Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Can Large Language Models Predict Audio Effects Parameters from Natural Language?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Pretrained LLMs can translate natural-language timbre descriptions into EQ and reverb parameters without task-specific training; with DSP features, DSP code, and few-shot examples, the generated parameters nearly match ground-truth audio…

desk verdict The zero-shot LLM-to-EQ result is real and worth checking out; the few-shot reverb advantage is contaminated by evaluation words inside the few-shot examples, so treat the headline reverb numbers with caution. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20770 v2 pith:QGTURPJT submitted 2025-05-27 cs.SD cs.MMeess.AS

Seungheon Doh , Junghyun Koo , Marco A. Martínez-Ramírez , Wei-Hsiang Liao , Juhan Nam , Yuki Mitsufuji This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.MMeess.AS
keywords audioeffectsparameterpredictiontext-to-parameterslargelanguagemodelsequalizationreverberationin-contextlearningDSPcodepromptingmaximummeandiscrepancy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a large language model can act as an audio engineer: given a phrase like “warm piano”, can it output the numeric settings for an equalizer or reverb that make a recording sound that way? The authors introduce LLM2Fx, which prompts pretrained LLMs to emit effect parameters as structured JSON, with no fine-tuning. They report that on the crowdsourced SocialFX descriptions, GPT-4o reaches an average MMD score of 0.22 for EQ, far below random parameters and below the CLAP-based optimization baseline of 0.55. For reverb, a 7B-parameter Mistral model with DSP features, DSP code, and five few-shot examples reaches 0.27, beating the optimization baseline's 0.45 and approaching the ground-truth upper bound of 0.05. The result suggests LLMs carry usable prior knowledge of how timbre words map to audio-processing parameters.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the in-context augmented prompt in LLM2Fx. A system prompt casts the LLM as an expert audio engineer and forces JSON output with a specific parameter schema; three optional context channels are added: numerical DSP features of the input audio (RMS, crest factor, spectral centroid, spectral flatness, bandwidth, RT60), the Python implementation of the DASP effect module, and five hand-written description-to-parameter examples. The DSP code exposes the algorithmic link between parameters and signal transformation, while the few-shot examples pin the semantics-to-parameter mapping; together these let a frozen LLM act as the regression function.

