You are not logged in.

  • Login

Dear visitor, you are currently not logged in. Login or Register as a new user .

Posts: 1,834

Location: Athens, Greece

  • Send private message

151

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 12:26pm

Daniel, so you measured 3.3ms with 1.0.5?

Could you send an error report to support regarding that glitch with 1.0.6?
"Quote me... I dare ya!"

USA Custom Guitars Strats -> KPA -> Alesis M1 Active MKII
www.myspace.com/schneidas

great guitar parts:
www.usacustomguitars.com

DanielRigler

Unregistered

152

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 12:31pm

Sure, I'll drop a mail to support.
Well based on my measurements I'm pretty confident that both 1.0.5 and 1.0.6 have the same latency: around 3.3 ms if my measuring method was correct. (I have used CEntrance LTU program + my RME 9632 card).

Maurizio70

Intermediate

Posts: 329

Location: Rome (Italy)

  • Send private message

153

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 2:34pm

Sure, I'll drop a mail to support.
Well based on my measurements I'm pretty confident that both 1.0.5 and 1.0.6 have the same latency: around 3.3 ms if my measuring method was correct. (I have used CEntrance LTU program + my RME 9632 card).


Daniel, I update my previous post and do more accurate measurements:
1.0.4 latency was about 207 samples (4,7 ms);
1.0.5 latency was about 107 samples (2,43 ms) (and THE BEST TILL NOW reached and that really meets the specifications);
1.0.6 latency was about 134 samples (3,04 ms)...

So, based on my tests, from 1.0.5 to 1.0.6 latency is very similar but not exactly the same... And thanks for your additional testing!

DanielRigler

Unregistered

154

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 3:09pm

Maybe my measuring setup is not as precise as yours... How do you measure it? Also what is the state of the STOMP / STACK / EFFECTS buttons. Do you measure on the same patch? Did you do a system initialization? Do you use the analog INs / OUTs?

DanielRigler

Unregistered

155

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 3:43pm

Also note that I have found you need to leave a few seconds for the unit after you make some changes to the patch in order for the latency to settle at the minimal values. These are probable due to some "housekeeping" activities inside the KPA. I'm not sure. Changing to a different patch can also introduce small latency changes even if only the stack is active. Oh and by the way I have used the front panel input and the main analog out for my tests.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "DanielRigler" (Mar 11th 2012, 3:51pm)


156

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 4:32pm

Quoted

Omg!! I've just read this thread and all the comments. I haven't updated my unit to 1.06 yet. Tomorrow I' ll check this bug,my current Fw is 1.05 but I didnt notice this problem previously. I'll let you know asap


Just for the record - it isn't present in .6895

Maurizio70

Intermediate

Posts: 329

Location: Rome (Italy)

  • Send private message

157

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 5:21pm

Maybe my measuring setup is not as precise as yours... How do you measure it? Also what is the state of the STOMP / STACK / EFFECTS buttons. Do you measure on the same patch? Did you do a system initialization? Do you use the analog INs / OUTs?


I measure before the latency of a chain (without the KPA) with a Send/Return loop active (only a single cable), after I simply substitute the cable in the Send/Return loop with the KPA (Analog Input/Output) and re-measure the latency. So, the latency introduced by the KPA is simply the difference between the previous two.
Measuring it using the same chain and then make the "difference" with/without the KPA is very precise because it remains independent from all the other stuff used (cables, audio soundcard and so on). All measurements were done with only STACK module ON and using always the same patch. It's not easy to explain, so I hope it was understandable ;(

DanielRigler

Unregistered

158

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 5:32pm

Thanks for the info. I have measured it in a similar way.
Anyway... lets hope for some official clarification soon. All these different results / bugs...etc. are very mysterious. :)

159

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 6:43pm

Sorry,nothing helpful to add,just wanted to be part of longest thread ever! :)

Maurizio70

Intermediate

Posts: 329

Location: Rome (Italy)

  • Send private message

160

Sunday, March 11th 2012, 6:56pm

BUG on Master Volume linked to other Volumes

In the version 1.0.6 when you link (as I do often) all the volumes together, Phones, Monitor, Main, Master and you turn the knob left and right the volumes have completely unexpected behaviour: every one after some turns has his own value; even some of them go to zero and so on. Then you have maually, one to one, restore the initial settings you want.

It seems as if the new idea behind the BUG was to link the volumes maintaining the relatives differences :wacko:
(so, for example: if you set "Monitor Volume" to -10 and "Main Volume" to -5 and they are linked together, when you turn left "Master Volume" to -12, "Monitor Volume" automatically must become -17... but it doesn't work...). Does anyone can do some tests to see if it occurs only to me?

Thank you!
Maurizio