FM9 Latency - Around 5ms?

KFF said:
So you're saying there's a chance? :D
Click to expand...
Not sure if I'm qualified enough to make such statements :D Most likely @DLC86 is right and even pitch follower assigned to Input Gain (which I'm quite sure was mentioned in that discussion) cannot introduce any latency.
But CPU load - definitely increases. I'm just not sure if that can have any effect on latency.
 
Chromatizm said:
I'm just not sure if that can have any effect on latency.
Click to expand...
If it works like in a PC, and I assume it does, CPU load doesn't affect latency (unless cpu is maxed out, but latency in that case means audio crackling or stopping) but latency (intended as buffer size) affects CPU load.

In a DAW if you reduce the buffer size, let's say, from 2048 to 1024 samples, you basically double the cpu load.
 
FractalAudio said:
In -> Amp -> Cab -> Out - 160 samples = 3.33ms (Cab block doesn't add any latency unless IR has leading silence)
in -> Drive -> Amp -> Cab -> Out - 192 samples = 4ms
Click to expand...
Do the boosts in the Amp block modelled after a pedal add to Amp block latency when engaged?
 
FractalAudio said:
Yes, the next release reduces the latency.
Click to expand...

FractalAudio said:
The theoretical latency of the FM3/9 is:
In -> Out - 96 samples = 2ms
In -> Amp -> Out -160 samples = 3.33ms
In -> Amp -> Cab -> Out - 160 samples = 3.33ms (Cab block doesn't add any latency unless IR has leading silence)
in -> Drive -> Amp -> Cab -> Out - 192 samples = 4ms
None of the other blocks add latency.

It appears that perhaps there's a bug in the FM9 and it's adding an extra 64 samples of latency. I will discuss this with the head engineer on that project tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Is it fixed in the firmware 6.00?
 
Cool, 32 less sample times of latency. Sounds great……


….except what does that mean? What are we looking at in terms of latency and milliseconds? Are we now down to the 2 milliseconds of the Axe FX III and the FM3?
 
danzego said:
Cool, 32 less sample times of latency. Sounds great……


….except what does that mean? What are we looking at in terms of latency and milliseconds? Are we now down to the 2 milliseconds of the Axe FX III and the FM3?
Click to expand...
Yes. 2.7ms (?) or so if I recall correctly, but happy for someone to correct me!
In practice, it feels better. Enjoy!
 
Or 4.3 ms with Drive, Amp and a Dyna-Cab. I suppose more than that if additional drives or amps are used, but perhaps not if they are placed on parallel paths? I presume the system would have to run everything at the speed of the laggiest path within the preset to avoid phase issues, but I don't know if this is how it's implemented.
 
maxc said:
Or 4.3 ms with Drive, Amp and a Dyna-Cab. I suppose more than that if additional drives or amps are used, but perhaps not if they are placed on parallel paths? I presume the system would have to run everything at the speed of the laggiest path within the preset to avoid phase issues, but I don't know if this is how it's implemented.
Click to expand...
Since we know a dual signal path with an Amp block on both but Drive on only one has phasing issues, I think we can assume that's not how it works
 
If using a parallel dry path around a drive+amp+cab, would it be a consistent 2ms compensation
delay needed in the dry path to match phase?
 
Imagine being @yek and trying to wiki over the last three/four posts?

horseshit == bullshit ?

#only_yek_knows

...and maybe cc.
 
WRT the FM9: Before the latest release I measured 5ms with a simple preset: amp- cab- reverb- delay
Then 32 samples were claimed as recovered. ~3/4 ms ?

edit: we still do not understand why the latency is greater than the fm3 and axe3
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom