Module's latency ....

[edtc]

Hello

Is there a possibility that a future software update could reduce a bit the latency ?   maybe close to 2 millisecond from pad hit to audio output ...

that would be really great 

[GenuineHuman]

Do you know how high is the latency now? I have just noticed the other day when I was playing real drums that I was slightly out of sync. When I got home I recorded myself on the 2box and everything seemed fine. Could it be latency, because 95% of the time I'm playing 2Box?

[nonoduweb]

All about latency here:
http://www.2box-forum.com/index.php/topic,491.msg6644.html#msg6644

[BURNIN AMBITION]

that thread states that most lattency you get is 5msecond. 5 fricking milisecond. who can even understand that?
noone can. for me there is no lattency. only way i notice latency is if i put the kick pad in kick2 mode instead of kick 1. then the latency can be understood, but even the manual says kick2 has latency, so...just use kick1

[spoenk]

5ms latency is like your ears about 1,7m away from an acoustic drum...so it doesn't matter much when you play with headphones at home...latencies add up though...if your signal goes to a digital console, add 2 to 5ms or more, depending on the processing, if your stage monitors are 2 meters away from your ears, add 6ms...this list could go on with digital amp controllers and stuff...but you WILL notice, especially if you are trying to combine some direct monitoring from the 2box brain and stage monitors or whatever...
the latency of the 2box brain is good i think, but you can't ignore it. it does matter in some contexts...

[BURNIN AMBITION]

i will agree in the sense that you put it mate but then this delay would also be in acoustic drums when yopu hear them through the monitor speakers right? or the guitars etc.anyways....

[spoenk]

depends...acoustic drums, close mics, an analog console and outboard and latency is no issue... delay caused by the time sound needs to travels of course remains...

what is different is also, that you always hear your acoustic drum/electric guitar also directly, so delay between direct sound and monitor sound may cause comb filter effects...but not the strange feeling of hearing the sound only 20ms or whatever after you hit the e-drum...in the high frequencies a delay of 20ms already means we perceive the delayed sound as a separate sound i.e. echo...

as another example, many people hate to sing with in-ear monitors when they have a delay/latency as small as 5 ms...

[Baby Samus]

Consider this though:

It takes approximately 100 - 150ms for your eyes to receive data, for the data to travel to the brain and then for the brain to process it and make a picture.

I am unsure as to how long it takes our brain to process sound, but we can assume it takes at least as long and maybe longer, as the brain treats visual and sound data in a very similar manner.

Add in all the other 'latencies' in the system; your brain, nervous system and muscle response times, your technique, how well your piezo is triggering, whether you are running through other modules/mixers etc, how long it takes for the sound to travel to your ears - it adds up to a very significant amount.

I challenge anyone to tell the difference between lets say 4 and 12ms of delay from time of strike to sound coming through your headphones (as this is a much fairer test of actual module response times, cabinet/pa speakers tend to be a distance away, and the latency caused by that travel distance is nothing to do with the 2Box or its triggering speed).  Thats 4 - 12 THOUSANDTHS of a second.  It simply cannot be measured or felt, unless done by a machine or computer.

Personally I think 2Box triggers great, certainly as quick as playing an accoustic - so I guess my point is:

To all those of you who can honestly tell the difference between 1ms and 5ms delays, or 4ms and 8ms delays, you are either making a subjective assumption on how quickly your body processes sight and sound, you are genetically modified, or you are a robot from the future.  Either way, I am frightened! 

[BURNIN AMBITION]

it is common knowledge that i am the terminator and still cand tll this difference. so +1 for bab samus .(not karma lol)

[edtc]

I am unsure as to how long it takes our brain to process sound, but we can assume it takes at least as long and maybe longer, as the brain treats visual and sound data in a very similar manner.

not at all Samus ... audio discriminaton is close to real time ... if not , how would you percieve music ... the brain uses slight differences of delay between ears to understand the spatial position of a sound ... distance between both ears is 15 or 20 cm (0.6 millisec )...

Another example : vidéo uses 25 frames a second , top audio converters are 192 khz that means 192000 "frames " per second ...

an even if there where some brain audio buffer , if you mix real drum sound and "delayed" triggered sounds , there would allways be latency between both sounds...

[Baby Samus]

not at all Samus ... audio discriminaton is close to real time ... if not , how would you percieve music ... the brain uses slight differences of delay between ears to understand the spatial position of a sound ... distance between both ears is 15 or 20 cm (0.6 millisec )...

Another example : vidéo uses 25 frames a second , top audio converters are 192 khz that means 192000 "frames " per second ...

an even if there where some brain audio buffer , if you mix real drum sound and "delayed" triggered sounds , there would allways be latency between both sounds...

