Ok, so I got a bit deeper with this. I downloaded the RTL Utility tool and measured these properly.
So my interface is a UAD Apollo Twin X Quad. Setting the buffer to returns a result of 404 samples or 9.161ms.
Testing my main preset above, the main rhythm tone shows 721 samples, so minus the 404 that’s 317 samples which is 6.6ms. The lead sound which adds in another capture as a boost returns 751 samples, so minus the 404 that’s 347 samples or 7.22ms.
A totally blank patch comes up for me at 81 samples / 1.68ms.
I hear you but until IEMs become the norm and most players move to them, there will still be a need and desire to keep latency lower on modelers and take into account the additional latency added by ear to cab distance. Wireless IEM systems with low latency at a reasonable price point ultimately do seem like a superior alternative. Especially for big stages or players who prefer extremely low latency.
Even with IEMs providing such a great alternative I am not sure how long it will take to ween enough players off onstage monitors. A lot of players out there just prefer monitors and have invested quite a bit of coin in them. Others don’t like the “tone” they get unless it is through a guitar cable and won’t go wireless, same goes for their monitor. Some bands also just dislike the sound of a stage with silent monitoring. Even if it does cut down on the audio chaos, or maybe because it does
I’m fully in this camp, even so far as I actually recommend on stage cabs to people using just a modeler.
Even in 500 capcity venues, you would be suprised quite how much an onstage cab affects the sound out front. In venues smaller than that, you are just asking too much of the PA (and in house engineer).
Besides that, we have struggled plenty of times just getting monitors set correctly when they only have vocals and keyboards in them. Adding in guitars as well would be a nightmare.
We are moving towards a full IEM rig, but I don’t think I would ever lose the cabs on stage for the other reasons above.
Besides that, we have struggled plenty of times just getting monitors set correctly when they only have vocals and keyboards in them. Adding in guitars as well would be a nightmare.
Traditional monitors. Had plenty of venues where they were awful or the soundguy messed something up or didn’t care.
Had plenty where they were great too, but you never know until you get there.
That’s the great thing about a fully digital setup in combination with IEM and an own digital on stage mixer. Everybody gets his own personal full band mix that is set the way he/she wants and sounds always the same no matter if you are playing a show or just rehearsing. If a shitty sound guy fucks up the FOH sound, you still have a great sound on your ears at least.
Oh yea, I know full well. I used to work as a monitor engineer.
At the same time though, they are a huge investment, and need a lot more effort to set up at a gig when you might have limited changeover time.
Seen plenty of bands having to tear down an entire stage just to remove their IEM rig in what was meant to be a 20min changeover.
Given everything else, and how weak bands with no onstage cabs sound in smaller venues, we’re just sticking with cabs for now.
A few minutes is enough if you do it right. We (and most bands I know) have splitters integrated into our IEM rack, everything (the QC for example) is just plugged into our rack splitter and the sound guy gets a single XLR multicore from there. So breaking things up is just a matter of pulling a few XLR cables and getting the rack down from the stage.
I agree with the sound being thin (not especially thin, more a drastic lack of definition as the low frequencies tend to be the only ones that are clearly audible there) in the first few rows if the FOH speakers are positioned next to front of the stage, but for us all the other benefits outweigh that by far.
Posted this on the Fractal forum but you guys might get something from it too.
I used RTL Utility to fire some pings through my FM9, Kemper and QC this evening out of curiosity
On the FM9;
With an input, amp, cab and output blocks, I’m getting 221 samples / 4.6ms.
When I add in a Drive block I get 257 samples / 5.35ms.
My main lead sound in my main patch which is a drive, amp, cab, delay, reverb and filter is at 296 samples which is 6.16ms.
Delays and reverbs don’t seem to do anything to the latency though I’m not sure why my lead scene has more latency.
Kemper seems to hover around 3.3-3.5ms unless you enable “Constant Latency” whereby it then hovers around 4.9ms.
Quad Cortex totally depends on how many Captures/amps you have in a preset.
If I go in, amp, IR, out, I get 106 samples / 2.20ms.
Replacing the amp with a capture, I get 121 samples / 2.52ms.
In a loaded example, using two rows and having 6 captures in the preset but only using one at a time with an IR, it’s between 279 and 281 samples, so lets say 280 which is 5.8ms.
If I stack two captures at once (say a TS9 and an amp) it’s 315 / 6.56ms.
If I replace the OD capture with the OG OD block with a TS9 and stack it into an amp, I get 300 / 6.25ms.
The first patch you see on QC, Brit 2203, comes in at 213 / 4.43ms , roughly identical to the FM9’s baseline.
Fractal are apparently looking into this as it should top out at around 4ms.
Neural’s latency is really low in basic presets but does still seem to start building up. Nothing too brutal but would be nice if it could be a hair more efficient!
Thanks for this. From the way people talk, you would think the QC is lightyears behind the others, but is in actual fact very close.
Its main issue is that because it can do so much, people throw in huge chains of blocks, then act suprised when this adds latency.
As you said though, there are definitely still some efficiency improvements to be had, but it’s not the disasterous end-of-everything issue that some like to make out.
And the other thing to note is, Kemper is loading up one amp and one cab. Then it’s just effects. I reckon I could build a preset like that in the Quad - say, Wah, boost, OD, Trem, Amp, Cab, Chorus, Delay 1, Delay 2 and Reverb - basically mimicking every block on the Kemper being used, and it would most likely be lower latency or very similar latency.
Kemper’s trump card is that you can switch between Rigs - which are essentially presets - seamlessly with spillover. That’s where trying to do the preset per sound approach in the QC falls down currently. But I use “falls down” in the nicest possible way!
Fractal operates a little differently and enables huge chains with lower latency. Very impressive!
All in all though, certainly a huge improvement in 2.0 and perfectly acceptable.
FYI If you are running multiple amps into the same physical cab via a power amp and notice that certain captures/models have different latency that causes phasing issues you can add the new IR loader block which allows for delays .01ms increments. By adding the block, enabling, but not loading an IR, it effectively allows you to add a fraction of 1ms delay to the faster amp to fix any phasing issues caused by buffering/processing of a model.
I am personally running my current live patch with extended delays etc. at a sub5ms latency, in case you’re interested how to “trick” the QC by using the 2nd DSP as an “internal-external” unit, take a look here: https://youtu.be/nTr7Wp-iBrw?si=xl_5QTcd8ABI63RZ
Could someone kindly take pity on me as a non-tech savvy, new QC user and explain to me as you would a child how I can measure the latency for re-amping a DI from Logic Pro to the QC and back into Logic Pro?
Say, for example, I wanted to use QC preset 29c Hysteria – what would the setup be in Logic to “Ping” the QC so that the latency is accounted for in Logic?
Been setting up new presets for upcoming shows. I feel like whenever I am using both loops in my chain (mainly using row 1+2 basically full of blocks) I feel a noticeable latency. Using scenes to engage the first loop for certain pedals, so it isn’t always on. When I remove the loop 1 block from the chain somehow everything seems to sound a little better and there’s no clunkiness from feeling the latency.
Overall just confused since I didn’t think the loop blocks added that much latency in row 1 or 2. But it feels infinitely better with only one of them, and somehow feel like the loop being engaged sounds worse (no matter the pedal chain or cables).
we struggled a bit last night with a similar issue. Didn’t notice latency, but it was a challenge balancing loops and blends, much of which was due to a Dry blend level coming thru the external pedals themselves.
Is it possible that something in the Loop is blending some DI/dry back into the lane, causing phase or tonal issues aside from the latency, or is it only the feel/latency-delay effect you’re experiencing?
Hmm, I feel like it’s the latency aspect of it, and maybe the signal sounding a little worse going through both loops (regardless of pedals or cables). Feels like a degradation in the audio signal more than phasing out, etc.
The latency isn’t noticeable if I just have a few blocks of reverb/delay. But if I add in the loop 1 block into the chain (in addition to loop 2) all of a sudden I feel the latency delay. This is independent of the block being on or off. That loop just gets turned on for certain scenes.
From anything I’ve read in here I would have thought adding 4-5 blocks would have had at least similar latency to having the fx loop block in the chain (regardless if it’s on or not).
When you use the external loops, you add more latency to your signal chain. Doesn’t matter where they are located. It will always add a minimum fixed amount of latency for the additional D to A, then A to D conversion going on. And if the pedal you have in the loop is not an analog pedal, as in it’s a digital pedal, you have the additional latency from that pedals conversion as well.
The loop has a different latency if it’s on another row because rows three and four have more latency from the additional DSP chip(s). Also I’m saying it’s still pretty noticeable even if it’s not fully active but on the grid.
Trying to point out a tone shift from the loops being in the chain (regardless of what pedals are in it), and the latency feels more noticeable than a bunch of extra blocks in row 1+2. Of course adding blocks in general adds to the latency but seemingly less even with a bunch of extra blocks than an fx loop.
