please fix the eq+ latencey issue

[Danilo Villanova]

Any use case?

Are we saying that it adds latency that gradually builds up and will put one track out of time with another over the length of a track?

No... EQ+ latency is like a few samples only. You'll never notice it except when parallel processing.

With all love and respect, shifting sounds by a even few samples often makes all the difference.

Someone was saying that the track was completely out of sync... that cannot be due to EQ+.

"completely out of sync" is relative. It was audibly out of sync with the percussion part and the click, even though it was quantized. The EQ had a lot of bands. It was a fast rhythmic part, so it became evident.

A lot of plugins add latency, but the DAW needs to compensate for that, so that tracks don't go out sync with e/o. I was using other plugins and any of them could have been the culprit, that's why I asked if Bitwig is correctly compensating for the latency of EQ+ like it does with other plugins.

If it isn't then it's REALLY unusable and the whole "don't use in parallel, it's not design for that" line of argument is just cope. I hope this isn't the case, I'm new to Bitwig and this would be a major disappointment.

[Dionysos]

"completely out of sync" is relative. It was audibly out of sync with the percussion part and the click, even though it was quantized.

Highly unlikely that EQ+ caused this. A few samples of delay may cause phasing issues with other instruments, but not audible timing problems.
Check the other plugins you were using:

I was using other plugins and any of them could have been the culprit

[Trancit]

The maximum latency EQ+ creates here with all 8 bands activated are 8 samples (@44.1 kHz)...

Hard to believe 8 samples would "unsync" tracks from each other even with percussion sounds...

At the very end you just need to insert a timeshift device after the EQ+ and just turn it a bit into the negative range until it sounds right...
Idk but I find this hardly a deal breaker... while of course an automatic latency compensation would be more comfortable.

[OdoSendaidokai]

"completely out of sync" is relative. It was audibly out of sync with the percussion part and the click, even though it was quantized. The EQ had a lot of bands. It was a fast rhythmic part, so it became evident.

Can't be EQ+ because there is just a latency that causes phasing with parallel processing and that's completely something else, than timing issues.

I explained the EQ+ issue here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0t4RJM2hwY

[billcarroll]

It’s true EQ+ is like this by design. In this case it’s poor design, and the variable uncompensated delay is not documented in the manual. Much love for Bitwig, but not for EQ+

[BazJacuzzi]

I really wish they'd fix this with an option to compensate the delay. Seems like such an easy win.

[UltraByte]

its a sad joke BWS refuses to acknowledge this as an issue. it should be at least an option to toggle in order to maintain the zero latency "live" character too.

similar to the issue duplicating two tracks which will automatically offset by 1 sample which is deemed "ok"

[UltraByte]

Any use case?

Are we saying that it adds latency that gradually builds up and will put one track out of time with another over the length of a track?

No... EQ+ latency is like a few samples only. You'll never notice it except when parallel processing.

thats the way for a hobbyist daw. good enough instead of perfect.

[Dionysos]

thats the way for a hobbyist daw. good enough instead of perfect.

No, it's different priorities and trade-offs. The current behaviour is "perfect" for live usage.

[UltraByte]

thats the way for a hobbyist daw. good enough instead of perfect.

No, it's different priorities and trade-offs. The current behaviour is "perfect" for live usage.

if thats its perfect usecase than it should be mentioned here.
https://www.bitwig.com/media/bitwig_use ... nglish.pdf

Code: Select all

18.8. EQ
Each EQ (equalizer) device is a set of parallel frequency-specific
processors (for example, like a low band and high band) that operate on
its incoming audio signals.
18.8.1. EQ+
A parametric equalizer of up to eight bands, with a unique, rainbow-y
graphical interface. There are fourteen available modes for each band,
18. DEVICE DESCRIPTIONS
446
global frequency Shift and Gain controls, an Adaptive-Q option (to
proportionately scale Q values as gain increases), an option to display a
Reference track within the spectrum display, and unique layouts in the
Device Panel, Inspector Panel, and Expanded Device View.
There are also a number of mouse gestures for adding a band with a
specific mode:
› Peak filters are added by double-clicking at the current mouse cursor
position.
› Low-/high-shelf filters are added by dragging the left/right edges of
the EQ curve.
› Low-/high-cut filters are added by dragging the left/right edges of the
EQ graph (off the curve).
› Notch filters are added by dragging the lower edge of the EQ graph.
Different mouse cursors are shown to identify each interaction's filter
mode.

where is it defined.

in a professional application it has to be clearly defined, without the need to browse forums for dev answers regarding the behavior of core elements.

Additionally the name can be misleading. Its an "EQ-Live" not EQ+.

[Lesha]

"A parametric equalizer of up to eight bands, with a unique, rainbow-y graphical interface."

This cracked me up

[Dionysos]

if thats its perfect usecase than it should be mentioned here.

I think the use case is to be a general purpose EQ, and I assume it's a general Bitwig principle that its bread & butter devices are live-use friendly. But it certainly wouldn't harm to add a note or warning to the manual.

Personally I'd consider using non-linear phase filters in a parallel setup where phasing could cause issues to be MUCH more of a fringe use case for Bitwig than live performance. And I would not expect it to work without issues out of the box in the general case. So calls for "perfection" in that context seem odd to me. If you want perfection, don't use filters in parallel.

But I seem to be in the minority with that view here. And I can see how people who've used EQ5 in this way in the past are annoyed that EQ+ works differently. But EQ5 hasn't gone anywhere.

[stamp]

If you want perfection, don't use filters in parallel.

And all the cool mixing tricks you can do with parallel filters?

[PhilipVasta]

if thats its perfect usecase than it should be mentioned here.

I think the use case is to be a general purpose EQ, and I assume it's a general Bitwig principle that its bread & butter devices are live-use friendly. But it certainly wouldn't harm to add a note or warning to the manual.

Personally I'd consider using non-linear phase filters in a parallel setup where phasing could cause issues to be MUCH more of a fringe use case for Bitwig than live performance. And I would not expect it to work without issues out of the box in the general case. So calls for "perfection" in that context seem odd to me. If you want perfection, don't use filters in parallel.

But I seem to be in the minority with that view here. And I can see how people who've used EQ5 in this way in the past are annoyed that EQ+ works differently. But EQ5 hasn't gone anywhere.

I agree that it’s probably supposed to be a general purpose EQ. That’s what bothers me about it. Like the other plus versions of their devices, it feels like the developers had some years to rethink what was best for the default devices in their DAW. Refined UI and functionality, etc. The plus devices, in my opinion, are significant improvements over the older devices. So it kills me that EQ+ has improvements I’d like to take advantage of but can’t because the latency will inevitably rear its ugly head.

Also, I wouldn’t assume that parallel processing is a fringe case, although this is coming from someone who rarely performs live, so that’s not a priority for me and undoubtedly colors my perception. Still, parallel processing in today’s computer-based production environment seems like it would be super common. Maybe in the old days it was a more esoteric thing where you had to go out of your way to route things that way, I’m not sure. But today it’s as simple as using a mix knob in a container device.

And yes, it’s true that EQ5 hasn’t gone anywhere, but I’d like the updated workflow that EQ+ provides.

[BazJacuzzi]

Honestly, how often does someone performing live decide to drag an EQ into a channel? This is the justification, and it seems extremely uncommon. In any case, the track that the EQ+ is dragged into clicks because of the delay the EQ introduces.

On the other hand, parallel processing (with or without linear phase) is a very common, run-of-the-mill operation.

I really think Bitwig got this wrong, and I don't understand why they continue to double down on it.