Latency Problem (in V3.6.3) |
Latency Problem (in V3.6.3) |
Dec 5 2015, 07:18 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 13-October 13 Member No.: 13,612 |
Hi, there is a problem - by default, grm plugins not transmit to DAW their delay (latency) info.
i.e. DAW cannot automatically compensate latency which produce plugins. It`s starts work only if we disabled and enabled again specific plugin in rack. Here i record short video wich good demonstrate this problem (for example two identical tracks, one track with GRM Equalize, you will hear the difference): https://youtu.be/LEqGHPW1rsI VST 64bit Complete II v3.6.3, Windows, DAW Studio one 2. (And BTW - delay 87ms for EQ, it's not a bug ? i.e. its should be ?) This post has been edited by Anatolyj: Dec 5 2015, 07:40 PM |
|
|
Dec 5 2015, 10:46 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 13-October 13 Member No.: 13,612 |
And what I wanted to say about latency of whole GRM bundle.
Plugins with zero latency (no delay): Band Pass 0ms CombFilter 0ms Delays 0ms Doppler 0ms Freeze 0ms PitchAccum 0ms Reson 0ms Shuffling 0ms SpaceGrain 0ms Spaces 0ms Its very good. Next plugins which produce signal delay: Contrast 40.6ms Equalize 87.1ms FreqShift 17.4ms (default bands 512), and 180ms with 4096 bands FreqWarp 40.6ms (default bands 1024), and 180ms with 4096 bands Fusion 40.6ms Grinder 5.8ms (default bands 128), and 180ms with 4096 bands SpaceFilter 87.1ms And offcourse Evolution are king here, 365.7ms (default bands 8192), and almost 3 second (!) delay with bands 65536 I can understand about all plugins signal delay (especially Evolution), but come on guys, normal graphic equalizer with 87ms latency, need something to do with that. It's fantastic agitation system, really love it, and very sad that it's almost not a usable in realtime. Please, It may be possible to optimize this? In vst world are there tons of powerful EQ-s which have at least 0.1ms delay. Also can assume, that if can optimize EQ latency (that certainly can be done), then in general, it should be possible to optimize whole GRM tools FFT engine (just in the sense of latency), i.e. delay for the other grm plug-ins. That would be really cool. This post has been edited by Anatolyj: Dec 5 2015, 11:04 PM |
|
|
Dec 7 2015, 10:35 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 67 Joined: 24-March 11 Member No.: 9,521 |
Hi Anatolyj,
All the GRM Tools plugins send the latency to the DAW when inserted or when the latency change. It seems that Studio One 2 does not take this information into account when the plugins is inserted. This bug was fixed in Studio One 3. Best Regards Emmanuel GRM Tools Support |
|
|
Dec 7 2015, 11:00 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 67 Joined: 24-March 11 Member No.: 9,521 |
Hi Anatolyj,
GRM Tools plugins in Spectral Transform and Evolution bundles are based on Fourier Transform. The frequency resolution is directly linked to the size of the block of samples. In Evolution with 65536 frequency bands, you need 131072 samples to start the process, which is almost 3 seconds at 44.1 kHz. Equalize is also based on FFT. It allows to have very sharp filtering, or even to completely cut some bands. But the drawback is the latency. You are right, there are tons of EQ, each with pros and cons. You can choose the one that best fits your needs. Best Regards Emmanuel GRM Tools Support |
|
|
Dec 7 2015, 05:13 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 13-October 13 Member No.: 13,612 |
QUOTE It seems that Studio One 2 does not take this information into account when the plugins is inserted. Hi Emmanuel. I doubt that it's Studio One 2 bug, because i have used many of plug-ins from different vendors and it's first time when i seen such plugin latency behavior in S2 (when it's run only after disabled\enabled plugin). QUOTE GRM Tools plugins in Spectral Transform and Evolution bundles are based on Fourier Transform. The frequency resolution is directly linked to the size of the block of samples. In Evolution with 65536 frequency bands, you need 131072 samples to start the process, which is almost 3 seconds at 44.1 kHz. Yes, i understand, as i already said actually i have no complaints to Evolution latency as well as for similar mentioned plug-ins with complex FFT processing. I mentioned the numbers are likely to compare, for just in case, drawing attention to the equalizer as a device which most simple of them, with obvious potential for optimization, and I'm sorry I did not hear the reasons why this can not be done. BUT btw in this may be my ignorance - since i sure that many vst EQ's (incl. with almost zero delay) also using FFT, or perhaps I'm wrong ? not a programmer. If such equalizers as for example waves GEQ have a completely different engine, then i ask forgive my stupidity. QUOTE You are right, there are tons of EQ, each with pros and cons. You can choose the one that best fits your needs. (I would certainly do it, but they do not have similar agitation system.) |
|
|
Dec 8 2015, 02:43 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 13-October 13 Member No.: 13,612 |
And nothing more ? Ok, please forget all that I have said about the overall latency and eq, but i still hope that will fix the bug mentioned in the first post, please check it again.
