FM3 vs FM3 Turbo latency test.

Greg Ferguson said:
I don’t think that would help. Higher pitched strings can be tracked more quickly than low pitches, but if the pitches are lower than expected, such as a dropped tuning, reducing the sensing time would still lead to inaccuracy. Would the hardware automatically sense the different pitches of the tuning and compensate? That compensation would take time to sense and kick in. What would happen when the player pushes the tremolo to the deck and the strings drop an octave?

It doesn’t sound like it would work very well.

But since the FM3 don’t have hex inputs it’s basically a moot discussion, right? :)
Click to expand...

Given each string is sampled independently, doesn't that greatly simply pitch shifting though? 6 mono instances vs a polyphonic algorithm?
 
I suppose latency is just the price for conversion and processing. Code can be optimized to improve those specs, but at a certain point, there would be tradeoffs.

Lower latencies (1-5 ms) may not be an issue in performing (e.g., X milliseconds = Y feet away from speaker, etc.) However, latency from multiple sources adds up. If there's an external parallel path (with dry or different latency), depending on the routing, that might cause phase issues. As an all-in-one solution, the FM3 is less likely to be used as part of a larger series with multiple AD-DA conversions.

Digital pitch shifting seems like a separate issue in that it requires some pre-analysis to render smooth tracking & rendering. It's always a trade-off to between response time & quality. Analog octave sims might work differently.
 
unix-guy said:
Probably... But the question is about latency, and the answer doesn't change.
Click to expand...

From the Fractal Wiki (EDIT: This quote is pretty old, so may not be accurate with the modern devices/firmware)
To do polyphonic pitch shifting well you need around 50 ms of history. So nominally the delay will be half that, 25 ms. If you set the detector to Mono the latency will be less but it won't track chords, especially complex ones, as well due to lack of correlation in the history buffer.
Click to expand...

My bet is a hex system is probably faster in terms of pitch shifting than any polyphonic system, but as posted before that's not possible with the FM3 and as such is a moot point.
 
Will Chen said:
From the Fractal Wiki (EDIT: This quote is pretty old, so may not be accurate with the modern devices/firmware)


My bet is a hex system is probably faster in terms of pitch shifting than any polyphonic system, but as posted before that's not possible with the FM3 and as such is a moot point.
Click to expand...
I would assume a Hex system is much faster because each string has its own pickup. That pickup basically just needs to track one waveform. When the entire guitar is being analyzed, each of the 6 different strings/pitches would need to be detected and separated from each other.
 
It always amuses me when we want a 0.1ms decrease in latency because we need it (and I won't open the whole "I can hear it" argument), but then one use:
  • a digital wireless sender from guitar to pedals
  • a digital modeler which goes into
  • a digital mixer and then of course we like to use
  • digital in-ear monitors
adding latencies over latencies :D
 
Geoff L said:
I'd be more concerned with playing guitar and making music that fractions of seconds. But then I guess that's me.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time away from playing your guitar to read this thread and comment, with your reminder that making music is the goal.. :)

Anyone who has had to deal with bad latency (which is NOT an issue with FM3!) doesn't need to be convinced about it's importance. Recently, I got a cheap wireless gtr system that I just returned because the latency made it difficult to play through. Got another one, and there were no issues. Latency isn't a problem until it is.

Depending on the kind of music, or the preferences of the player, there can be some range of tolerances/preference. And depending on a person's rig, what's in their signal path, they may need to do some math and/or play testing to know whether the accumulation crosses their own threshold for what is uncomfortable. And if some processes add more ms than others, they have to suss out what they can reasonably adjust.

On a Boss forum (related to the SY.1000), there are a few threads about latency. The audio to MIDI conversion for bass is particularly poor. The worst case (i.e., low B string) is in the range of 140-150 ms, To be clear, this includes a process of pitch detection which for low notes requires much more audio to make accurate tracking calcuations. Some people measure the differences between firmware updates.
 
Last edited:
RubenSansa said:
yes, i know, FM3 its amazing, and i know its a tiny room for improvement, but since Fractal are top noch, i have had the thought maybe the turbo one are improved in that spec.

and also hope for the pedal 'cali 76 staked' on the fractal world.
Click to expand...
Are you having playing issues with the current state of latency in the unit???
 
stub said:
Thanks for taking the time away from playing your guitar to read this thread and comment, with your reminder that making music is the goal.. :)

Anyone who has had to deal with bad latency (which is NOT an issue with FM3!) doesn't need to be convinced about it's importance. Recently, I got a cheap wireless gtr system that I just returned because the latency made it difficult to play through. Got another one, and there were no issues. Latency isn't a problem until it is.

Depending on the kind of music, or the preferences of the player, there can be some range of tolerances/preference. And depending on a person's rig, what's in their signal path, they may need to do some math and/or play testing to know whether the accumulation crosses their own threshold for what is uncomfortable. And if some processes add more ms than others, they have to suss out what they can reasonably adjust.

On a Boss forum (related to the SY.1000), there are a few threads about latency. The audio to MIDI conversion for bass is particularly poor. So that's in the range of 140-150 ms, Some people measure the differences between firmware updates.
Click to expand...
I can type and play :)

Although I do find those that obsess over such tiny details are avoiding the bigger picture ;)
 
Its interesting, latency, I was considering wireless Xvive microphone adapters, that also can be used to go from the Mixer to powered monitors. I have a Yamaha MX brand analog that does most shows and a studio Live 32sc if it gets silly. In my studio I can use my Presonous Quantum that is I believe direct monitoring (sorry i forget the term) but after AD/DA etc. I can really notice setting buffers in Logic, round trip can be 1.8 m/s, 32 buffer size, adjusting to 64 is 3.2 m/s, 128 5.8 m/s and after that its a compromise for me to overdub etc. To use the Xvive setup would add 5 m/s from mic / wireless guitar to mixer and 5m/s from mixer to monitor. But would clean up the stage so much, but would be 10m/s latency minimum plus distance.
 
Last edited:
Rex said:
Pro Tools HDX cards don’t have input conversion or output conversion, and they aren’t amp modelers. It’s not a valid comparison.
Click to expand...

You are not following the term "round trip" and what that means perhaps? The Omni HD and HD i/o racks convert from the analog guitar input signal, get processed be the HDX cards the daw and then go to the digital to analog stage where you hear that through your monitors. The whole point of companies pay into aax dsp integration is to get that 0.7ms round trip with processing. In addition to countering cracks which is what is so good about aax and even more so aax dsp. But the quality of the technology is the reason to get it.
The new MTRX stuff is supposed to be even faster it's absolutely insane what this stuff can do even with tons of Mic inputs.

But this new Studio one dual latency management system is interesting. In the Department of quick and dirty DAWs for pre-production, studio one is my favorite and is giving me some acceptable results. (Quick as in quick to load and light on system resources).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom