Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 40 references

FreeSVC: Towards Zero-shot Multilingual Singing Voice Conversion

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a multilingual content extractor is the decisive component for cross-lingual singing voice conversion, with its FreeSVC system beating the ContentVec baseline on content preservation, pitch correlation, and listener…

desk verdict Useful engineering for multilingual SVC, but the headline claim about multilingual content extraction is confounded by SPIN's other differences from the ContentVec baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05586 v1 pith:AKOVB2IL submitted 2025-01-09 cs.SD eess.AS

Alef Iury Siqueira Ferreira , Lucas Rafael Gris , Augusto Seben da Rosa , Frederico Santos de Oliveira , Edresson Casanova , Rafael Teixeira Sousa , Arnaldo Candido Junior , Anderson da Silva Soares
show 1 more author
Arlindo Galvão Filho
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDeess.AS
keywords singingvoiceconversionzero-shotmultilingualVITSSPINHuBERTlanguageembeddingsECAPA2
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

FreeSVC is a zero-shot multilingual singing voice conversion system that builds on the VITS architecture, replacing the usual content encoder with SPIN, a HuBERT-based extractor fine-tuned on multilingual speech data, and adding ECAPA2 speaker embeddings plus trainable language embeddings. The paper's central claim is that a multilingual content extractor is crucial for optimal cross-language conversion: with SPIN and language conditioning, word error rate drops from 29.60 to 22.39 and character error rate from 13.97 to 10.07 against the ContentVec baseline, fundamental-frequency correlation for unknown speakers rises from 0.913 to 0.935, and listener-judged naturalness improves across English, Chinese, and non-linguistic vocal samples. The significance is that cross-lingual singing conversion can work without language-specific singing data, which would make the technique more practical for low-resource languages.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is SPIN, Speaker-invariant Clustering, a modification of ContentVec and HuBERT: during training it inserts a vector-quantization layer with 2,048 clusters and 256 dimensions and fine-tunes the last two transformer layers on multilingual speech; at inference the quantization layer is removed, so its architecture matches ContentVec while its representations are trained to be more speaker-invariant and multilingual. This is what carries the content-preservation gains. Language embeddings, one trainable vector per language, condition the VITS decoder and account for the additional cross-lingual improvements, and RMVPE supplies pitch conditioning so melody survives conversion.

What would settle it

Train a SPIN-style extractor with the same architecture, cluster size, and three-epoch budget using only English speech, and compare it to the multilingual SPIN on English-to-Chinese zero-shot conversion. If WER, CER, F0PPC, and MOS are statistically indistinguishable, then the multilingual data is not what is driving the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that replacing the standard ContentVec content extractor with SPIN, a HuBERT-style model fine-tuned for three epochs on the multilingual CML-TTS and English LibriTTS corpora with a speaker-invariant clustering objective, improves zero-shot multilingual singing voice conversion. With SPIN and language embeddings together, the proposed FreeSVC model reports the best objective scores on MMS transcription of converted audio (WER 22.39, CER 10.07 in the Transcription column), the highest F0 Pearson correlation for both known and unknown speakers (0.951 and 0.935), and higher mean opinion scores than the ContentVec baseline (3.16 versus 3.02 for English). Speaker-embedding similarity to the original speakers is essentially unchanged, which the paper takes as evidence that the content extractor and language conditioning do not leak speaker identity. The authors state the conclusion explicitly: a multilingual content extractor is crucial for optimal cross-language conversion.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusion that multilingualism causes the improvement assumes that the English-only ContentVec baseline is a proper control, but SPIN also adds a vector-quantization layer and a separate fine-tuning procedure on different data, so the gains might come from those changes rather than from the multilingual training set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Combining SPIN with language embeddings yields the best content preservation: WER 22.39 and CER 10.07 versus 29.60 and 13.97 for the ContentVec baseline.
  • Pitch tracking for unknown speakers improves with the multilingual extractor, from an F0 Pearson correlation of 0.913 to 0.935.
  • Language conditioning alone does not change speaker similarity scores, supporting the claim that it does not leak speaker identity.
  • Cross-lingual naturalness improves with language embeddings while intra-lingual naturalness is roughly unchanged, so the embeddings act specifically on the language mismatch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If multilingual content extraction is the true driver, then a low-resource target language may only need a few minutes of reference audio plus a language tag, with no singing corpus in that language.
  • A natural next experiment is to isolate the vector-quantization layer from the multilingual data by ablation; until then, the causal story is plausible but not fully isolated.
  • The same recipe could be applied to spoken voice conversion with code-switched content, where the language embedding would need to switch at the segment level rather than per utterance.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper presents FreeSVC, a zero-shot multilingual singing voice conversion system built on a VITS backbone with three modifications: the SPIN content extractor (a fine-tuned HuBERT/ContentVec variant), the ECAPA2 speaker encoder, and trainable language embeddings. The authors compare four configurations—ContentVec baseline, baseline plus language embeddings, SPIN, and SPIN plus language embeddings—on a multilingual corpus. They report that SPIN-based configurations improve content preservation (WER/CER), prosody (F0PPC), and listener naturalness (MOS) over the ContentVec baseline, and conclude that a multilingual content extractor is crucial for cross-lingual conversion. The source code and models are released.