What would settle it

Render the same dry guitar recording with LLM2Fx-predicted parameters and with ground-truth parameters for the word “warm”, then run a forced-choice listening test: if listeners cannot pick the predicted render as warmer than a random-parameter render at above chance, the MMD improvement is not evidence of semantic success.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the Text2Fx task — mapping a natural-language timbre description to effect parameters for EQ and reverb — can be performed zero-shot by general-purpose LLMs, and that performance improves when the prompt is augmented with audio DSP features, the DSP function code, and few-shot parameter examples. Using FXenc audio embeddings and MMD between the distributions of predicted and ground-truth processed audio, the best fully contextualized model attains 0.22 (EQ) and 0.27 (reverb), improving on the CLAP-optimization baseline of 0.55 and 0.45 respectively. The authors interpret this as evidence that LLMs have absorbed implicit knowledge about audio processing during pretraining, and that in-context information supplies the missing technical grounding.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative claim stands or falls on whether MMD in FXenc embedding space is a faithful proxy for whether the rendered audio actually sounds like the requested timbre; FXenc was chosen for its ability to separate semantic clusters, not for demonstrated perceptual validity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EQ appears to be a largely solved zero-shot case: several LLMs beat the CLAP-optimization baseline, so simple parametric EQ settings may not need learned or trained effect-specific models.
  • Reverb remains implementation-sensitive: adding DSP code alone hurts reverb prediction, implying LLM priors are tied to particular reverb architectures.
  • The evaluation pipeline — SocialFX-Eval preprocessing, FXenc embeddings, and MMD upper/lower bounds — provides a reusable protocol for future Text2Fx research.
  • Larger LLMs generally produce better parameters, with a sharp jump from 1B to 3B parameters, suggesting model scale matters for audio knowledge.
  • The three context types are complementary: only the full combination reaches the best reverb performance, so no single context channel is sufficient on its own.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The residual MMD gap to ground truth (0.22/0.27 vs 0.09/0.05) still leaves room for semantic error; a forced-choice listening test could reveal whether current scores translate to perceptible timbre differences.
  • The approach likely generalizes to other effect types whose implementations are standardized, whereas nonstandard implementations — such as different reverb algorithms — will degrade unless the provided code context exactly matches the target renderer.
  • A prompt-safety hazard arises: because the model follows textual instructions, adversarial or extreme language in the description or context could drive parameters outside sensible ranges, a scenario the paper does not address.
  • The DSP-feature channel conditions predictions on the input track, meaning the same word on drums versus piano yields different settings; this track-aware behavior is exactly what production tools need but the paper only tests on one sample per instrument.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LLM2Fx, a framework that uses large language models to predict audio effect parameters (6-band parametric EQ and noise-shaped reverb) directly from natural-language descriptions, without task-specific fine-tuning. The method feeds the LLM a system prompt plus three types of in-context information: DSP feature values computed from the input audio, DSP function code, and five manually written few-shot examples. The authors evaluate on a preprocessed subset of the SocialFX dataset, SocialFX-Eval, using MMD in an FXenc embedding space between audio rendered with predicted parameters and audio rendered with ground-truth parameters. They report that zero-shot GPT-4o and Llama variants reach EQ MMD scores around 0.22-0.27, and that adding all context information to Mistral-7B improves reverb MMD from 0.45 to 0.27, which they claim outperforms the CLAP-based optimization baseline of Chu et al.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper would demonstrate a genuinely zero-shot, training-free path from text to audio-effect parameters, which is practically valuable for accessible music production and scientifically interesting as evidence that LLMs encode audio-signal-processing knowledge. The paper's strengths are its clear task formulation, the breadth of LLMs tested, the public demo, and the effort to build a quantitative evaluation pipeline with upper and lower bounds on the MMD metric. However, the central quantitative claims are currently weakened by a few-shot/test-vocabulary overlap for reverb, by the selection of the evaluation embedding on the same data used for vocabulary filtering, and by incomplete reporting of statistical uncertainty. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the zero-shot EQ result, but they prevent the reverb superiority claim from being accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Table 3 and Appendix] The headline reverb improvement from few-shot examples is likely inflated by overlap between the five manually written few-shot examples and the evaluation vocabulary. The appendix shows the reverb few-shot examples are 'echo piano', 'warm piano', 'distorted guitar', 'echo guitar', and 'echo drums'; the evaluation vocabulary in Section 3.1 explicitly contains 'echo', 'warm', and 'distorted', and the test prompt template matches the few-shot question format. Because only aggregate MMD is reported, the contribution of these three vocabulary words to the 0.28/0.27 average is invisible, and the model may be copying or interpolating parameter layouts rather than generalizing. The claim that LLM2Fx 'outperforms previous optimization approaches' for reverb therefore needs a held-out evaluation that excludes the few-shot words, or a per-word breakdown; without it, the zero-shot EQ result remains plausible but the reverb claim is not established.
  2. [§3.1 and §3.2, Tables 1-2] The evaluation has a circular component: FXenc was selected as the scoring embedding in Section 3.2 because it gives the largest separation between ground-truth and random distributions on this dataset (Table 2), and FXenc was also one of the extractors used in the classification-score filtering that defined the evaluation vocabulary in Section 3.1. This means the metric and the test set are selected jointly on the same data, so the reported MMD scores may overstate how well the distributions are separated. At minimum, report MMD using all embedding extractors from Table 2 for the main comparisons, and/or define the evaluation vocabulary with a held-out split before metric selection. The paper should also report confidence intervals or variance over the 50 trials, since all final claims are differences in MMD values.
  3. [§3.1 and §3.2] The ground-truth rendering pipeline is not fully specified. Section 3.1 says the SocialFX audio examples were reproduced with the Audealize JavaScript toolkit, while Section 3.2 says DASP modules are used 'as prediction targets to enable fair comparison with prior work.' If the ground-truth distribution in the MMD calculation is rendered with Audealize and the predicted distribution with DASP, the MMD measures a combination of renderer mismatch and parameter error, and the upper bound (Ground Truth row in Table 3) is not directly comparable. The authors should state explicitly whether the ground-truth samples in all MMD computations were rendered with DASP; if not, they should re-render the ground truth with DASP so that only parameter fidelity is measured.
  4. [Table 3] All comparisons in Table 3 are point estimates without error bars or significance tests, although the evaluation protocol uses sampling (50 trials for LLM predictions, 5 seeds for bounds). Since several differences are small (e.g., GPT-4o 0.22 vs 'All Context Info' 0.22 for EQ; Mistral zero-shot 0.45 vs Chu et al. 0.45 for reverb), the paper's claim that LLM2Fx 'outperforms previous optimization approaches' requires at least standard errors or a paired test across the 50 trials. Without this, the reader cannot tell whether the differences are meaningful.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] The text lists only 16 reverb vocabulary words ('echo, distant, spacious, muffled, warm, church, loud, deep, soft, distorted, sad, hollow, sharp, low, tinny, underwater') but states that the final Reverb vocabulary has 19 words; please correct the enumeration or supply the missing entries.
  2. [Abstract and §1] There is a subject-verb agreement error in the abstract: 'Our approach address' should be 'Our approach addresses'; a similar typo appears in the introduction.
  3. [§3.2] The definition of the selection criterion Δ in Table 2 is confusing because the text says 'lower is better' for a quantity that is computed as U.B minus L.B and is often negative; please state the sign convention explicitly in one place.
  4. [Appendix] The appendix shows the five reverb few-shot examples but not the EQ few-shot examples; providing them is necessary for reproducing the EQ few-shot results in Table 3.
  5. [§2.3] The DSP feature context lists formulas but does not state whether these features are computed on the dry input, the wet signal, or a processed intermediate; this affects reproducibility and should be clarified.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Reverb few-shot score leaks three evaluation words and MMD metric is self-selected via FXenc, but zero-shot EQ result is independent.

