Live data from Hacker News

WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

deepmind.com

101–110 of 153 posts

Re: WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

#101

I'm guessing DeepMind has already done this (or is already doing), but conditioning on a video is the obvious next step. It would be incredibly interesting to see how accurate it can get generating the audio for a movie. Though I imagine for really great results they'll need to mix in an adversarial network.

Oh yes, extract voice and intonation from one language, and then synthesize it in another language -> we get automated dubbing. Could also possibly try to lipsync.

Re: WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can hear some distortion in the piano notes - which may be an audio compression artefact, or it may be the output of the resynthesis process. If you train NNs at the phrase level and overfit, then you get something that is indeed more or less the same as cross-fading at random between short sections. Piano music is very idiomatic, so you'll capture some typical piano gestures that way. But I'd be surprised if the m…

The samples are uncompressed WAV files, so everything you hear is a direct result of the synthesis process. Some of the distortion is a result of the 16kHz sample rate-- it's not 44.1kHz CD quality.

It's quantized to just 256 values though, which could be causing some of the distortion.

Re: WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. They're training directly on the waveform, so the model can learn intonation. They just need to train on longer samples, and perhaps augment their linguistic representation with some extra discourse analysis. A big problem with generating prosody has always been that our theories of it don't really provide a great prediction of people's behaviours. It's also very expensive to get people to do the prosody…

theres 0 chance of effective intonation and tone without understanding of the material

With enough labor, you could annotate enough sentences to cover a lot of dialogue cases. Sections like "'stop!', he said angrily/dryly/mockingly are probably fairly common. You'd be modeling the next most probable inflection given previous words and selected tones.

What would require understanding would be novel arrangements and metaphor to indicate emotional state. On the fly variations to avoid mononticity might also be difficult, as well as sarcasm or combinations/levels (e.g. she spoke matter of factly but with mirth lightly woven through).

Re: WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

#105
Any suggestions on where to start learning how to implement this? I understand some of the high level concepts (and took an intro AI class years ago - probably not terribly useful), but some of them are very much over my head (e.g. 2.2 Softmax Distributions and 2.3 Gated Activation Units) and some parts of the paper feel somewhat hand-wavy (2.6 Context Stacks). Any pointers would be useful as I attempt to understand it. (EDIT: section numbers refer to their paper)

Re: WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

#106
post #31

The music examples are utterly fascinating. It sounds insanely natural. The only thing I can hear that sounds unnatural, is the way that the reverberation in the room (the "echo") immediately gets lower when the raw piano sound itself gets lower. In a real room, if you produce a loud sound and immediately after a soft sound, the reverberation of the loud sound remains. But since this network only models "the sound ri…

That seems completely tractable by simply adding a bit of the right reverb to the generated sample, more or less "in post".

Good point! Just train it with recordings that has no reverberation, and add it later.

Re: WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my Australian English ears, the babbling sounded vaguely Scandinavian.

Indeed. I was surprised by that as well. Sounded like a Dutch speaker with a muffled voice behind a screen.

Especially funny as the main authors are Dutch.

Re: WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

theres 0 chance of effective intonation and tone without understanding of the material

And who says it can't understand the material? There have been recurrent networks trained that can translate between languages, or predict the next word in a sentence, at remarkable accuracy. Combined with wavenet this could be quite effective.

There could be cases where the intonation is dependent on things entirely outside of the book. If say a politician does something in the writing that is far from what we would expect them to do in today's world.

Re: WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

#109
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The samples are uncompressed WAV files, so everything you hear is a direct result of the synthesis process. Some of the distortion is a result of the 16kHz sample rate-- it's not 44.1kHz CD quality.

It's quantized to just 256 values though, which could be causing some of the distortion.

[deleted]

Re: WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my Australian English ears, the babbling sounded vaguely Scandinavian.

Indeed. I was surprised by that as well. Sounded like a Dutch speaker with a muffled voice behind a screen.

Confirms my thought that Dutch sounds like unintelligible babbling :)
Post reply on HN