Significance. The paper addresses an interesting underexplored problem and provides a reproducible open-source system. If the causal claim about multilingual content extraction were cleanly supported, it would be a useful design guideline. The empirical study includes multiple metrics, bootstrap CIs for some tables, and a human evaluation. However, the headline attribution is confounded: the SPIN extractor differs from the ContentVec baseline in training data and fine-tuning recipe, not only in language coverage. Therefore the significance is currently conditional on an additional ablation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, §IV-A, Tables III–V] The central claim that a multilingual content extractor is crucial is not supported by the experimental design. The ContentVec baseline is an off-the-shelf English-pretrained checkpoint, whereas the SPIN extractor is additionally trained on CML-TTS and LibriTTS for 3 epochs with the SPIN objective, which includes a vector quantization layer during training and fine-tuning of the last two layers. Thus the observed gains could be due to extra data, continued training, or the SPIN recipe rather than to multilingualism. To establish the abstract's causal statement, please add a matched control, e.g., ContentVec fine-tuned on the same multilingual data without the SPIN VQ layer and loss, or SPIN fine-tuned on an English-only corpus of comparable size. Without such a control, the comparison in Tables III–V cannot isolate the effect of multilingual data.
  2. [§IV-B, Tables III, V, VI] Significance testing is incomplete. Asterisks appear only in Tables II and IV; no confidence intervals or p-values are reported for WER/CER (Table III) or MOS (Tables V and VI), yet the text claims improvements for language embeddings and SPIN. The differences between Lang. Emb. and ContentVec (Table III: WER 29.42 vs 29.60; Table V English MOS 3.08 vs 3.02) are small and likely within the bootstrap uncertainty. Please report CIs or significance tests for all tables where improvements are claimed, especially since the paper uses bootstrapping elsewhere.
  3. [§V-B, Table VI] The claim that language embeddings improve performance in both cross-lingual scenarios is only partially consistent with the data. In the intra-lingual English condition, Lang. Emb. MOS (3.36) is actually lower than ContentVec (3.39), and in intra-lingual Chinese the difference is small (2.94 vs 3.00). Please temper the claim or provide a statistical interpretation of these differences, distinguishing intra-lingual from cross-lingual gains.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table I] The table contains typos: 'AISHEL-1' and 'AISHEL-3' should be 'AISHELL-1' and 'AISHELL-3', and 'V ocalSet' has inconsistent spacing. Please correct these in the final manuscript.
  2. [§IV-B] The MOS description states participants assessed 'combining both speech and singing in the evaluation.' Please clarify whether speech and singing samples were pooled in the MOS ratings and report the number of samples per condition, as this affects interpretability of Tables V and VI.
  3. [§IV-A] The SPIN training details report batch size, cluster size, and dimensionality, but not the learning rate or other optimization hyperparameters. Please include these for reproducibility, or state that they follow the original SPIN paper exactly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the main claim is an empirical comparison against external baselines, with a confounded but non-circular attribution.

full rationale

The derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. FreeSVC's content extractor (SPIN) and language embeddings are evaluated against an external English-pretrained ContentVec baseline using MMS-ASR WER/CER, F0PPC, and human MOS (Tables III-VI). None of these metrics is defined in terms of the model's outputs or fitted parameters, and the superior numbers are not guaranteed by construction. The paper does not fit SPIN to the evaluation transcriptions or ratings; SPIN is produced by an external method [18] trained on CML-TTS and LibriTTS (Sec. IV-A), and the baseline is a released ContentVec checkpoint. The language embeddings are trained on the SVC objective and then measured on held-out content-preservation tasks. A caveat, not a circularity, is that the SPIN condition differs from the ContentVec baseline in architecture (VQ layer, fine-tuned last two layers) and training data, so the abstract's causal statement that multilingualism is crucial is not cleanly isolated. That is an experimental confound, not a self-referential reduction. The CML-TTS citation includes overlapping authors, but CML-TTS is a publicly released speech corpus used as a data source; the paper does not cite it to prove a theorem or to forbid alternatives. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness result is imported from the authors' prior work. Overall, the paper's claims are externally falsifiable and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical systems paper, not a derivation. The central claim depends on several unverified assumptions about pretrained components and evaluation tools, listed above. The free parameters are training hyperparameters that were fixed by hand; they are not fitted to optimize the reported metrics.