  1. other [Section 3.1, Classification Score Filtering; Section 3.2, Evaluation Protocol; Table 2]
    "For this linear probing task, we utilized four different audio embedding extractors: VGGish [33], CLAP [34], AFx-Rep [35], and FXenc [36]. We compared the F1 scores of these classifiers with those of a gaussian random embedding baseline, removing any labels whose performance fell below the random baseline. ... To select appropriate audio embedding extractors for our evaluation, we established upper- and lower-bounds ... The difference between upper and lower bounds (Δ) served as our primary selection criterion ..."

    FXenc is used twice in the evaluation construction: it is one of the embeddings whose linear-probe F1 determines which semantic words survive into the evaluation vocabulary, and it is then chosen as the MMD feature space because it shows the largest separation between ground-truth and random parameter sets on that same filtered vocabulary. The set of test words is therefore partly defined by what FXenc can discriminate, and the reported scores are computed in that same representation. This does not force the LLM's output parameters, but it makes the FXenc-based MMD a self-selected yardstick rather than an independent external benchmark, so the claim of outperforming the optimization baseline is not metric-independent.

  2. other [Section 2.3, Few-Shot Examples Context; Appendix, In-context examples; Section 3.1, Reverb evaluation vocabulary]
    "For few-shot examples, we utilize five manually annotated human examples (k = 5) for each audio effect type ... QUESTION: please design a reverb audio effects for a echo piano sound. ANSWER: {'reverb': {'band0_gain': 0.0, ... 'mix': 0.8}}"

    The five reverb few-shot examples include 'echo piano', 'warm piano', 'distorted guitar', 'echo guitar', and 'echo drums'. The reverb evaluation vocabulary explicitly contains 'echo', 'warm', and 'distorted', and the test-time template is the same 'please design a reverb audio effects for a {word} {instrument} sound' prompt. For the exact word+instrument pairs shown in the context, the LLM is given a complete ground-truth parameter vector in its input, so the few-shot 'prediction' for those cells is in-context copying rather than independent generalization.

full rationale

This is an empirical evaluation paper rather than a derivation, so most concerns are evaluation-design issues rather than equation-level circularity. I found no fitted parameter that is renamed as a prediction, and the zero-shot EQ result is a genuinely independent finding: GPT-4o's 0.22 average MMD and the model-scale trends are not reduced to the inputs by construction. The main circular component is the joint use of FXenc: the same embedding helps select which semantic words enter SocialFX-Eval and is then selected as the MMD scoring space because it separates those words well. This makes the benchmark partly self-selected by the metric, and since FXenc is prior work by the same research group, the self-citation is load-bearing for the evaluation protocol. The second issue is the few-shot reverb leakage: three of the nineteen reverb evaluation words appear verbatim in the five hand-written examples, so part of the reported reverb advantage over the zero-shot and optimization baselines is attributable to in-context copying rather than parameter prediction. Neither issue undermines the zero-shot EQ capability claim, which has independent content, but the headline reverb few-shot comparison and the metric choice are not fully external. Overall score 5: partial circularity in the evaluation benchmark, while the central zero-shot claim retains independent support.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The load-bearing experimental choices are the hand-picked filtering thresholds, the few-shot examples, and the choice of FXenc as the evaluation embedding. These are not fitted model parameters, but they shape the benchmark and the reported numbers.

