Guide
DMX Latency and Jitter
A technical explanation of latency and jitter in DMX-based lighting setups: what the terms mean, where delays occur, and why planned systems provide better timing than reactive solutions.
DMX Latency and Jitter
(why lighting often feels a bit late – and what actually happens in the system)
Many working with lighting have experienced this:
effects that don't quite hit the music
lighting that feels slightly behind
systems that behave differently from one time to another
This is often described as “poor sync” or “unstable DMX.”
In practice, it almost always comes down to latency and jitter.
The Goal of This Page
Explain what latency and jitter actually are
Show where in a lighting setup the delay occurs
Explain why some solutions can never feel fully precise
Provide a mental framework for understanding timing in lighting control
This is not a troubleshooting guide, but an explanation of why the problem exists.
Two Terms Often Confused
Latency (Delay)
Latency is the time from when an event occurs until the system reacts.
Example:
Musical event occurs at 00:00.000
The light changes at 00:00.180
This gives 180 ms latency.
Humans begin to notice timing errors already around 80–100 ms.
Above about 150 ms, it is clearly perceived as “too late.”
Jitter (Varying Delay)
Jitter is when latency is not constant.
Example:
First reaction: 120 ms
Next: 260 ms
Next: 90 ms
Even if the average is the same, the system feels unstable.
Jitter often feels worse than high but stable latency.
Where Does Latency Occur in DMX-Based Systems?
It's important to be precise here:
DMX as a protocol is rarely the main problem.
The delay occurs earlier in the chain.
1. Audio Analysis and Event Detection
In many setups, the flow looks like this:
Music
→ microphone or line-in
→ signal processing
→ beat or transient detection
→ trigger
→ DMX output
Challenges:
Audio input has inherent buffering
Analysis requires time to be certain
Many algorithms work retrospectively
This alone can yield 100–300 ms latency before DMX is sent.
2. Reactive Modes
“Sound active” and auto modes are by definition reactive.
They:
wait for something to happen
analyze what has already happened
react afterwards
They have no information about what is coming next, and therefore cannot plan timing.
3. DMX Transport
The DMX signal itself:
250 kbit/s
512 channels per universe
A full frame typically takes 22–30 ms
This is relatively minor compared to audio analysis.
Still, the following can contribute to jitter:
long DMX chains
poor cabling
USB-DMX with weak drivers
4. Software and Operating System
In PC- and software-based systems, timing can be affected by:
USB polling
thread scheduling
garbage collection
non-deterministic timing
This often gives small but unpredictable variations.
Why More Lighting Doesn't Solve Timing Problems
A common reaction to poor timing is to increase complexity:
more effects
faster movements
more flashing
This sometimes visually hides the problem, but does not solve it.
Latency and jitter are system properties, not a matter of effect choice.
How Precise Timing Is Actually Achieved
Precise lighting control requires that the system not only reacts, but understands progression.
This involves:
analysis that occurs before the actual moment
understanding of structure (tempo, sections, intensity)
planning on a timeline
When lighting is scheduled in advance, it is possible to:
compensate for known latency
eliminate jitter
execute actions deterministically
A Useful Mental Distinction
Reactive systems:
“Something happened – do something now”Planned systems:
“Something is going to happen – do this then”
The difference between these two approaches is often the difference between lighting that feels random and lighting that feels precise.
Summary
Latency is delay
Jitter is variation in delay
Most timing problems occur before DMX
Reactive systems can never be fully precise
Precise lighting control requires planning, not just triggering
Understanding this makes it easier to evaluate equipment, software, and architecture – and why some systems feel better than others, even when they do “the same thing.”