free parameters (3)
  • SPIN fine-tuning epochs = 3
    Chosen by hand in Section IV-A; the quality of the multilingual content extractor, which is the central claim, depends on this value.
  • SPIN cluster size = 2048
    Set in Section IV-A; controls the vector quantization capacity of the SPIN training.
  • FreeSVC training steps = 225k
    Fixed by hand in Section IV-A; all model variants share this step count, making it a controlled but arbitrary constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ECAPA2 pretrained on VoxCeleb2 provides robust speaker embeddings that transfer to singing voices.
    Section II; the model is used as a frozen extractor without verification on singing data.
  • domain assumption MMS ASR provides language-consistent transcription across English, Chinese, and other languages used in evaluation.
    Section IV-B; WER/CER depend on MMS accuracy, which is not controlled for singing audio.
  • domain assumption The ContentVec baseline is a valid state-of-the-art SVC content extractor.
    Section IV; the paper selects it as the current SOTA, citing so-vits-svc.
  • standard math The bootstrapping tool (Ferrer and Riera) yields correct confidence intervals for the reported metrics.
    Section IV-B; used only for speaker similarity and F0PPC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FreeSVC: Towards Zero-shot Multilingual Singing Voice Conversion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AKOVB2IL

@misc{pith2026250105586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FreeSVC: Towards Zero-shot Multilingual Singing Voice Conversion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AKOVB2IL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05586}
}
read the original abstract

This work presents FreeSVC, a promising multilingual singing voice conversion approach that leverages an enhanced VITS model with Speaker-invariant Clustering (SPIN) for better content representation and the State-of-the-Art (SOTA) speaker encoder ECAPA2. FreeSVC incorporates trainable language embeddings to handle multiple languages and employs an advanced speaker encoder to disentangle speaker characteristics from linguistic content. Designed for zero-shot learning, FreeSVC enables cross-lingual singing voice conversion without extensive language-specific training. We demonstrate that a multilingual content extractor is crucial for optimal cross-language conversion. Our source code and models are publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05586 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comprehensive diagram of the FreeSVC model illustrating the (a) the training procedure, and (b) inference procedure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    FreeVC: Towards High-Quality Text-Free One-Shot V oice Conversion,

    J. Li, W. Tu, and L. Xiao, “FreeVC: Towards High-Quality Text-Free One-Shot V oice Conversion,” inICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Style tokens: Unsupervised style modeling, control and transfer in end-to-end speech synthesis,

    Y . Wang, D. Stanton, Y . Zhang, R.-S. Ryan, E. Battenberg, J. Shor, Y . Xiao, Y . Jia, F. Ren, and R. A. Saurous, “Style tokens: Unsupervised style modeling, control and transfer in end-to-end speech synthesis,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2018, pp. 5180–5189

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Seen and unseen emotional style transfer for voice conversion with a new emotional speech dataset,

    K. Zhou, B. Sisman, R. Liu, and H. Li, “Seen and unseen emotional style transfer for voice conversion with a new emotional speech dataset,” in ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 920–924

    2021

  4. [4]

    Pitchnet: Unsupervised singing voice conversion with pitch adversarial network,

    C. Deng, C. Yu, H. Lu, C. Weng, and D. Yu, “Pitchnet: Unsupervised singing voice conversion with pitch adversarial network,” in ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2020, pp. 7749–7753

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Towards high-fidelity singing voice conversion with acoustic reference and contrastive predictive coding,

    C. Wang, Z. Li, B. Tang, X. Yin, Y . Wan, Y . Yu, and Z. Ma, “Towards high-fidelity singing voice conversion with acoustic reference and contrastive predictive coding,” 10 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Diffsvc: A diffusion probabilistic model for singing voice conversion,

    S. Liu, Y . Cao, D. Su, and H. Meng, “Diffsvc: A diffusion probabilistic model for singing voice conversion,” in 2021 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU) , 2021, pp. 741–748

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    FastSVC: Fast Cross- Domain Singing V oice Conversion With Feature-Wise Linear Modula- tion,