free parameters (3)
  • Term frequency filtering thresholds = 20 for EQ, 100 for Reverb
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.1 to keep enough samples per semantic word; directly determines the evaluation vocabulary and therefore which results are reported.
  • Few-shot example count and contents = k = 5, manually annotated examples per effect type
    Selected by the authors (Section 2.3 and Appendix); the specific examples shown include words that also appear in the evaluation vocabulary (echo, warm, distorted), which can affect the few-shot results.
  • Classification score filtering threshold = Above gaussian random embedding baseline
    Words are removed if linear probing F1 on audio embeddings is below a random baseline (Section 3.1); this threshold determines the final word lists and is computed with the same embedding models later used for evaluation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth parameter sets in SocialFX-Eval are valid gold standards for their semantic labels.
    The evaluation compares generated parameters to these ground-truth settings (Section 3.1); if crowd-sourced labels are noisy or the merging is wrong, the benchmark is compromised.
  • domain assumption MMD with a Gaussian kernel in FXenc space is a meaningful distributional distance for timbre semantics.
    Used as the sole quantitative metric (Section 3.2); no listening test or alternative metric is provided.
  • domain assumption DASP implementations can stand in for the Audealize JavaScript ground-truth modules.
    The paper states ground truth modules were JavaScript but DASP modules are prediction targets (Section 3.2); this assumes the two renderings are comparable for feature statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Large Language Models Predict Audio Effects Parameters from Natural Language?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGTURPJT

@misc{pith2026250520770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Large Language Models Predict Audio Effects Parameters from Natural Language?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGTURPJT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20770}
}
read the original abstract

In music production, manipulating audio effects (Fx) parameters through natural language has the potential to reduce technical barriers for non-experts. We present LLM2Fx, a framework leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to predict Fx parameters directly from textual descriptions without requiring task-specific training or fine-tuning. Our approach address the text-to-effect parameter prediction (Text2Fx) task by mapping natural language descriptions to the corresponding Fx parameters for equalization and reverberation. We demonstrate that LLMs can generate Fx parameters in a zero-shot manner that elucidates the relationship between timbre semantics and audio effects in music production. To enhance performance, we introduce three types of in-context examples: audio Digital Signal Processing (DSP) features, DSP function code, and few-shot examples. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based Fx parameter generation outperforms previous optimization approaches, offering competitive performance in translating natural language descriptions to appropriate Fx settings. Furthermore, LLMs can serve as text-driven interfaces for audio production, paving the way for more intuitive and accessible music production tools.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. One Prompt, Many Sounds: Modeling Listener Variability in LLM-Based Equalization

    cs.SD 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs using in-context learning and fine-tuning on listener experiment data generate equalization settings that align better with population preferences than random sampling or static presets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Semantic music production: A meta-study,

    D. Moffat, B. De Man, and J. D. Reiss, “Semantic music production: A meta-study,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society , 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Weighted-function-based rapid mapping of descriptors to audio processing parameters,

    A. T. Sabin, Z. Rafii, and B. Pardo, “Weighted-function-based rapid mapping of descriptors to audio processing parameters,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society , 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Semantic description of timbral transformations in music production,

    R. Stables, B. De Man, S. Enderby, J. D. Reiss, G. Fazekas, and T. Wilmering, “Semantic description of timbral transformations in music production,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2016, pp. 337–341

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Social-EQ: Crowdsourcing an equalization descriptor map

    M. Cartwright and B. Pardo, “Social-EQ: Crowdsourcing an equalization descriptor map.” in Proc. ISMIR, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Reverbalize: a crowdsourced reverberation controller,

    P. Seetharaman and B. Pardo, “Reverbalize: a crowdsourced reverberation controller,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    SocialFX: Studying a crowdsourced folksonomy of audio effects terms,

    T. Zheng, P. Seetharaman, and B. Pardo, “SocialFX: Studying a crowdsourced folksonomy of audio effects terms,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on Multimedia , 2016, pp. 182–186

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    The mix evaluation dataset,

    B. De Man and J. D. Reiss, “The mix evaluation dataset,” in 20th Int. Conf. on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx-17) , 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Word Embeddings for Automatic Equalization in Audio Mixing

    S. Venkatesh, D. Moffat, and E. R. Miranda, “Word embeddings for automatic equalization in audio mixing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08898, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Word based end-to-end real time neural audio effects for equalisation,

