Chromatizm
Power User
Not sure if I'm qualified enough to make such statementsSo you're saying there's a chance?![]()
But CPU load - definitely increases. I'm just not sure if that can have any effect on latency.
Not sure if I'm qualified enough to make such statementsSo you're saying there's a chance?![]()
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.I'm just not sure if that can have any effect on latency.
Do the boosts in the Amp block modelled after a pedal add to Amp block latency when engaged?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
No. They're only the EQ curve for a drive.Do the boosts in the Amp block modelled after a pedal add to Amp block latency when engaged?
[157] The amp boosts are just the frequency shaping part of the drive. The clipping stuff is removed. It's analogous to turning the Drive knob all the way down and using the pedal as a clean boost.
Yes, the next release reduces the latency.
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.
From the release notes:Is it fixed in the firmware 6.00?
- AMP effect now has 32 less sample times of latency.
Thanks!From the release notes:
https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=Firmware_release_notes_-_FM9
Yes. 2.7ms (?) or so if I recall correctly, but happy for someone to correct me!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?
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?
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 worksOr 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.
Thanks for clarifying!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
2ms
Or 3.3 ms with an Amp block.
https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=Axe-Fx_III,_FM9_and_FM3#Latency
Yes, that's what Cliff said in this post:Thanks, yek. Do you know if the 2 ms-ish measurements from the FM3 and Axe FX are also without amp blocks (I recall them recently being posted when it was pointed out the FM9 was up in the 4 ms or more range, pre-FW 7.0).