FM3 Internal/Passthrough Latency Measurements - Surprising Results?

mr_fender said:
I'd wager that in a blind test, most players would be hard pressed to recognize any single digit latency difference.
Click to expand...
If I connect my Boss wireless (2.3ms latency) to my FM3, I can tell a difference. But is that latency in any way going to ruin my experience over the convenience of wireless? Absolute not.

Technology has limitations and to me all the top tier modelers on the market now are so low latency that their latency is inconsequential. Even VST plugins can be played with low enough latency to not have any real effect on the performance, even if hardware modelers are a bit more immediate feeling.
 
smj said:
Just curious, does using spdif out reduce latency as it avoids the D->A on the output?

Sean Meredith-Jones
Click to expand...
Yes, but only a tiny amount. There are specific programs to measure RT latency if you want to bother, but for everything I've tested, the conversion itself takes about 0.2ms, assuming that what I measured was accurate (comparing RTL for a digital loopback vs. an analog loopback on the same interface with the same buffer settings).
smj said:
It is recording. I actually use the analog outs of the FM3 into a lynx aurora. That goes AES into my computer. It’s easier to work like that than using the Fm3 USB out. I believe it is possible to convert Spdif to AES, but I won’t consider going down that road if there isn’t much of a payoff.

Sean Meredith-Jones
Click to expand...
It's a tiny difference in latency, plus avoiding whatever damage the ADC and DAC do, since none of them are perfect. The Aurora(n) measures among the best in the world (real world loopback nulls to around -59dB for the Aurora and HiLo, which is better than just about everything else I've seen measured...the older Aurora (not-n) nulls about 5-6dB louder, IIRC. The worst ones I've seen tested are around -40dB or so....which is very close to the noise floor of a reasonable project/home studio, assuming that you're listening around 90dB....which is actually pretty loud for a small room.

Also, AES/EBU and S/PDIF are identical in terms of the audio. There are some differences in the "housekeeping" bits in the stream, but most things ignore them. If the cable runs are short, all you need is an XLR-RCA adapter wired correctly. At worst, you need an impedance matching transformer.

shredhead said:
Its not the same for the brain because with sound traveling by air you hear sound changing due to environment reflections (try no echo chamber and see how it feels), depending on how far you are, so I guess brain can adapt to it easier. Try to play with 20 ms artifical latency and compare feeling to sitting 8 meters from amp.
Click to expand...
So....do that test when you can't see the amp. And be sure to match the levels at the listening position.

Every major tour uses digital mixers and wireless for their in-ears. If latency in that range was a problem, they wouldn't. At some point it becomes a problem....but it takes a lot to not be able to adapt to it.
 
shredhead said:
Well, then put latency to, say, 9ms and go play something fast and rhythmically complicated, and then fall back to no latency (say, analog) and compare.
Click to expand...

Why? I'm not the one suggesting 1ms of latency makes a difference and have absolutely zero issues playing the FM3 "fast and rhythmically complicated". Go play the FM3, have a friend randomly add 1ms of latency and see if you can tell when it is engaged or not. Keep increasing until the point when you can tell the difference.
 
Will Chen said:
Why? I'm not the one suggesting 1ms of latency makes a difference and have absolutely zero issues playing the FM3 "fast and rhythmically complicated". Go play the FM3, have a friend randomly add 1ms of latency and see if you can tell when it is engaged or not. Keep increasing until the point when you can tell the difference.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I think @shredhead was referring to 9ms, not 1ms, if I understood his comment, referring to "single-digit" latency.

I wouldn't be able to tell 1ms one way or the other, but I'm sure I'd be able to feel the difference between 0ms and 9ms; but between 45 and 54? I can't be sure without testing.
 
mr_fender said:
Can you in a blind test though? Don't underestimate the power of suggestion. If you expect to hear/feel a difference, even subconsciously, you will.
Click to expand...
The whole story of me doing the measuring started with accidentally uploading IR without leading silence cut and noticing that something is off. It was 1.5ms silence at the beginning of IR. At that point I had no idea that IRs can cause latency feeling, so it was pretty blind, I just felt something off for couple of days, then started investigating, measuring, looked at "align" tab and figured out what was going on.
 
Ugly Bunny said:
Just to clarify, I think @shredhead was referring to 9ms, not 1ms, if I understood his comment, referring to "single-digit" latency.

I wouldn't be able to tell 1ms one way or the other, but I'm sure I'd be able to feel the difference between 0ms and 9ms; but between 45 and 54? I can't be sure without testing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the guy said that "single digit" latency cannot be perceived, so i took highest possible single digit number, so its easier to feel.
 
I never said it could not be perceived. If you are actively seeking it out, things are different. Our senses are really weird like that. The brain is ridiculously good at filtering the tidal wave of input we get from all of our senses at any given time. We'd go insane if it was all conscious processing.

The point is we choose what we pay attention to. People plug into a real amp and never give a second thought to the latency involved in the sound waves actually getting to our ears. Performers freely move around the stage and that changing latency has zero impact on what they are doing because they are completely ignoring it whether they are right next to their cab or 10 feet away on a big stage. If you can completely ignore 10 ms of latency in one situation, you can do it in others as well.
 
mr_fender said:
I never said it could not be perceived. If you are actively seeking it out, things are different. Our senses are really weird like that. The brain is ridiculously good at filtering the tidal wave of input we get from all of our senses at any given time. We'd go insane if it was all conscious processing.

The point is we choose what we pay attention to. People plug into a real amp and never give a second thought to the latency involved in the sound waves actually getting to our ears. Performers freely move around the stage and that changing latency has zero impact on what they are doing because they are completely ignoring it whether they are right next to their cab or 10 feet away on a big stage. If you can completely ignore 10 ms of latency in one situation, you can do it in others as well.
Click to expand...
It's about how easy it is to do for the brain. As I said, just compare big latency yourself between "distance from cab" and "artifical latency". There's no point to theorize when you can get empirical data on it.

And the most important thing, I came here not to whine about latency and that its "ruining" something (FM3 is a great thing that helps me to do what i need to do with that), I just noticed that there was a fix that is lowering the latency but now numbers are back to 1.06 FW times. So I was curious, is it me doing something wrong or fix got lost between FW versions, etc. I don't think that there's something wrong to ask devs about that and potentially make a great device even better, if it can be done easily.
 
I was part a focus group test for a MI OEM years ago (prior to wireless IEM's being the norm etc), comprised of A-List pro-musicians and producer - engineers, and the results differed due to the instruments played...

a) Electric instrument users typically didn't notice latency until 8ms - 9ms plus. Electric players found it relatively easy to compensate for larger latencies than these due to their moving around on stage away from back-line cabs/monitors.

b) Acoustic instrument players were much more sensitive, with acoustic piano players and acoustic drummers being the most sensitive with some noticing 5ms - 6ms plus, as they're used to always being tied to their sound sources (electic drums and sampled acoustic piano used for test).

c) Wearing headphones vs near-field monitors tended to reduce the noticed latency times a little for some, but not all (lack of environmental point-source reflection-cues).

Again, the electric players had no trouble compensating for reasonable latencies due to their stage experiences.

My FM3 rig with an external multi-fx in the loop, is at around 7ms worst case (don't use Virtual Capo LOL!), and no bother at all.
 
Last edited:
shredhead said:
It's about how easy it is to do for the brain. As I said, just compare big latency yourself between "distance from cab" and "artifical latency". There's no point to theorize when you can get empirical data on it.
Click to expand...

How would you even make such a comparison? There is no such difference here in a real world environment as the few ms latency imparted by a digital device is mixed up in the natural time of flight latency. Latency is latency. Are we comparing like things here or distance between cab and ear vs headphones? That is a different experience entirely regardless of latency as you lose the sound of the room. If we are comparing sitting in a typical near field pattern with the FM3 latency vs an amp in some room, while still not truly comparable as the monitoring mechanism is different, you will experience less latency in many cases vs the actual amp dependent on the size of room and relative location and this is absolutely able to be calculated. But really, if it's an issue there's always going back to a traditional system (don't use any digital effects without a analog dry path or your right back where you started).

shredhead said:
And the most important thing, I came here not to whine about latency and that its "ruining" something (FM3 is a great thing that helps me to do what i need to do with that), I just noticed that there was a fix that is lowering the latency but now numbers are back to 1.06 FW times. So I was curious, is it me doing something wrong or fix got lost between FW versions, etc. I don't think that there's something wrong to ask devs about that and potentially make a great device even better, if it can be done easily.
Click to expand...

This is an absolutely worthwhile question (honestly I never saw any confirmation by user testing that the issue was truly fixed, and no one has seemed to notice anything different actually playing the unit). Perhaps the next step here would be for someone to validate your findings.
 