    D. R. K. Balasubramaniam and J. Timoney, “Word based end-to-end real time neural audio effects for equalisation,” in Audio Engineering Society Convention 155. Audio Engineering Society, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Text2FX: Harnessing CLAP embeddings for text-guided audio effects,

    A. Chu, P. O’Reilly, J. Barnett, and B. Pardo, “Text2FX: Harnessing CLAP embeddings for text-guided audio effects,” in ICASSP 2025- 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    CLAP: learning audio concepts from natural language supervision,

    B. Elizalde, S. Deshmukh, M. Al Ismail, and H. Wang, “CLAP: learning audio concepts from natural language supervision,” in ICASSP 2023- 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  4. [12]

    Style transfer of audio effects with differentiable signal processing,

    C. J. Steinmetz, N. J. Bryan, and J. D. Reiss, “Style transfer of audio effects with differentiable signal processing,” J. Audio Eng. Soc , vol. 70, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Filtered noise shaping for time domain room impulse response estimation from reverberant speech,

    C. J. Steinmetz, V . K. Ithapu, and P. Calamia, “Filtered noise shaping for time domain room impulse response estimation from reverberant speech,” in WASPAA. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    GPT-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “GPT-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context,

    G. Team, P. Georgiev, V . I. Lei, R. Burnell, L. Bai, A. Gulati, G. Tanzer, D. Vincent, Z. Pan, S. Wang et al., “Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    The Llama 3 herd of models,

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughan et al., “The Llama 3 herd of models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Emergent abilities of large language models,

    J. Wei, Y . Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Metzler et al., “Emergent abilities of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    LP-MusicCaps: LLM-based pseudo music captioning,

    S. Doh, K. Choi, J. Lee, and J. Nam, “LP-MusicCaps: LLM-based pseudo music captioning,” in Proc. ISMIR, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    LLark: A multi- modal foundation model for music,

    J. Gardner, S. Durand, D. Stoller, and R. M. Bittner, “LLark: A multi- modal foundation model for music,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07160 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    SALMONN: Towards generic hearing abilities for large language models,

    C. Tang, W. Yu, G. Sun, X. Chen, T. Tan, W. Li, L. Lu, Z. Ma, and C. Zhang, “SALMONN: Towards generic hearing abilities for large language models,” in Proc. ICLR, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Music understanding LLaMA: Advancing text-to-music generation with question answering and captioning,

    S. Liu, A. S. Hussain, C. Sun, and Y . Shan, “Music understanding LLaMA: Advancing text-to-music generation with question answering and captioning,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 286–290

    2024

  14. [22]

    OpenMU: Your swiss army knife for music understanding,

    M. Zhao, Z. Zhong, Z. Mao, S. Yang, W.-H. Liao, S. Takahashi, H. Wakaki, and Y . Mitsufuji, “OpenMU: Your swiss army knife for music understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15573 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Enriching music descriptions with a finetuned-llm and metadata for text-to-music retrieval,

    S. Doh, M. Lee, D. Jeong, and J. Nam, “Enriching music descriptions with a finetuned-llm and metadata for text-to-music retrieval,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Augment, drop & swap: Improving diversity in llm captions for efficient music-text representation learning,

    I. Manco, J. Salamon, and O. Nieto, “Augment, drop & swap: Improving diversity in llm captions for efficient music-text representation learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11498 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Music discovery dialogue generation using human intent analysis and large language models,

    S. Doh, K. Choi, D. Kwon, T. Kim, and J. Nam, “Music discovery dialogue generation using human intent analysis and large language models,” in Proc. ISMIR, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Clamp 3: Universal music information retrieval across unaligned modalities and unseen languages,

    S. Wu, Z. Guo, R. Yuan, J. Jiang, S. Doh, G. Xia, J. Nam, X. Li, F. Yu, and M. Sun, “Clamp 3: Universal music information retrieval across unaligned modalities and unseen languages,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10362 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    TALKPLAY: Multimodal music recom- mendation with large language models,

    S. Doh, K. Choi, and J. Nam, “TALKPLAY: Multimodal music recom- mendation with large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13713, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    ChatMusician: Understanding and generating music intrinsically with llm,

    R. Yuan, H. Lin, Y . Wang, Z. Tian, S. Wu, T. Shen, G. Zhang, Y . Wu, C. Liu, Z. Zhou et al., “ChatMusician: Understanding and generating music intrinsically with llm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16153 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Code Llama: Open foundation models for code,