I don't mean to be rude but none of what your wrote is factually correct.

You said 'audio discriminaton is close to real time'.  It isn't at all.  One word - lightening.  If hearing was as quick as you say, why do we see lightening first, yet we do not hear thunder for many seconds later?  Light is faster than sound, obviously.  So thats that dealt with.

As regards video using 25 frames a second yes some formats do - but that doesn't mean anything at all as regards latency.  Your brain does not see 25 singular frames and the gap between them because those measurements are too short to consider - it is fooled into seeing a moving image, even though there is no movement, only static pictures. 

192khz is has nothing to do with 'frames' - it is a measurement of 192,000hz, or cycles of frequency per second - not a measurement of time.

[edtc]

You said 'audio discriminaton is close to real time'.  It isn't at all.  One word - lightening.  If hearing was as quick as you say, why do we see lightening first, yet we do not hear thunder for many seconds later?  Light is faster than sound, obviously.  So thats that dealt with.

no problem or offence , we are here to discuss

light is ultrafaster than sound , but that has nothing to do with the perception of the brain...  once the sound or image stimulus has reached the receptor(ear or eye) the neuronal signal travels at the same speed for light sound or even smell...

if we were just able to discriminate more than 125 ms , we would just be able to hear frequencies below 100 hertz , and obviously it s not the fact.... maybe some old drummers are in this case ..

[Baby Samus]

So you are talking about sight, sound and smell after it reaches the brain now, yes I agree - as I said:

I am unsure as to how long it takes our brain to process sound, but we can assume it takes at least as long and maybe longer, as the brain treats visual and sound data in a very similar manner.

As I said in my previous post, I don't think it is likely that anyone could tell the difference between 4 and 8ms of latency.  As the linked post shows the highest measured lag was around 8ms, and the quickest around 3ms no?  So my point is simply that these small measurements cannot be detected by us humans, and I would be amazed if anyone could tell the difference by ear to a pad triggering a sample at 4ms and another pad triggering the same sample set at 8ms.

[Krillo]

I'm using a ddrum3, which I have measured to have 2mS response time. When running the drums through my computer, at 64 samples buffer size 44.1kHz, this adds 4,2mS (2,2 on the way in and 2,0 on the way out) this is quite audible to me.
The difference feeling-wise, is that of what being hit actually making the sound, to hitting someting, and hearing a different sound. It's not so much I actually hear it, but more that the feeling of hitting the pad, and hearing the drum are more disconnected.

[fishmonkey]

It takes approximately 100 - 150ms for your eyes to receive data, for the data to travel to the brain and then for the brain to process it and make a picture.

I am unsure as to how long it takes our brain to process sound, but we can assume it takes at least as long and maybe longer, as the brain treats visual and sound data in a very similar manner.

Add in all the other 'latencies' in the system; your brain, nervous system and muscle response times, your technique, how well your piezo is triggering, whether you are running through other modules/mixers etc, how long it takes for the sound to travel to your ears - it adds up to a very significant amount.

I challenge anyone to tell the difference between lets say 4 and 12ms of delay from time of strike to sound coming through your headphones (as this is a much fairer test of actual module response times, cabinet/pa speakers tend to be a distance away, and the latency caused by that travel distance is nothing to do with the 2Box or its triggering speed).  Thats 4 - 12 THOUSANDTHS of a second.  It simply cannot be measured or felt, unless done by a machine or computer.

Personally I think 2Box triggers great, certainly as quick as playing an accoustic - so I guess my point is:

To all those of you who can honestly tell the difference between 1ms and 5ms delays, or 4ms and 8ms delays, you are either making a subjective assumption on how quickly your body processes sight and sound, you are genetically modified, or you are a robot from the future.  Either way, I am frightened! 

actually visual transduction (the conversion of light photons into brain impulses) is relatively slow, because it is an electrochemical process -- it takes roughly 25ms. auditory transduction is a direct mechanical process, and is much faster -- only about 1ms.

and whilst the visual system has much better spatial resolution, the auditory system has much better temporal resolution. your auditory system can detect gaps as small as about 2ms, whereas your visual system is about 10 times worse.

the latencies we are talking about are certainly perceivable by humans...

You said 'audio discriminaton is close to real time'.  It isn't at all.  One word - lightening.  If hearing was as quick as you say, why do we see lightening first, yet we do not hear thunder for many seconds later?  Light is faster than sound, obviously.  So thats that dealt with.

the speed of sound through air versus the speed of light are a different matter entirely to how fast the human perceptual system can process the energy once it reaches our sensory organs...