4 ms·

Yes, latency is huge. Modern digital audio stacks in consumer OSes are still completely terrible at this. Not that it's an easy problem to solve. But it's pr

Yes, latency is huge. Modern digital audio stacks in consumer OSes are still completely terrible at this. Not that it's an easy problem to solve. But it's pretty hard to beat elections flowing through an analog circuit, when in the digital side you have to: convert analog to digital, run through the kernel to get to user space, run the bits through the RNN, send back to kernel space, convert to analog and finally send to an output. In order to be competitive with a 1980s guitar pedal, you have to do all of that in under ~10ms latency, and that's just really hard still. Even though we carry around these super computers in our pockets these days, there are still some things left where analog still beats the pants.

hashkb 5y ago
Also, the competition is not against vintage analog gear. Modern analog gear is having a true Renaissance, and this community can afford to support the Wampler's of the world. I don't understand the modelling camp at all, their stuff just doesn't sound good, nor is there any joy in working with it.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  I feel the same but it's hell convincing the reductionists that they haven't got 'the thing, and the whole of the thing' in their little emulation. There's also another element: if you have, say, a vintage Fender Champ and a Klon (or whatever) it's because you mean to project different expressions through your string handling and note-playing. At that level you've made a best effort to produce the most emotionally transparent and responsive signal chain, which you will then not think about once you've got it turned on and tweaked: ALL the settings are liable to sound 'good' and respond for you. The modeling approach is so often "This is exactly that, but better, because here are twelve other Fender Champs and models of Klon to choose from!" and when the first claim isn't as true as we would like, and the second is a distraction and time-sink, that's not great. I can tell when I've chosen wrongly in my music-making tools, because I flat-out stop making music. Even in a dilettantish way: it just stops being a thing. That's a concern.
  - crmd 5y ago
    I have this problem just with the torpedo captor x speaker simulator. At first I thought it was a game changer for apartment guitar playing. However the plethora of speaker, mic, and placement options makes me spend way too much time browsing and fussing rather than playing. I’d rather have one decent cab in a room where I can turn up the volume rather than hundreds of simulation options.
    - tigeba 5y ago
      FWIW, I have been using the Captor X as a quick tracking and editing tool. I will record the DI + Captor track. It can be a bit easier to comp the DI parts. Then later I go back and re-amp them thru my amps and speakers. I do have the benefit of a few nice amp and cabinet options and decent soundproofing, but it helps keep the ear-bleeding levels down to a minimum. That has kind of helped me avoid fiddling with Captor settings endlessly.
bentpins 5y ago
How huge is the latency? It's using Elk Audio OS, claiming 1ms roundtrip. I doubt this usage gets that low but I wouldn't be surprised if it was doing alright
kakwa_ 5y ago
Also we had electronic simulators for various instruments for ages now. Things like Clavinova keyboards Piano or Line 6 Pods simulating Guitar/Bass amps & effects have been out their for decades now. And while they have been quite popular due to the sheer number of sonorities and the convenience they bring (possibility to play with an headset, extremely useful to play at night or in apartments), traditional analog setups remain strong. Playing on an analog setup still is more pleasant and more expressive IMHO, in particular "simulators" tend to mask the attack when hitting a note, and hides a lot the tension/crispation in the hands/fingers when playing, leading to potential bad habits, specially for people learning to play an instrument. Analog to digital and digital to analog conversion definitely lead to loses in expressiveness.
- ushakov 5y ago
  i totally agree traditional methods were successful in emulating sounds, but they fail short at replicating the feel and response of the hardware they're trying to replicate that's why you need neural networks!
- hugey010 5y ago
  I'd say lower guitar skill ranges (me) get an improved sound from modern digital effects and tools. As the skill gets higher, those effects, especially high compression, mask your style and desired end sound.
titzer 5y ago
Yes, latency is really important, though it is important to note that digital signal processing doesn't need that huge stack. In fact, audio DSP chips have at least 25 years of history and the result is that today you can get things like the Vox AC30 which is a digital headphone amp--all digital--that has no perceptible latency. That one in particular, sounds pretty darn good, for just being a single battery-powered chip! > In order to be competitive with a 1980s guitar pedal, you have to do all of that in under ~10ms latency, and that's just really hard still. Well, don't use a whole PC with software stack. A custom embedded solution with DSP can easily manage. > Even though we carry around these super computers in our pockets these days, there are still some things left where analog still beats the pants. Again, it's not digital vs analog, it's massive software stack versus embedded hardware/software solution.
karmakaze 5y ago
The time in the RNN might be the only thing that's hard. We can commonly do A/D, D/A pretty quick. I can make a db request over a network, have it parse the SQL, execute it reading a bunch of SSD pages and return the sorted results in about 1ms. The answer would probably be to reduce the 'learned' output to be a convolution kernel that gets run rather than the RNN itself on the input. Then the kernel only has to change gradually to produce a different sound not continuous processing to produce a particular sound.
smoldesu 5y ago
> Modern digital audio stacks in consumer OSes are still completely terrible at this. Not that it's an easy problem to solve. Honestly, the only OS that's truly bad at this is Windows. DirectSound is laggy and highly limited in it's capabilities, and even a nice ASIO won't fully alleviate your issues. Your best bet is to get a DAC and hope for the best. Besides that, I've found Linux and MacOS to be very similar in terms of latency, out of the box. However, I've found that tuning Linux with a custom low-latency kernel absolutely destroys CoreAudio's latency. Given that it's something most people won't be doing, I think it's fair to say that both OSes are tied, but I still give the edge to Linux for having a more modular and adaptable sound backend.
tigeba 5y ago
I could see using something like this on a pedalboard in pedal form if you had the latency around <5ms or so for sure. I use a combination of analog and digital effects combined with analog amplifiers. I still prefer the actual amps quite a bit compared to simulations, but the simulations are a lot less of a pain. Recently I have been using a combination load box / cabinet simulator and I think those types of devices can really deliver in terms of tone and convenience.
jiofih 5y ago
> Modern digital audio stacks in consumer OSes are still completely terrible at this This has been solved for over a decade. Linux is a bit tricky but MacOS and Windows have native low latency drivers. There are also a ton of digital effects units running at 0ms on the market.
slver 5y ago
A smartphone doesn't have super-low latency audio only because its makers have not set out to have it. The only strength of analog processors is that they're dedicated. That an iPhone SoC and run dedicated audio-only OS on it, and there we go.
throayobviousl 5y ago
seems like you never used an Axe Fx

hashkb 5y ago

Also, the competition is not against vintage analog gear. Modern analog gear is having a true Renaissance, and this community can afford to support the Wampler's of the world. I don't understand the modelling camp at all, their stuff just doesn't sound good, nor is there any joy in working with it.

Applejinx 5y ago
I feel the same but it's hell convincing the reductionists that they haven't got 'the thing, and the whole of the thing' in their little emulation. There's also another element: if you have, say, a vintage Fender Champ and a Klon (or whatever) it's because you mean to project different expressions through your string handling and note-playing. At that level you've made a best effort to produce the most emotionally transparent and responsive signal chain, which you will then not think about once you've got it turned on and tweaked: ALL the settings are liable to sound 'good' and respond for you. The modeling approach is so often "This is exactly that, but better, because here are twelve other Fender Champs and models of Klon to choose from!" and when the first claim isn't as true as we would like, and the second is a distraction and time-sink, that's not great. I can tell when I've chosen wrongly in my music-making tools, because I flat-out stop making music. Even in a dilettantish way: it just stops being a thing. That's a concern.
- crmd 5y ago
  I have this problem just with the torpedo captor x speaker simulator. At first I thought it was a game changer for apartment guitar playing. However the plethora of speaker, mic, and placement options makes me spend way too much time browsing and fussing rather than playing. I’d rather have one decent cab in a room where I can turn up the volume rather than hundreds of simulation options.
  - tigeba 5y ago
    FWIW, I have been using the Captor X as a quick tracking and editing tool. I will record the DI + Captor track. It can be a bit easier to comp the DI parts. Then later I go back and re-amp them thru my amps and speakers. I do have the benefit of a few nice amp and cabinet options and decent soundproofing, but it helps keep the ear-bleeding levels down to a minimum. That has kind of helped me avoid fiddling with Captor settings endlessly.