    B. Roziere, J. Gehring, F. Gloeckle, S. Sootla, I. Gat, X. E. Tan, Y . Adi, J. Liu, R. Sauvestre, T. Remez et al., “Code Llama: Open foundation models for code,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    New method of measuring reverberation time,

    M. R. Schroeder, “New method of measuring reverberation time,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 409–412, 1965

    1965

  24. [32]

    Audealize: Crowdsourced audio production tools,

    P. Seetharaman and B. Pardo, “Audealize: Crowdsourced audio production tools,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society , 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    CNN architectures for large-scale audio classification,

    S. Hershey, S. Chaudhuri, D. P. Ellis, J. F. Gemmeke, A. Jansen, R. C. Moore, M. Plakal, D. Platt, R. A. Saurous, B. Seybold et al. , “CNN architectures for large-scale audio classification,” in 2017 ieee international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICA...

    2017

  26. [34]

    Large-scale contrastive language-audio pretraining with feature fusion and keyword-to-caption augmentation,

    Y . Wu, K. Chen, T. Zhang, Y . Hui, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, and S. Dubnov, “Large-scale contrastive language-audio pretraining with feature fusion and keyword-to-caption augmentation,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (I...

    2023

  27. [35]

    ST-ITO: Controlling audio effects for style transfer with inference-time optimization,

    C. Steinmetz, S. Singh, I. Ibnyahya, S. Yuan, E. Benetos, J. Reiss et al., “ST-ITO: Controlling audio effects for style transfer with inference-time optimization,” in Proc. ISMIR, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Music mixing style transfer: A contrastive learning approach to disentangle audio effects,

    J. Koo, M. A. Mart ´ınez-Ram´ırez, W.-H. Liao, S. Uhlich, K. Lee, and Y . Mitsufuji, “Music mixing style transfer: A contrastive learning approach to disentangle audio effects,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASS...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Mistral 7b,

    A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. Casas, F. Bressand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier et al., “Mistral 7b,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A kernel two-sample test,

    A. Gretton, K. M. Borgwardt, M. J. Rasch, B. Sch ¨olkopf, and A. Smola, “A kernel two-sample test,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Rethinking FID: Towards a better evaluation metric for image generation,

    S. Jayasumana, S. Ramalingam, A. Veit, D. Glasner, A. Chakrabarti, and S. Kumar, “Rethinking FID: Towards a better evaluation metric for image generation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 9307–9315

    2024

  32. [40]

    KAD: No more FAD! An effective and efficient evaluation metric for audio generation,

    Y . Chung, P. Eu, J. Lee, K. Choi, J. Nam, and B. S. Chon, “KAD: No more FAD! An effective and efficient evaluation metric for audio generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15602 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    All about audio equalization: Solutions and frontiers,

    V . V¨alim¨aki and J. D. Reiss, “All about audio equalization: Solutions and frontiers,” Applied Sciences, vol. 6, no. 5, p. 129, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Fifty years of artificial reverberation,

    V . Valimaki, J. D. Parker, L. Savioja, J. O. Smith, and J. S. Abel, “Fifty years of artificial reverberation,” IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1421–1448, 2012. Appendix This appendix illustrates the standardized input-output p...

    2012

  35. [43]

    Your task is to translate descriptive timbre words into specific audio effects parameters that will achieve the desired sound character

    Input example of LLM inference You are an expert audio engineer and music producer specializing in sound design and audio processing . Your task is to translate descriptive timbre words into specific audio effects parameters that will achieve the desired sound character. You h...

  36. [44]

    hall", "room

    A reverb description such as: - Single words: "hall", "room", "plate", "cathedral", "chamber", "spring", "ambient" - Combined descriptions: "warm hall", "bright room", "dark chamber", "short but dense" - Spatial descriptions: "distant", "close", "intimate", "huge", "airy", "tight"

  37. [45]

    drums",

    An instrument type such as: - "drums", "guitar", "piano", "vocals", "strings", "brass" # Output Format Respond with a JSON object containing precise numerical parameters for the reverb. All values should be in float format for efficiency. The output will include: - The reverb ...

  38. [46]

    reverb": {

    Output example of LLM inference The LLM generates structured JSON outputs containing numerical parameters for direct application to the audio processing chain. { "reverb": { "band0_gain": 0.0, "band1_gain": 0.1, "band2_gain": 0.2, "band3_gain": 0.3, "band4_gain": 0.4, "band5_g...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.