    S. Liu, Y . Cao, N. Hu, D. Su, and H. Meng, “FastSVC: Fast Cross- Domain Singing V oice Conversion With Feature-Wise Linear Modula- tion,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 2021, pp. 1–6

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Improving adversarial waveform generation based singing voice conversion with harmonic signals,

    H. Guo, Z. Zhou, F. Meng, and K. Liu, “Improving adversarial waveform generation based singing voice conversion with harmonic signals,” in ICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2022, pp. 6657–6661

    work page 2022

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Self- supervised representations for singing voice conversion,

    T. Jayashankar, J. Wu, L. Sari, D. Kant, V . Manohar, and Q. He, “Self- supervised representations for singing voice conversion,” 03 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    VITS-Based Singing V oice Conversion System with DSPGAN Post-Processing for SVCC2023,

    Y . Zhou, M. Chen, Y . Lei, J. Zhu, and W. Zhao, “VITS-Based Singing V oice Conversion System with DSPGAN Post-Processing for SVCC2023,” 12 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  3. [11]

    Conditional variational autoencoder with adversarial learning for end-to-end text-to-speech,

    J. Kim, J. Kong, and J. Son, “Conditional variational autoencoder with adversarial learning for end-to-end text-to-speech,” International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 5530–5540, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.06103

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Yourtts: Towards zero-shot multi-speaker tts and zero-shot voice conversion for everyone,

    E. Casanova, J. Weber, C. D. Shulby, A. C. Junior, E. G ¨olge, and M. A. Ponti, “Yourtts: Towards zero-shot multi-speaker tts and zero-shot voice conversion for everyone,” in International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 2709–2720

    2022

  5. [13]

    Wavlm: Large-scale self-supervised pre- training for full stack speech processing,

    S. Chen, C. Wang, Z. Chen, Y . Wu, S. Liu, Z. Chen, J. Li, N. Kanda, T. Yoshioka, X. Xiao et al. , “Wavlm: Large-scale self-supervised pre- training for full stack speech processing,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1505–1518, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,

    W.-N. Hsu, B. Bolte, Y .-H. H. Tsai, K. Lakhotia, R. Salakhutdinov, and A. Mohamed, “Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech and Lang. Proc. , vol. 29, p. 3451–3460, oct 2021. [Online]. Availab...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Contentvec: An improved self-supervised speech representation by disentangling speakers,

    K. Qian et al. , “Contentvec: An improved self-supervised speech representation by disentangling speakers,” International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 18 003–18 017, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.09224

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A unified model for zero-shot singing voice conversion and synthesis,

    J.-T. Wu, J.-Y . Wang, J.-S. R. Jang, and L. Su, “A unified model for zero-shot singing voice conversion and synthesis,” in Ismir 2022 Hybrid Conference, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Zero-shot singing voice conversion based on timbre space modeling and excitation signal control,

    Y . Jiang, Y .-N. Chen, L.-J. Liu, Y .-J. Hu, X. Fang, and Z.-H. Ling, “Zero-shot singing voice conversion based on timbre space modeling and excitation signal control,” in National Conference on Man-Machine Speech Communication . Springer, 2023, pp. 276–286

    2023

  10. [18]

    Self-supervised fine-tuning for improved content representations by speaker-invariant clustering,

    H.-J. Chang, A. H. Liu, and J. Glass, “Self-supervised fine-tuning for improved content representations by speaker-invariant clustering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11072, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    ECAPA2: A Hybrid Neural Network Architecture and Training Strategy for Robust Speaker Embeddings,

    J. Thienpondt and K. Demuynck, “ECAPA2: A Hybrid Neural Network Architecture and Training Strategy for Robust Speaker Embeddings,” in 2023 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  12. [20]

    V oxCeleb2: Deep Speaker Recognition,

    J. S. Chung, A. Nagrani, and A. Zisserman, “V oxCeleb2: Deep Speaker Recognition,” in INTERSPEECH, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    RMVPE: A robust model for vocal pitch estimation in polyphonic music,

    H. Wei, X. Cao, T. Dan, and Y . Chen, “RMVPE: A robust model for vocal pitch estimation in polyphonic music,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15412, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    U-net-based medical image segmentation,

    X.-X. Yin, L. Sun, Y . Fu, R. Lu, and Y . Zhang, “U-net-based medical image segmentation,” Journal of Healthcare Engineering , vol. 2022, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,

    J. Chung, “Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    AISHELL-1: An open- source Mandarin speech corpus and a speech recognition baseline,

    H. Bu, J. Du, X. Na, B. Wu, and H. Zheng, “AISHELL-1: An open- source Mandarin speech corpus and a speech recognition baseline,” in 2017 20th Conference of the Oriental Chapter of the International Coordinating Committee on Speech Databases and Speech I/O Systems and Assessmen...

