EQ+ issue

[billcarroll]

Is there anyone here who wants EQ+ to have any uncompensated latency at all for the reason given, i.e., to prevent dropouts when inserting EQ+?

I personally don't care if there is a dropout when inserting an instance of EQ+ and would rather have all latency compensated.

[coolblinger]

Is there anyone here who wants EQ+ to have any uncompensated latency at all for the reason given, i.e., to prevent dropouts when inserting EQ+?

I personally don't care if there is a dropout when inserting an instance of EQ+ and would rather have all latency compensated.

I'm fairly sure everyone would prefer the oversampling latency to be compensated. Not doing that just doesn't make any sense, and if they really want people to be able to insert an EQ+ during live playback then they could always create a 'don't compensate latency' option in the inspector panel and allow you to save that as a default preset. Bitwig also doesn't compensate latency for the pitch shifter device, but oddly enough they do compensate the oversampling latency for the FX Grid device.

[SpaceCadetOnLeave]

Is there anyone here who wants EQ+ to have any uncompensated latency at all for the reason given, i.e., to prevent dropouts when inserting EQ+?

I personally don't care if there is a dropout when inserting an instance of EQ+ and would rather have all latency compensated.

you mean, preventing dropouts when inserting an EQ is a weird argument? yes totally.
just like the real-time/offline argument, btw

[askewd]

Yes or as I suggested, just have it detect if project is playing or not, and if playing don't compensate latency till stopped. No clicks, no more potential time issues. Sweet

I recall that in the betas of eq+ they had different modes such as HQ, which I guess they decided was too complex & not in line with their philosophy - so came up with a compromise 'to ignore the added 4 samples & hope no one notices' but I think deep down it must still bug them how it currently is as it's kinda sloppy.

[stamp]

They should at least consider compensating the latency at next playback start like _leras suggested. No clicks and no phasing.

[Dionysos]

I'm curious about the "depending on the settings" bit. Does the latency grow or shrink depending on EQ settings?

[billcarroll]

I'm curious about the "depending on the settings" bit. Does the latency grow or shrink depending on EQ settings?

I would imagine it would be affected by sample rate. Probably 4 samples at 44kHz.

[PhilipVasta]

EQ+ has always sort of bothered me. For one thing, there was no real need for an additional EQ. Second, the layout in EQ+ is more cumbersome than EQ5 overall IMO, but annoyingly a bit better in a couple ways. And then of course we have this latency issue that could be detrimental to your mix if you're not careful. I'm all for new and shiny but EQ+ was a bit of a misstep for Bitwig, I think.

[_leras]

They should at least consider compensating the latency at next playback start like _leras suggested. No clicks and no phasing.

they replied today actually, and thanked me for the suggestion!
I bet they already have a huge to do list though!

[_leras]

EQ+ has always sort of bothered me. For one thing, there was no real need for an additional EQ. Second, the layout in EQ+ is more cumbersome than EQ5 overall IMO, but annoyingly a bit better in a couple ways. And then of course we have this latency issue that could be detrimental to your mix if you're not careful. I'm all for new and shiny but EQ+ was a bit of a misstep for Bitwig, I think.

I guess they felt they had to match the EQ in live.

It is better than EQ5 sound wise, but I still go for EQ5 for things like hpf/lpf and to do things quickly. EQ+ takes *me* longer, as I keep clicking and adding unneeded bands. I kinda wish it was more like an expanded EQ5, which is easy to use.

For me, I have third party EQs if I need that level of control...

[billcarroll]

They should at least consider compensating the latency at next playback start like _leras suggested. No clicks and no phasing.

they replied today actually, and thanked me for the suggestion!
I bet they already have a huge to do list though!

Amazing. I just emailed a similar feature request.

[_leras]

Amazing. I just emailed a similar feature request.

The more requests - the more likely. Squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that!

[Chameleonman]

EQ+ has always sort of bothered me. For one thing, there was no real need for an additional EQ. Second, the layout in EQ+ is more cumbersome than EQ5 overall IMO, but annoyingly a bit better in a couple ways. And then of course we have this latency issue that could be detrimental to your mix if you're not careful. I'm all for new and shiny but EQ+ was a bit of a misstep for Bitwig, I think.

I guess they felt they had to match the EQ in live.

It is better than EQ5 sound wise, but I still go for EQ5 for things like hpf/lpf and to do things quickly. EQ+ takes *me* longer, as I keep clicking and adding unneeded bands. I kinda wish it was more like an expanded EQ5, which is easy to use.

For me, I have third party EQs if I need that level of control...

To me it's completely opposite. I absolutely see EQ+ like a expanded EQ-5. The EQ+ is so convenient if you hpf/lpf the cursor change to hpf/lpf automatically just by hovering the cursor around the ends of the spectrum. There is also the EQ-2 if you don't want to see any extra bands when you hpf/lpf, but I personally noticed I often need later a lot more than just a hipass, then I must add another EQ-2 or EQ-5... so it's better to me there is plenty of bands available if you need them later.

[billcarroll]

EQ+ is fantastic, we just need all latency compensated

[stamp]

EQ+ takes *me* longer, as I keep clicking and adding unneeded bands.

This drives me insane.