are my findings:
• Different IR / cab combinations as well as amplifiers report “wrong” latency sometimes as the highest elongation happens way after the initial signal. Don’t alway trust it.
• Latency reported by the system when “re-amping through the USB” is way higher than the latency measured comparing DI vs. processed (with guitar input). This is especially true when using lanes 3+4. Maybe there’s a USB-roundtrip-induced latency in the system for these situations.
Otherwise I’ll be forced to sell it because I can’t use it that way!