    2017

  17. [25]

    AISHELL-3: A Multi- Speaker Mandarin TTS Corpus,

    Y . Shi, H. Bu, X. Xu, S. Zhang, and M. Li, “AISHELL-3: A Multi- Speaker Mandarin TTS Corpus,” 08 2021, pp. 2756–2760

    2021

  18. [26]

    CML-TTS: A multilingual dataset for speech synthesis in low-resource languages,

    F. S. Oliveira, E. Casanova, A. C. Junior, A. S. Soares, and A. R. Galv˜ao Filho, “CML-TTS: A multilingual dataset for speech synthesis in low-resource languages,” in Text, Speech, and Dialogue , K. Ek ˇstein, F. P ´artl, and M. Konop ´ık, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerlan...

    2023

  19. [27]

    JVS Corpus: free japanese multi-speaker voice corpus,

    S. Takamichi, K. Mitsui, Y . Saito, T. Koriyama, N. Tanji, and H. Saruwatari, “JVS Corpus: free japanese multi-speaker voice corpus,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06248 , 2019

    1908 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hi-Fi Multi- Speaker English TTS Dataset,

    E. Bakhturina, V . Lavrukhin, B. Ginsburg, and Y . Zhang, “Hi-Fi Multi- Speaker English TTS Dataset,” in Proc. Interspeech 2021 , 2021, pp. 2776–2780

    2021

  21. [29]

    LibriTTS-R: A restored multi-speaker text-to-speech corpus,

    Y . Koizumi, H. Zen, S. Karita, Y . Ding, K. Yatabe, N. Morioka, M. Bacchiani, Y . Zhang, W. Han, and A. Bapna, “LibriTTS-R: A restored multi-speaker text-to-speech corpus,” 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    CSTR VCTK Corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for cstr voice cloning toolkit (version 0.92),

    J. Yamagishi, C. Veaux, and K. MacDonald, “CSTR VCTK Corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for cstr voice cloning toolkit (version 0.92),” https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/2645, 2019, [sound]

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    NHSS: A speech and singing parallel database,

    B. Sharma, X. Gao, K. Vijayan, X. Tian, and H. Li, “NHSS: A speech and singing parallel database,” Speech Communication , vol. 133, pp. 9–22, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0167639321000728

    2021

  24. [32]

    Multi-Singer: Fast Multi-Singer Singing V oice V ocoder With A Large-Scale Corpus,

    R. Huang, F. Chen, Y . Ren, J. Liu, C. Cui, and Z. Zhao, “Multi-Singer: Fast Multi-Singer Singing V oice V ocoder With A Large-Scale Corpus,” 10 2021, pp. 3945–3954

    2021

  25. [33]

    Opencpop: A high-quality open source chinese popular song corpus for singing voice synthesis,

    Y . Wang, X. Wang, P. Zhu, J. Wu, H. Li, H. Xue, Y . Zhang, L. Xie, and M. Bi, “Opencpop: A high-quality open source chinese popular song corpus for singing voice synthesis,” 01 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Learning the beauty in songs: Neural singing voice beautifier,

    J. Liu, C. Li, Y . Ren, Z. Zhu, and Z. Zhao, “Learning the beauty in songs: Neural singing voice beautifier,” 02 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    DiffSinger: Diffusion Acoustic Model for Singing V oice Synthesis,

    J. Liu, C. Li, Y . Ren, F. Chen, P. Liu, and Z. Zhao, “DiffSinger: Diffusion Acoustic Model for Singing V oice Synthesis,” 05 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    V ocalSet: A singing voice dataset

    J. Wilkins, P. Seetharaman, A. Wahl, and B. Pardo, “V ocalSet: A singing voice dataset.” in ISMIR, 2018, pp. 468–474

    2018

  29. [37]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” International Conference on Learning Representations , 12 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Scaling speech technology to 1,000+ languages,

    V . Pratap, A. Tjandra, B. Shi, P. Tomasello, A. Babu, S. Kundu, A. Elkahky, Z. Ni, A. Vyas, M. Fazel-Zarandi et al. , “Scaling speech technology to 1,000+ languages,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13516 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Efron and R

    B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani, An Introduction to the Bootstrap . CRC press, 1994

    1994

  32. [40]

    Confidence intervals for evaluation in machine learning,

    L. Ferrer and P. Riera, “Confidence intervals for evaluation in machine learning,” Computer Software, https://github.com/luferrer/ ConfidenceIntervals

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.