Hi Guys,

Thanks for the replies. Interesting that (most of) the effects have no impact on the latency. I was expecting a little contribution from each, but then again; if it is “just” applying an algorithm, then it is understandable. And that it is slightly more complicated with pitch effects, which probably first need a little time to “identify” the tone before applying the effect, seems logical too.

@Skydiver: I am in Europe, but thank you for the offer. My main problem is that I often use personal in-ear for my guitar tone since I use a modeller (usually AXE-FX II, but sometime Atomic Amplifire) and cannot rely on having appropriate monitor sound. Not only is it often “foreign” equipment and/or sound tech, but I also move around stage alot. Since my wireless guitar sender introduces some latency (Sony DWZ 3-6ms) as does my in-ear (Mipro same level), there is not a lot of “buffer” before it starts getting annoying, in particular when you hear the drummer or any other co-musician directly. My experience is that above 20ms (nominal) I start feeling out of sync. Maybe it is subjective and/or maybe the nominal data on my previous devices giving me the impression were wrong. I just don’t have time to experiment much and want to have a reasonable expectation of success before investing in new gear.
Best regards,



I think you could get used to that if you always played with this setup. But only if you could make it so, that you get everything over your in-ears. I often see people with only one bud in, that is one of the biggest mistake concerning in-ears (1: you have the bud that’s still in way to loud 2: you have two differing latencies).

But i appreciate you playing with in-ears, most guitar players don’t realize that when they stand in 2m distance from their amp they already have a latency of 5,8ms (at 18°C). You often forget about this when talking about gear.
My point being that you can adapt to the circumstances when they’re constant.

With your setup i add up 2*6+8=20ms for the setup with the duo, that would be within your margin, right?


having just had a note from @gianfranco about the expression pedal, i’m now curious if there’s any news about manufacturing and delivery of the Mod Duo X. :slight_smile:


Coming out still this week :wink:




I meant a Duo X update :wink:


aha… i’ll look forward to the news!


I almost had a heart attack :slight_smile:


Communication about the Duo X delivery is a bit sloppy …


Hi everyone

I am finally writing to follow-up on your MOD Duo X pre-order.

Since our last update, we have finally received the twice-delayed coreboards from the manufacturer. While this should actually be good news, the delivery of the coreboards came with an unpleasant surprise, which suddenly and at the very last minute put our production on hold.

Every coreboard manufacturer delivers a so-called Board Support Package. Contrary to advertised, the provided Board Support Package for our brand new coreboards turns out to be incomplete. The SPI infrastructure does not have a complete driver set yet.

We are currently doing all we can to not rely solely on the manufacturer, but instead, explore all options to solve the issue independently. Unfortunately, this means we will not yet be able to ship the Duo X in time with the holidays. We have feverishly tried to resolve the issue and at least ship the first few units before Christmas. We couldn’t, however, manage in the short time available and this renewed delay saddens us deeply.

Let me deviate to explain in more detail. Please bear with me, as this can get a bit geeky.

As with almost every modern device that features a computing processor, we are also using ARM CPUs. These units are called SOC - System On a Chip - because they integrate into a single chip all of the peripherals you find on PC motherboards - USB and other interfaces, Graphics Unit and others. In that sense, there is a myriad of different ARM CPUs, each one with a set of features that fits the use case of the product it will be in. As an example, mobile phones processors have a good GPU whereas Internet Routers processors have multiple network interfaces.

All of these features require a driver, a piece of low-level code provided by the manufacturer, that "explains" to the Operating System how to operate the feature.

One of the features we use is called SPI - Serial Peripheral Interface. It is a type of port used to communicate two separate chips and we use it to make the CV interfaces "talk" to the CPU. What we have discovered, once the boards were here, is that the SPI infrastructure does not have a complete driver set.

One of the things that the coreboard manufacturer must supply is a BSP - Board Support Package. This is a collection of all drivers and other tools that enable us to develop software for the board. Because our board is so new and also because some of the SPIs are used for a possible Touchscreen panel - which is officially not supported yet - the manufacturer has not published full SPI support. From our side, since we are doing full SPI usage, even without a Touchscreen we need the supplier to release the missing bit of drivers.

And where does that leave us?