|
|
|
Jan 3 2016, 02:09 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 3-January 16 Member No.: 19,358 |
And what I wanted to say about latency of whole GRM bundle… …In vst world are there tons of powerful EQ-s which have at least 0.1ms delay. Also can assume, that if can optimize EQ latency (that certainly can be done), then in general, it should be possible to optimize whole GRM tools FFT engine (just in the sense of latency), i.e. delay for the other grm plug-ins. That would be really cool. sorry, but you are demonstrating a clear misapprehension of FFT based real-time analysis and processing. Comparing such tools with the "tons of powerful EQ-s which have at least 0.1ms delay" is meaningless, read a bit before making statements like this. |
|
|
Jan 4 2016, 07:26 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 13-October 13 Member No.: 13,612 |
sorry, but you are demonstrating a clear misapprehension of FFT based real-time analysis and processing. Comparing such tools with the "tons of powerful EQ-s which have at least 0.1ms delay" is meaningless, read a bit before making statements like this. Well, at that moment I really got excited perhaps, possible reason for this first impulsive emotion when you see such dream tools, and in the same time such latency restriction, as the only obstacle hindering to nirvana. On the other hand, using them for some time, and read old messages of this thread (in what condition grm plugins had been before), now i can say that has done a really great work to current version: i had to hard test a couple of plug-ins from a collection in a completely different modes - primarily it was all that concerns to overall automation, then render\bounce, and save\reopen plugin in any different settings\condition in DAW project - damn, it all was works absolutely properly. I really appreciated it, very cool. But again - problem with Studio One 2 (about non work latency transfer by default) - a controversial issue imo. (BTW this problem i solved via jbridge, oddly enough )). But nonetheless, considering above, i can say it's worth it. I hope the grm folks is not very offended by me. This post has been edited by Anatolyj: Jan 4 2016, 07:28 PM |
|
|
Jan 6 2016, 05:35 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 1-November 14 Member No.: 16,978 |
I hope the grm folks is not very offended by me. Au contraire. As a GRMtools user, I appreciate your thread and posts. You did take measures and shared the results, plus your language and netiquette has no fault. However, yes, you could have kept open possibilities by adding a question mark or some conditional word into the title and thread's content. As the devs shared here, there are technical reasons for such delay behavior, however this information is not easy to locate either at GRM site or here, so your posting did actually brought it up for several of us, users or potential ones. Also, I have read of other plugin brands having similar problems with Studio One software, so you might be interested in checking that. This post has been edited by Nspace: Jan 6 2016, 05:37 PM |
|
|
Jan 7 2016, 02:34 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 13-October 13 Member No.: 13,612 |
Nspace Yes btw you are right abut my language - i often use google translator and some phrases i admit can expressed not quite exactly. Well, thank you for you reply, then all not so bad. )
This post has been edited by Anatolyj: Jan 7 2016, 02:35 PM |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th June 2024 - 10:58 AM |