Random Hero
Inspired
it’s around there with one amp and one cab block.It would be unlikely the FM3 would be 3.3 and FM9 5.0 unless the dual amps is causing it
it’s around there with one amp and one cab block.It would be unlikely the FM3 would be 3.3 and FM9 5.0 unless the dual amps is causing it
Which one the FM3 or both?it’s around there with one amp and one cab block.
The FM9 is what he's talking about... FM3 only supports 1 AmpWhich one the FM3 or both?
That’s reasonable I thinkFM9.
4.2ms with just an amp and cab.
Yes, this was pointed out earlier in the thread.That’s reasonable I think
I wonder if FM3 is lower ?
Well, I suppose if you only use an amp and cab. The max I can get it to is 5.6ms which isn’t bad alone but the cumulative latency of your whole system is the concern I guess.That’s reasonable I think
I wonder if FM3 is lower ?
I haven’t but I’d be curiousHas anyone tried to revert to previous firmware versions and test latency?
Ha!Damn. Now that I know there’s over double the latency of my other modeler, I’ll never unfeel it. Going to call Vai and start up a support group.
yup, here we goes again1 ms latency equates to roughly 300 millimetres (1 foot for the Americans), ergo 5 ms roughly 1.5 metres.
Cheers,
Bob.
Not really. As I said, in itself it’s not an issue. The issue starts to manifest when you’re maybe using a digital wireless, going into digital desks, maybe digital IEM transmitters etc. It can build up.yup, here we goes again
With just an amp the latency will be 3.3ms. Adding a cab may or may not increase latency, depends on whether the IR has any leading silence. Adding a drive will add 0.67ms.Does this sound right? I'm getting around 202 samples / 4.2ms with just an amp and cab block in the grid. This increases to 235 samples / 4.9ms with a drive block. Adding a delay and reverb doesn't seem to affect it. FWIW, just an input and output block shows as 87 samples or 1.81ms. Granted, even with a loaded up lead sound, it only gets to 5.6ms but that's slower than the Kemper's constant latency setting which is around 4.9ms I think. It's often lower than that.
I thought these were supposed to be around 3ms? Is it a firmware thing?
How does the second method you mentioned smaller kernel impact tone and performanceWith just an amp the latency will be 3.3ms. Adding a cab may or may not increase latency, depends on whether the IR has any leading silence. Adding a drive will add 0.67ms.
So with Drive->Amp->Cab the best you can achieve is 4ms. Any leading silence in the IR will add to this figure.
We could add a "low-latency" mode to the FM products like in the Axe-Fx. This is what Line6 uses (and perhaps other companies). I'm not a fan of this approach because it causes phase distortion which affects the high-frequency harmonics when doing nonlinear processing.
As I've said before it's all a delicate balancing act. Engineering is about trade-offs. If you want the lowest latency possible then your frame size needs to be very small but then you'll either need prohibitively costly amounts of processing power or crappy algorithms that don't use much CPU.
You can also trade-off interpolation/decimation kernels. You can use a smaller kernel length but then your transition band and stop band performance suffers.
Or you can do what Line6 does and use minimum-phase kernels which distort the phase response.
I personally prefer linear-phase kernels with at least 100 dB of stop-band rejection.
If we were to use minimum-phase kernels the latency in this case would drop to about 2.7ms (if my math is right).
This is why we need pedal based AD/DA converters with plenty of IO and why all serious digital gear needs digital IO. The industry just isn’t there yet and may never be. The majority of players (including myself) aren’t having a problem and the amount of total latency is acceptable. But having a solution to cut the number down to next to nothing is a good idea, too. Daisy chain the digital IO of all your pedals, and maybe some kind of master clock to keep it all synced that’ll do SRC if needed. I don’t know. A little too heady for me but this should probably happen.+ throw in a few more ms with an outboard pedal, and you can suddenly be into noticeable territory. The familiar: "Xms = Xfeet, so don't worry about it" type comment is hilarious since it's cumulative latency that often sneaks up and bites you.
edit: so it makes sense to want every digital component in a signal chain to be as abdolutely low in latency as possible.
Cliff, how preamps/compressors affects the delay? The one in the cab block, for example, and comp blocks in general.Adding a cab may or may not increase latency, depends on whether the IR has any leading silence.
Thanks for the details (mostly over my head). I suppose the option to choose lower latency vs better accuracy could be useful for those who want it but I defer to your judgement.With just an amp the latency will be 3.3ms. Adding a cab may or may not increase latency, depends on whether the IR has any leading silence. Adding a drive will add 0.67ms.
So with Drive->Amp->Cab the best you can achieve is 4ms. Any leading silence in the IR will add to this figure.
We could add a "low-latency" mode to the FM products like in the Axe-Fx. This is what Line6 uses (and perhaps other companies). I'm not a fan of this approach because it causes phase distortion which affects the high-frequency harmonics when doing nonlinear processing.
As I've said before it's all a delicate balancing act. Engineering is about trade-offs. If you want the lowest latency possible then your frame size needs to be very small but then you'll either need prohibitively costly amounts of processing power or crappy algorithms that don't use much CPU.
You can also trade-off interpolation/decimation kernels. You can use a smaller kernel length but then your transition band and stop band performance suffers.
Or you can do what Line6 does and use minimum-phase kernels which distort the phase response.
I personally prefer linear-phase kernels with at least 100 dB of stop-band rejection.
If we were to use minimum-phase kernels the latency in this case would drop to about 2.7ms (if my math is right).
Agreed and for the record I find this an interesting discussion and wonder the same thing .Thanks for the details (mostly over my head). I suppose the option to choose lower latency vs better accuracy could be useful for those who want it but I defer to your judgement.
I think a key question raised in this thread that you didn't talk about is why the FM3 latency is more in line with the Axe Fx III than the FM9. Curious about the results there...