Quote:
I am at 512 samples mode last days. It's interesting challenge to make it work good! Around 25ms real latency with good asio soundcard, L/R output. I still need to measure FM out. With 1024 already can be made good quality preset.
That much, 25 ms at 512 samples latency? Before you reported 22 for version 6.00... And in the current BETA's it should be a few ms lower (and again almost 1 ms in the latest beta).
I expect: 12 ms + 6 ms * CPU load (based on a single core) + ASIO latency (2-3 ms?). So a latency around 17-18 ms should be possible. Have you tried increasing Stereo Tool's priority?
Quote:
Punch: Like it's not working at 512 (?), but interest thing happens with punch at 512. There is already good punch without punch filter. Maybe even too much, or it's because MB behavior at 512.
Yes, I think I need to build something in Loudness to protect the filter against very loud lows. Actually that's already there, but it doesn't work properly (it probably
causes distortion instead of reducing it) at "extremely" low latencies. Fixing this should also improve the quality of loud bass sounds.
Quote:
Currently only problem in 512 mode is MB and Bass Boost! All other filters seems good.
Basss Boost: Seem good at bass (steepness 30%) but playing eg. 500Hz sine, gives ringing sounds at bass Boost (check BassBoost 'diff').
Will check.
Quote:
I found that "steepness" is not good over ~30%, so, acceptable artifacts. But MB not working properly then. Band are too much mixed, and no control over lowest frequencies.
I knoq that Hans explained what's the problem with this very lowe latencies. Math is good. But then i ask myself, How Omnia works with 10ms latency (L/R input > MPX out), Orban, Breakaway, etc. Maybe there is different approach, or there is actually 1024 mode is used but processing latency lowered.
If I had infinite processing power (or actually, could use 256 times as much as I do now), I could completely remove all artifacts and at the same time reduce the latency by half - so to 6 ms. Or to 12 based on 1024 processing...
But more realistically in the near future: I think I need to an extra MB stage that's not phase linear. I did that some time ago and it worked very well, although I couldn't use clipping. But that can be solved by using 2 MB's: One non-phase linear before all the other processing, then one that's phase linear for the final details and clipping.
But I'm not going to do this for version 6.01 anymore - maybe some 6.02 version...
Quote:
What should be lowest latency at 1024 ? Anyway i'll measure tomorrow.
I would expect 12 ms above the 512 latency, plus 6 ms * CPU load (so at 50% CPU load that would give 15 ms of extra latency).
Quote:
Q: ST uses 1 core (?) but how many 'threads' ?
It uses 2 threads and potentially also 2 cores. But one does much more than the other. There's not much to be gained there in latency though - I cannot do much in parallel. At latencies 2048 and below only 1 thread is used to avoid 'unpredictable' behavior which could cause hiccups.
Quote:
Note: For 512 and 1024 mode should be 'always' locked to "never-phase-linear in bandpass. There is just no reason for using phase-linear at this low latency settings.
Maybe... But the default is 'auto select', which I think does what it should do.