This is blocking us from liberating our boards for production. We cannot risk shipping an entire batch of devices based solely on the hope that, once the software is in place, it will be fully functional. We need to test it thoroughly before kicking off production. At the same time, we cannot just sit and wait for the supplier to release the missing pieces of code so we’re trying to put in place a self-developed driver that will enable us to at least run severe validation tests.

That’s one of the aspects of innovation: navigating in uncharted territories might bring you upon places not explored so far. In our case, though the hardware is there, the driver for this function was not yet created. Since we’re not the coreboard designers, our means to get this done paint a rather tough quest. Yet, we are going through it.

We cannot thank you enough for your ongoing patience and understanding throughout the wild ride that launching the Duo X has been. We, just like you, are more than eager to finally start shipping and see what amazing results will emerge once the Duo X is in your hands. We can guarantee you that the final result will be well worth the wait. Until then, we’ll be back with another update in January.

Best wishes,



of course! :+1::clap::love_you_gesture:


Thanks Gianfranco! This is exactly what all of us were waiting for I think. Indeed quality should come first, so a bit more patience on our side is not a problem. It would be good to get an update like this regularly.




now the fact that you guys are thinking ahead to touchscreens gives me confidence.
i remember what certain friends said when i was waiting for the original MOD and my original patience has been rewarded many times over as i now have a product which is excellent quality, and the wait was worthwhile.
thanks for the update. can i suggest a monthly update would be appreciated by people who are waiting, and reminders are easy to automate. the production details were interesting and i learned something today :grinning:


We have been promising you guys a new update on the status quo of the Duo X for earlier this year, so here’s a quick update on where we stand as of today.

Some of you might have seen some coverage of our presence at NAMM, the biggest annual music equipment showcase in the world. There, we presented a prototype of the Duo X as a world premiere. Of course, the prototype is not fully functional yet, especially in regards to the CV inputs and outputs, but visitors could experience the look and feel, as well as the usability of the device.

Here’s a quick video from Synth Anatomy showing the Duo X prototype:

And here´s a video in French by Les Sondiers:

When artists like John Tejada, with a discography of well over 100 releases, and Daniel Rowland, known for his works with Nine Inch Nails, Seal, Lady Gaga, Santana, Jay Z, and countless others, say that the Duo X is the most exciting thing they have seen at all of NAMM, it’s ok to be proud for a moment. We can not rest on these laurels though, because we still have to complete the finishing touches on the Duo X software and finally ship the product to all of you.

As we reported last time, the manufacturer of our selected iMX8 processor had not delivered the promised drivers included in the board support package. We have been digging the market for developers of low-level drivers as an alternative solution. Many developers that we have reached out to are very eager to get their hands on the iMX8, but none have ever worked with one, so the outcome is still unclear at this point. Our most realistic possibility currently is still that the manufacturer completes the board support package. We are in constant conversation with them to solve this issue. Nevertheless, we still continue to work with external developers to see if we can solve the issue without the manufacturer.

In the meantime, we have created setups that will allow us to liberate the main board without the missing low-level drivers. We should have an update on the result within the next 2 weeks. If these tests are successful, we could be able to ship the Duo X in an almost completed stage, in which a software update will soon afterward activate the CV ports.

Once we have completed these tests starting later this week, we will send another update and present the outcome.

We are truly thankful for your ongoing patience and support during this process. Please bear with us while we are aiming to solve the last remaining bits of development as soon as we can.

Ronny Krieger (CEO)


Do you mean drivers that are missing from the mainline kernel? What drivers are these? Did you talk to the people from Purism? They also use an i.MX8 for their Librem 5.


I believe when they are talking about board support package, it means the drivers must be tweaked specifically to the board layout . So even other devices using the same processor won’t be exactly compatible. OTOH they’d make a good reference for whoever develops the drivers for MOD.


What device do these drivers control? Who is the vendor of the NXP sbc? Maybe there is another way around.


Boundary Devices has been great to work with their iMX8M SOMs. Their Nitrogen8M has been out for a while and was a very stable patform. Their upcoming iMX8M mini would be a great option for you. I am not sure how soon their SOM version will be available.

I tried a lot of the iMX8M vendors before settling on Boundary Devices and so far it has been a great platform.


@MOD_Ronny any updates available regarding board support package from the manufacturer?

I could go without the CV for now. :wink:

Cheers Max