bentpins 5y ago

How huge is the latency? It's using Elk Audio OS, claiming 1ms roundtrip. I doubt this usage gets that low but I wouldn't be surprised if it was doing alright

kakwa_ 5y ago

Also we had electronic simulators for various instruments for ages now. Things like Clavinova keyboards Piano or Line 6 Pods simulating Guitar/Bass amps & effects have been out their for decades now. And while they have been quite popular due to the sheer number of sonorities and the convenience they bring (possibility to play with an headset, extremely useful to play at night or in apartments), traditional analog setups remain strong. Playing on an analog setup still is more pleasant and more expressive IMHO, in particular "simulators" tend to mask the attack when hitting a note, and hides a lot the tension/crispation in the hands/fingers when playing, leading to potential bad habits, specially for people learning to play an instrument. Analog to digital and digital to analog conversion definitely lead to loses in expressiveness.

ushakov 5y ago
i totally agree traditional methods were successful in emulating sounds, but they fail short at replicating the feel and response of the hardware they're trying to replicate that's why you need neural networks!
hugey010 5y ago
I'd say lower guitar skill ranges (me) get an improved sound from modern digital effects and tools. As the skill gets higher, those effects, especially high compression, mask your style and desired end sound.

titzer 5y ago

Yes, latency is really important, though it is important to note that digital signal processing doesn't need that huge stack. In fact, audio DSP chips have at least 25 years of history and the result is that today you can get things like the Vox AC30 which is a digital headphone amp--all digital--that has no perceptible latency. That one in particular, sounds pretty darn good, for just being a single battery-powered chip! > In order to be competitive with a 1980s guitar pedal, you have to do all of that in under ~10ms latency, and that's just really hard still. Well, don't use a whole PC with software stack. A custom embedded solution with DSP can easily manage. > Even though we carry around these super computers in our pockets these days, there are still some things left where analog still beats the pants. Again, it's not digital vs analog, it's massive software stack versus embedded hardware/software solution.

karmakaze 5y ago

The time in the RNN might be the only thing that's hard. We can commonly do A/D, D/A pretty quick. I can make a db request over a network, have it parse the SQL, execute it reading a bunch of SSD pages and return the sorted results in about 1ms. The answer would probably be to reduce the 'learned' output to be a convolution kernel that gets run rather than the RNN itself on the input. Then the kernel only has to change gradually to produce a different sound not continuous processing to produce a particular sound.

smoldesu 5y ago

> Modern digital audio stacks in consumer OSes are still completely terrible at this. Not that it's an easy problem to solve. Honestly, the only OS that's truly bad at this is Windows. DirectSound is laggy and highly limited in it's capabilities, and even a nice ASIO won't fully alleviate your issues. Your best bet is to get a DAC and hope for the best. Besides that, I've found Linux and MacOS to be very similar in terms of latency, out of the box. However, I've found that tuning Linux with a custom low-latency kernel absolutely destroys CoreAudio's latency. Given that it's something most people won't be doing, I think it's fair to say that both OSes are tied, but I still give the edge to Linux for having a more modular and adaptable sound backend.

tigeba 5y ago

I could see using something like this on a pedalboard in pedal form if you had the latency around <5ms or so for sure. I use a combination of analog and digital effects combined with analog amplifiers. I still prefer the actual amps quite a bit compared to simulations, but the simulations are a lot less of a pain. Recently I have been using a combination load box / cabinet simulator and I think those types of devices can really deliver in terms of tone and convenience.

jiofih 5y ago

> Modern digital audio stacks in consumer OSes are still completely terrible at this This has been solved for over a decade. Linux is a bit tricky but MacOS and Windows have native low latency drivers. There are also a ton of digital effects units running at 0ms on the market.

slver 5y ago

A smartphone doesn't have super-low latency audio only because its makers have not set out to have it. The only strength of analog processors is that they're dedicated. That an iPhone SoC and run dedicated audio-only OS on it, and there we go.

throayobviousl 5y ago

seems like you never used an Axe Fx