Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deep Learning for Guitar Effect Emulation

teddykoker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: Deep Learning for Guitar Effect Emulation

#161

Post by thesausageking »

mrob wrote: post #132

This isn't bad, but the note decays sound noticeably different. My guess is that the NN doesn't know that human ears have non-linear response that makes them more sensitive to errors in the decay than the attack, so it treats them equivalently. If this is the case then it might be fixable by using logarithmic scale audio samples instead of linear. The non-linearity of the ear is frequency dependent[0], but in practic…

I came into the comments to say the same thing. To my ears, the NN versions roll off unnaturally at the end and that makes them really easy to identify as artificial.

Re: Deep Learning for Guitar Effect Emulation

#162

Post by dsharlet »

willis936 wrote: post #49

A neat approach for sure. I am more interested in SPICE style modeled VSTs though. There's no need to throw ML at a simple math problem to get a bad approximation. I have not found many VSTs that seem like they're doing proper simulation of analog circuits. The VST space is filled with people claiming awesome results, but never revealing the sauce. If you're making a convincing sounding zener limiter, what are you ac…

Funny you mention SPICE to VST compilation... It was on my list for this (my) side project but I never got around to it: http://livespice.org/

edit: And a Tubescreamer is one of the examples!

Re: Deep Learning for Guitar Effect Emulation

#163

Post by mrstumpy »

qppo wrote: post #141
nil-sec wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The success of splice would disagree with your notion that “users hate subscriptions”. Given the horrendous price point of many of these plugins it seems to be perfect for a subscription based model. To me it always seemed there is more of a pushback from the industry producing vsts than from the consumers.

Splice's numbers aren't public so I can't comment on their success. Avid's are, and they had a terrible quarter - and they're the poster child (alongside Adobe) for subscription licensing in creative software. But I'd be interested to see what the breakdown in revenue is for plugin licenses versus preset/sample packs (bit of a blade & razor model there). The price points really aren't horrendous if you consider how e…

Slate Digital is subscription and seems to be doing well. I think the SSL native plugins are pretty popular and also subscription.

Re: Deep Learning for Guitar Effect Emulation

#164

Post by selykg »

melq wrote: post #128
selykg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am by no means a musician or an experienced one at that. I tinker and enjoy playing and learning. But I have limited experience overall. My personal experience with electronic tools is the lack of feel. Can I make music with digital tools like AxeFX and similar? Absofreakinglutely. No doubt about it. But those digital tools feel VERY different to me than the real thing. I'm not just talking about a speaker moving a…

>My tube amp simply responds differently than any digital model of a similar amp. Can you expand on this a bit? Curious what you mean by responds and what the difference is.

Sorry, bit late here. I generally play my amp on the edge of breakup. So the idea, for those not familiar, is that when the guitar is played softly you get clean tone, played with a bit more aggression and you get breakup, or distortion but not a ton of it. Think like a blues tone, where you get just a little bit of fuzz/grit.

The feeling of this is significantly different in almost every emulated/simulated/modeled amp than reality. They can be close, but the "feel" of it on the guitar side is often quite different.

Generally speaking, I feel like I have more control over the sound and how it plays with a real tube amp over a modeled amp.

Does that help? I approached this as if you aren't a guitarist, but if you are, sorry for the boring bits that you already probably know.

Re: Deep Learning for Guitar Effect Emulation

#165

Post by selykg »

renaudg wrote: post #152
selykg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am by no means a musician or an experienced one at that. I tinker and enjoy playing and learning. But I have limited experience overall. My personal experience with electronic tools is the lack of feel. Can I make music with digital tools like AxeFX and similar? Absofreakinglutely. No doubt about it. But those digital tools feel VERY different to me than the real thing. I'm not just talking about a speaker moving a…

>Anyway, anything that gets people playing guitar is, in my opinion, a great thing. We live in a golden age of guitar equipment. I don't think it can honestly get much better than it is right now. It's an amazing time to be a guitar player and incredible options are available at amazing prices. It sure is a great time for guitar equipment, as the digital revolution has made its way there too. But being a guitar playe…

I mean, music is music, play what inspires you.

Calling the guitar a boomer generation instrument is odd.

I suspect Martin would argue they were well ahead of the curve, since they've been creating guitars for over a hundred years.

Re: Deep Learning for Guitar Effect Emulation

#166

Post by melq »

selykg wrote: post #164
melq wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My tube amp simply responds differently than any digital model of a similar amp. Can you expand on this a bit? Curious what you mean by responds and what the difference is.

Sorry, bit late here. I generally play my amp on the edge of breakup. So the idea, for those not familiar, is that when the guitar is played softly you get clean tone, played with a bit more aggression and you get breakup, or distortion but not a ton of it. Think like a blues tone, where you get just a little bit of fuzz/grit. The feeling of this is significantly different in almost every emulated/simulated/modeled a…

Yah that makes a lot of sense. I am a guitarist buy 90%+ of the time I play acoustic.

Re: Deep Learning for Guitar Effect Emulation

#167

Post by wintermutestwin »

renaudg wrote: post #152
selykg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am by no means a musician or an experienced one at that. I tinker and enjoy playing and learning. But I have limited experience overall. My personal experience with electronic tools is the lack of feel. Can I make music with digital tools like AxeFX and similar? Absofreakinglutely. No doubt about it. But those digital tools feel VERY different to me than the real thing. I'm not just talking about a speaker moving a…

>Anyway, anything that gets people playing guitar is, in my opinion, a great thing. We live in a golden age of guitar equipment. I don't think it can honestly get much better than it is right now. It's an amazing time to be a guitar player and incredible options are available at amazing prices. It sure is a great time for guitar equipment, as the digital revolution has made its way there too. But being a guitar playe…

In the late 80s it sure seemed like the guitar was doomed. On one hand there was new wave with its synths and on the other were the guitar "gods" who wanked on with amazing technical precision making amazingly pedantic music. Then in the 90s the guitar and rock was reborn and suddenly cool again. It will come back and it won't be tired anymore. There are so many things that the guitar has barely hinted at in the past that will resurface as innovation. In the meantime, you can learn the guitar AND new tech. Besides, there will always be the draw of impressing a member of the opposite sex at a party by picking up a guitar. You just don't have that with "check out my latest drum programming, etc...

Re: Deep Learning for Guitar Effect Emulation

#168

Post by hashkb »

melq wrote: post #147
hashkb wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have gone over better with me (your average analog hipster) if you'd just mentioned the positive aspects of the thing you like. I'm eagerly awaiting the day when modeling is actually good enough for me; and your (common) attitude (that it is, obviously, and anyone who can't hear it is nostalgic/supersitious/hipster) is one of the reasons I don't give modelers a try more often.

It wasn't an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem quite literally refers to an attack against a specific person. Not only was he not attacking a person, but referring to 'hipsters' is not necessarily pejorative. I believe he was incorrect to call guitar players who use analog equipment hipsters, as using analog equipment is the status quo, not some niche subculture outside of the mainstream. I would like to respectfully sug…

Hipster is an insult; do people call themselves hipster? Not usually.

I've tried a lot of modelers. If all I ever hear is that I'm defective for not thinking they're perfect, why would I be open? It feels like a crusade with a side of propaganda. I really do want them to be good.

Post reply on HN