Will Chen said:
How would you even make such a comparison? There is no such difference here in a real world environment as the few ms latency imparted by a digital device is mixed up in the natural time of flight latency. Latency is latency. Are we comparing like things here or distance between cab and ear vs headphones? That is a different experience entirely regardless of latency as you lose the sound of the room. If we are comparing sitting in a typical near field pattern with the FM3 latency vs an amp in some room, while still not truly comparable as the monitoring mechanism is different, you will experience less latency in many cases vs the actual amp dependent on the size of room and relative location and this is absolutely able to be calculated. But really, if it's an issue there's always going back to a traditional system (don't use any digital effects without a analog dry path or your right back where you started).



This is an absolutely worthwhile question (honestly I never saw any confirmation by user testing that the issue was truly fixed, and no one has seemed to notice anything different actually playing the unit). Perhaps the next step here would be for someone to validate your findings.
Click to expand...
Well, people are saying "its the same as being few meters from amp". If my example is not valid comparison, then this claim is not valid either. For a clear test you can send delayed sound into amp input (or send FM3 into return), after all. Just add artifical delay in a guitar signal somewhere.
 
shredhead said:
Well, people are saying "its the same as being few meters from amp". If my example is not valid comparison, then this claim is not valid either. For a clear test you can send delayed sound into amp input (or send FM3 into return), after all. Just add artifical delay in a guitar signal somewhere.
Click to expand...

It is the same, latency is latency, the difference is it is added to the existing time of flight. The truth is on a big stage where one would be constantly moving, there is the potential for less monitoring latency using a digital solution with in ears than an actual amp on stage. It's all about one's personal situation and there is a huge difference between measuring/calculating latency vs it actually impacting the ability to perform. But this is a pointless discussion. As I've mentioned a couple times, if the FM3's (or any digital solution) latency is unbearable in one's scenario for whatever reason there is an alternative. IMHO every system has compromises in one way or another.

But to your second question...absolutely worth asking if the issue has reappeared and if anyone can validate your results.
 
Will Chen said:
It is the same, latency is latency, the difference is it is added to the existing time of flight. The truth is on a big stage where one would be constantly moving, there is the potential for less monitoring latency using a digital solution with in ears than an actual amp on stage. It's all about one's personal situation and there is a huge difference between measuring/calculating latency vs it actually impacting the ability to perform. But this is a pointless discussion. As I've mentioned a couple times, if the FM3's (or any digital solution) latency is unbearable in one's scenario for whatever reason there is an alternative. IMHO every system has compromises in one way or another.

But to your second question...absolutely worth asking if the issue has reappeared and if anyone can validate your results.
Click to expand...
I completely agree
 
mr_fender said:
Can you in a blind test though? Don't underestimate the power of suggestion. If you expect to hear/feel a difference, even subconsciously, you will.
Click to expand...
That is very true. In a blind test I might notice a difference but might not be able to describe it as latency. "Feels slightly different somehow."
 
Yeah perception is a weird thing sometimes.

Always liked this one:

"In one recent test, psychologists asked 32 volunteers to sample strawberry yogurt. To make sure the testers made their judgments purely on the basis of taste, the researchers said, they needed to turn out the lights. Then they gave their subjects chocolate yogurt. Nineteen of the 32 praised the strawberry flavor. One said that strawberry was her favorite flavor and she planned to switch to this new brand."

On more than one occasion I've sat here subtly tweaking an EQ or Compressor plugin in a DAW track only to later realize I accidentally had the plugin bypassed the whole time. When the difference is subtle our brains can play some weird tricks on us.
 
Saw an interesting comment some time ago on another forum re concern about H9 AD/DA latency with pic of pedal board having separate digital delay, dig reverb, and what looked like a digital drive pedal all in addition to H9. The total of all of them was the issue (easily 10-15ms combined over 4 or 5 AD/DA conversions) but few seemingly ever go thru their modern rigs adding up the total latency though concerned about latency in one segment (+ some digital pedals are deceivingly analougue in appearance and vise versa so need to check). I regularly go thru my music room rig to calculate total latency including any pedals in Axefx loop, audio interface and distance of ears to studio mons... So agree that if Fractal can knock down a ms or 2 somewhere its worth doing / asking for from a "save your pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves" kinda standpoint
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom