[HN Gopher] Enhance Speech from Adobe - Free AI filter for clean...
___________________________________________________________________
Enhance Speech from Adobe - Free AI filter for cleaning up spoken
audio
Author : modinfo
Score : 310 points
Date : 2022-12-19 03:18 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (podcast.adobe.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (podcast.adobe.com)
| philsci wrote:
| Tried to upload my favorite recorded audio file (MP3) from
| Japanese program given in the middle of 1980s about a ancient
| mound (grave) in Japan. A Japanese famous archaeologist, late
| Koichi Mori (a professor of Doshisya University at that time)
| talks about Hashihaka mound, but he talks in ... in Spanish?
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| > Tried to upload my favorite recorded audio file (MP3) from
| Japanese program given in the middle of 1980s about a ancient
| mound (grave) in Japan. A Japanese famous archaeologist, late
| Koichi Mori (a professor of Doshisya University at that time)
| talks about Hashihaka mound, but he talks in ... in Spanish?
|
| I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Do you mean that
| the talk was in Japanese but the output of this service somehow
| screwed it up in a way that it sounds like spanish?
|
| Or are you just mentioning that the thing you uploaded was
| spanish and not describing the quality of the output?
| drewbeck wrote:
| Not sure when we get this tech real-time and part of our video
| conferencing tools but ... can't wait.
| kimburgess wrote:
| No need to wait. It's already built into all major conferencing
| platforms today (Teams, Webex, Meet etc).
|
| If you'd like to run something locally, there's also
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/guides/nvidia-rtx-
| voice....
| doodlesdev wrote:
| AMD and NVIDIA have already done that. There's also Krisp which
| you can pay to use anywhere or just use the free Discord
| integration. I'm sure there are others too.
| seydor wrote:
| I wish youtube could have such an option, along with sound
| normalization and perhaps compression. So many videos, lectures
| and chats have bad sound and it really becomes an issue for
| people who dont have the best hearing.
|
| Also would be great if used in Zoom recordings of podcasts
| bigwheeler wrote:
| I tried this on a couple of speeches that were recorded in front
| of an artificial waterfall, and the output is not just bad - it's
| not the English language. Nor any language on earth that I'm
| aware of. Haha
|
| The tool that now comes with the latest updates to FCPX handled
| them without a problem. (Still some background noise, but you can
| clearly hear every word.) I think Adobe has a long way to go on
| this.
| asimpletune wrote:
| One interesting thing I realized after experimenting with this
| today is that if you upload mp3 (as opposed to wav) your audio
| won't really sync correctly afterward. For example, I found the
| effect to work too well at certain points, and so I tried to
| blend it with the original audio, but then it sounded as if the
| phase was off. Uploading a wav resolved this issue for me.
| nonoesp wrote:
| I was expecting someone to have mentioned Descript's Sound Studio
| audio enhancement filter.
| causi wrote:
| How long until there's a way to process more than one hour at a
| time? After trying a sample, I cannot wait to run some old
| audiobooks through this. The results sound like it was made
| twenty years newer.
| tristor wrote:
| This is really cool, I wish this was shipped as an AU plugin I
| could use with Audio Hijack and Loopback to process audio for
| video conferences. I already use a pretty detailed filter-chain
| that greatly improves audio quality, but this would give more of
| a "radio voice" quality compared to my current filter chain. I've
| found that improving audio quality has a marked difference in how
| people respond to my proposals when I present them, working
| remotely.
| jacooper wrote:
| Nvidia has a similar thing called RTX audio, but its even more
| impressive and runs live on recording
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWUHkCgslNE
| rjzzleep wrote:
| It seems quite different actually. While this filter tries to
| completely change the sound of the whole recording, RTX voice
| isn't really improving the audio quality, but is rather
| focusing only on removing noise. I think it's a much more sound
| approach and doesn't really end up in actually changing
| language like in some of the examples below.
| thulle wrote:
| It's not usable for everyone though, I got a friend with a
| high pitched voice and RTX audio totally butchers it if she's
| not careful with how she speaks. And a giggle turns into a
| garbled mess and so on.
| ritwikgupta wrote:
| This is incredible. I took a talk recording I made for NeurIPS
| and passed it through this tool. The improvement in audio quality
| was night and day. It went from clearly being recorded in a
| bedroom to a studio-like experience.
|
| [0, original] https://youtu.be/gwkCIdwHRhc
|
| [1, enhanced] https://youtu.be/RPnUqmSyZ6Q
| laserlight wrote:
| The result is nowhere near studio quality. It's highly
| compressed and full of artifacts. I found the original to be
| more pleasant to listen to. It at least sounds natural.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| This difference actually has an audio "uncanny valley" effect
| because the voice and the video setting are so different now.
| sitkack wrote:
| Use AI to separate the speech and remix the room noise back
| into the recording.
| inkcapmushroom wrote:
| Or just remix the background to match the expected
| environment for the audio!
| redox99 wrote:
| It's so good it looks weird. It removed all the room acoustics,
| such that you would expect to see a mic very close to your
| face.
| ritwikgupta wrote:
| I agree. I was also taken aback for the first few seconds.
| After those first few seconds, I think I was able to adjust
| to the sound.
|
| This would be wilder if I were in an unconstrained
| environment with similar enhanced audio quality. It would
| seem like a voice-over.
| adroitboss wrote:
| I feel the exact same way. It sounds like the mic is close to
| his mouth, but when watching the video it's clearly not
| there. It's super trippy.
| wiihack wrote:
| I was shocked at how good it worked in this case. Thanks for
| the examples!
| fock wrote:
| I was shocked how (on my notebook) it sounds like there is
| something with the speakers.
| rychco wrote:
| Wow you're right, this is a great improvement in quality.
|
| Also, very enjoyable & clear presentation.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| This seems to work well for certain voices and recordings and
| quite badly for others.
|
| Is there any way one could easily train it on my own voice to
| make sure it isolates my or any other trained voice from noisy
| environments?
| boplicity wrote:
| Anyone know if this is integrated into Premiere yet?
| relwin wrote:
| I used this filter to reduce wind noise during a tour guide of
| BB63:
|
| https://youtu.be/1LDlOmKtfeQ?t=60
|
| This is a 20 yr old vid shot at Pearl Harbor on the deck of USS
| Missouri with a low-end consumer Hi-8 camera using built-in mics.
| Notice flags and clothes rippling in the wind. This filter works
| pretty well in this case. Maybe it was trained on a New York
| accent? Mixing in the enhanced track as needed works well. Using
| only the enhanced track may sound artificial at times.
|
| Here's another vid shot at a brewery where this filter helped
| clarify the brewmaster's voice over a noisy restaurant and
| outdoor machinery (again, built-in mic):
|
| https://youtu.be/nANSdnYj-R0
|
| I found this filter useful.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| > Mixing in the enhanced track as needed works well. Using only
| the enhanced track may sound artificial at times.
|
| Funnily, in order to use this sort of model for tasks involving
| speech recognition it's often recommended in the literature to
| mix back in _some_ of the original noisy audio. This reduces
| the impact of artifacts introduced by the enhancement which
| would otherwise reduce ASR quality due to domain shift in the
| data.
|
| Guess humans and computers have similar needs in this case. :)
|
| These are impressive results, the audio mostly sounds like you
| gave the guy a lapel mic. :P
| homero wrote:
| As a human I had a hard time understanding that audio
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Honestly you might have had a hard time understanding that
| speech in person
| O__________O wrote:
| Having unlisted version on Youtube "before" the audio was
| filtered would make it easier to hear the true difference, but
| agree the quality is impressive as is.
| relwin wrote:
| I did so on the brewery tour:
|
| https://youtu.be/M5pdHVoXQHE
| O__________O wrote:
| Thanks! Honestly I liked the post filtering audio with no
| "natural audio" mixed back in. Get the reasoning, but
| still. Did you do testing with anyone to gauge viewer
| preference? If so, how?
| relwin wrote:
| This filter is not perfect so you'll have a few audio
| artifacts that you won't want in your final mix. Mixing
| with the original audio hides these artifacts somewhat.
| Using this filter also increases your audio mixing effort
| (you're mixing in a second vocal track) so it's easiest
| to mix the 2 audio tracks at constant levels then adjust
| when you hit an artifact. This is my personal preference
| on this style of audio mixing, and others who watched
| (and gave feedback) couldn't tell it was enhanced and had
| no difficulty understanding the speaker.
| adwi wrote:
| After seeing this this AM, I just used this in a proper
| professional mix session for an ad we were finishing today. Sit-
| down interview shot with an iPhone (don't ask). I output stems of
| each subject's dialog, uploaded separately, laid back in and
| mixed little bit of roomtone back into it.
|
| Gobsmack all around. Mine, that it did better in 10 seconds than
| I think nearly anyone could have done in 10 hours. Theirs, that
| they thought I performed a literal miracle.
|
| Life comes at you pretty fast sometimes.
| nharada wrote:
| Interesting "automagic" tool for audio post targeted towards
| hobbyists and creators. Anyone able to compare this with the
| entry level[1] version of the professional standard dialog
| cleanup software, RX?
|
| [1] https://www.izotope.com/en/shop/rx-10-elements.html
| code51 wrote:
| Programmed to hallucinate from every sound. Goes "du du duuuu du
| du" with background music.
| detay wrote:
| I need this on my guild discord server
| jccalhoun wrote:
| i uploaded the raw audio of myself and in the beginning I'm
| talking to myself while off mic. Adobe turned it into some weird
| non-english thing.
| joshspankit wrote:
| How close are we to AI understanding your voice, then simply re-
| creating it with perfect clarity?
|
| I feel like we're _real_ close
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _How close are we to AI understanding your voice, then simply
| re-creating it with perfect clarity?_
|
| People do this regularly today using Descript.
| https://www.descript.com/overdub
|
| Through answering this I also found Respeecher, which seems
| interesting too. https://www.respeecher.com/
| leet wrote:
| Adobe had this sometime ago
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw It was
| discontinued.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| Waves Clarity Vx is comparably good and costs 29.95 USD at one of
| the frequent sales (such as now). All you need is a VST host,
| which you're probably using already anyway.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| To push it to the limit I recorded exactly the same recording
| with my phone microphone and my AT875R XLR shotgun. I did this
| because my phone microphone is poor and picks up a lot of echo.
| Results are as follows:
|
| - If the microphone quality itself is bad, the enhanced audio is
| still pretty horrible. - It does clean up echo but with there's
| some pretty aggressive EQ that doesn't sound nice, and the noise
| gate is pretty severe - Compared to my XLR shotgun, the quality
| of the phone was pretty horrible
|
| What we can conclude is that if you already have a good recording
| but with some problems, you might be able to use this to remove
| those problems. However, don't expect a crappy microphone to turn
| into a good microphone, or a crappy recording to turn into
| "studio quality".
|
| The bottom line is that there's no substitute for a decent
| microphone in a decent space. (At the very minimum, small room
| without echo.)
| alister wrote:
| > _At the very minimum, small room without echo_
|
| Why small room? Does that reduce echo?
|
| In theory, would a gigantic room that was miles to the nearest
| wall be even better?
| AkshatJ27 wrote:
| Sound takes lesser time to travel in smaller rooms, hence the
| difference in time is not very large between the original
| sound wave and the reflected one which makes it harder to
| distinguish to human ears.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| _> In theory, would a gigantic room that was miles to the
| nearest wall be even better? _
|
| Yes, as effectively it's open space. In practice though, to
| record in high quality you would rather build an anechoic
| environment, as small as possible (preferably a booth).
| weinzierl wrote:
| _" as small as possible (preferably a booth)."_
|
| This is where the _Startup Garage_ analogous cliche for
| musicians comes from: _recorded in the closet_
| jraph wrote:
| Beware of the wind in such a room
|
| (and of the rain too)
| echelon wrote:
| This is just beginning.
|
| Look at all the money that's been going into making phones
| compelling substitutes for professional cameras. And camera
| tech is still evolving. Consumer audio devices will get the
| same attention and investment.
|
| We'll eventually have models for audio signals in all sorts of
| distorted and noisy environments. I'd bet that in ten years a
| cellphone microphone can duplicate a professional audio setup
| in 90% of circumstances.
| tempodox wrote:
| > don't expect a crappy microphone to turn into a good
| microphone
|
| It's the same as with photos. If your raw material is bad, no
| tool on earth can make it good.
| egeozcan wrote:
| The tools can make stuff up and produce something, may I say
| "good", from it, but it won't be the same contents :)
| ZainRiz wrote:
| StableDiffusion+img2img may beg to differ :)
| mdmglr wrote:
| Out of curiosity what phone do you have?
| simfree wrote:
| OP should clean both microphones on their phone, usually a
| sewing needle or thin toothpick can do the trick, but 99%
| Isopropyl on a toothbrush might be needed afterwards if the
| grill inside that protects the microphone is also clogged up.
|
| Both microphones need to be cleaned of any blockages so the
| hardware echo and noise cancellation on a given phone works
| well. Otherwise you've got distorted audio getting processed
| as if it's not distorted...
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Important question because a microphone array (which exists
| on some phones, and things like home voice assistants) can be
| steered into the equivalent of a shotgun mic's pattern, or
| even more focused than that. It's just that an algorithm aims
| it toward the strongest signal, instead of the user aiming a
| hypercardioid mic manually. Either way, this is what reduces
| the ratio of reverberant room sound ("echo").
| retSava wrote:
| How about running it several times, will that make it better or
| worse?
| kamiheku wrote:
| That could be a fun exercise, I'd imagine you might end up
| with something like "I Am Sitting In A Room" [0][1]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Sitting_in_a_Room [1]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAxHlLK3Oyk
| andreyk wrote:
| I use Adobe Audition for podcast editing and they have a pretty
| nice feature built in for that already - not sure how this
| differs. I am also not a big fan of edit-by-transcription, since
| I do like to remove occasional long silences, weird sounds, etc.
| That being said the mic check looks pretty useful.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| Can it remove the professor's coughing? I have recordings of some
| interesting lectures recorded by a professor who had covid or
| something, coughing after every some words.
|
| Many other professors (as well as me, occasionally) also use to
| involuntarely (and often unaware of that) say something like
| eeeeeh when they strugle to recall the right word. Would be great
| if this could be removed as well.
| killerdhmo wrote:
| I don't know their roadmap, but if anything I'd point you to a
| tool called Descript which is great at this. You can get
| transcriptions, and make edits based on the text (e.g. cough,
| um s, etc.) Descript.app (I am not affiliated with them, just a
| fan)
| charcircuit wrote:
| The demo is pretty disappointing in that it hitches whenever you
| flip the switch. They should have invested a little more in
| making it seamlessly switch.
| paulgb wrote:
| I hope they add this to Adobe Premiere, it would be useful for
| cleaning up audio from talk recordings.
| itake wrote:
| I want to add this to zoom so I can hear my coworkers better.
| lynxaegon wrote:
| You can use Nvidia Broadcast with a noise filtered Speaker. I
| use this for zoom meetings and it works wonders
| itake wrote:
| I use an m1 and iphone for my zoom calls :-/. AFAIK, that
| requires an nvidia chip.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| That would be convenient, but for now you could bounce the
| audio out, run it through the online tool and then bring it
| back in to Premiere.
| Fostewrs wrote:
| sva_ wrote:
| Free as in "free beer", I assume.
| paulluuk wrote:
| Most likely they'll use your recordings to enhance their own
| audio models.
| peatfreak wrote:
| Does anybody know how this works? As somebody with a serious
| interest in signal processing, machine learning, and audio, I'm
| genuinely interested. Have Adobe published anything about the
| technology behind this?
| hs86 wrote:
| How does this stack up against something like Auphonic?
| https://auphonic.com/
| bloopernova wrote:
| I have a lot of trouble understanding people on group calls. I
| wonder if something like this software could help me?
| bravura wrote:
| I seem to recall a demo where a trumpet sound was plugged into an
| aggressive high quality speech denoiser, making it sound like a
| speaker. Does anyone remember this demo, or have similar links on
| creative use of this tech?
| Aulig wrote:
| It significantly improved the quality for me but also made many
| (english) words very hard to understand.
| Kerrick wrote:
| I was very excited about this, and then I tried it. I gave a talk
| at a local meetup 8 years ago [0] that wasn't mic'd properly, but
| I uploaded it anyways. It was never the most pleasant thing to
| listen to, but the audio was understandable enough that for years
| it was a top search result for "javascript promises" on YouTube
| and accumulated 39K views.
|
| However, when I ripped that video's audio and put it through the
| linked AI filter (Adobe Podcast's Enhance Speech), it went from
| being unpleasant-but-understandable to perfectly clear gibberish
| [1]. For example, about 15 seconds in I said:
|
| > [...] at Second Street, the company whose office you are
| currently sitting in. Uh, you can find me on the web on GitHub,
| on Twitter, or my own site at Kerrick Long Dot Com.
|
| In the "enhanced" version, it sounds like a person who isn't me
| said the following in soundproofed studio (with a head cold):
|
| > [...] at Second Street, the cubbany od office you are currently
| city-aly. You gidhi me on the web on GitDub, on Twitter, or my
| own side at Kerri Flow Dot Cowf.
|
| [0]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wc72cyYt8-c
|
| [1]: https://soundcloud.com/kerricklong/javascript-promises-
| think...
| hobbitstan wrote:
| I tested a few recordings of an Indian Swami giving speeches in
| English back in the 70's. Recording had a lot of background
| noise, not great. You have to listen very carefully to hear what
| is being said. I was hoping for good results, but...
|
| Results:
|
| - background noise was reduced
|
| - some previously clear words are turned into garbled non-words
|
| - some parts are replaced by a different Indian voice, I assume
| AI, so it sounds like multiple people talking
|
| All in all, the results are not anywhere near what the sample
| shows.
| godelski wrote:
| Honestly, it sounds like you're judging on a pretty big outlier
| example. The sample seems to more be aimed at background noise
| and even that sample is extremely easy to understand without
| the enhancement. There are a bunch of tools out there that are
| probably better aimed at your goals.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Time is a flat circle. Remember when Xerox copiers would
| randomly replace digits with different digits?
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/6/4594482/xerox-copiers-rand...
| paxys wrote:
| Good news: This fancy new compression reduces the error rate
| from 5% to 1% for the same file size
|
| Bad news: While the 5% was a minor inconvenience for
| customers, the 1% is bad enough to end your company
| hobbitstan wrote:
| Well, that's a nightmare I never knew existed...
| masswerk wrote:
| Epic talk (in German, David Kriesel, "Traue keinem Scan,
| den du nicht selbst gefalscht hast"):
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0
| Bombthecat wrote:
| Watched it two times! It is very well made and funny!
| pragmatick wrote:
| They should've added english subtitles by now.
| Moru wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0O6UXrOZJo
| aspyct wrote:
| I love it how they say "yeah, character substitution is a
| known issue". How was that ever fine?
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Close the ticket. My performance review scorecard doesn't
| include "known issues"
| shahules wrote:
| Hi there, I have made a free open-source tool that does better.
| Care you check that out? https://github.com/shahules786/mayavoz
| simfree wrote:
| This is very neat! Have you done any profiling on what codecs
| and sample rates this performs best on?
|
| Just curious how the performance differs between PCMU @ 8khz
| compared to Opus @ 48k or IMBE and AMBE+2 (Project 25 Public
| Safety audio codecs) :D
|
| My dream would be doing audio processing in real time to
| clean up the audio of phone calls
| shahules wrote:
| Hi, most models performs best at 16KHz. Current
| architectures does not support real-time speech enhancement
| but I plan to add that in future.
| echelon wrote:
| In time, these tools will gain control knobs and eventually
| start to focus on longer tail audio recovery tasks. I have hope
| for our old audio. Where there's signal, there's a way.
| wds wrote:
| Whatever happened to Voco, their 'photoshop for voice'? I'm not a
| frequent HN poster, so I don't know how to 'properly' cite the
| presentation, but I remember them showing it off years ago and...
| nothing came of it.
| mkl wrote:
| To find old things like that, use the search box at the bottom
| of the page: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=adobe+voco. Big splash 6
| years ago, then nothing.
|
| It seems Adobe never advanced Voco past the research project
| stage ([1] via [2]). I'm guessing they had trouble getting it
| to work reliably on a wide-enough range of real-world audio.
|
| [1] https://community.adobe.com/t5/audition-discussions/beta-
| tes...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Voco
| wongarsu wrote:
| I imagine it got shut down, either by their own
| executives/ethics department, or by outside pressure. It was
| announced in the same year that the word "fake news" took
| off. Not the best time to get the world excited for a
| "photoshop for voice"
| amelius wrote:
| That would be the first time for a big company to make a
| morally sound decision, though.
| ec109685 wrote:
| One of the good things about OpenAI is that their demos are great
| on a mobile phone. This one is totally broken on iOS.
| jerrygoyal wrote:
| and on Android
| acchow wrote:
| Audio demo works on iOS for me (safari and chrome). I think the
| visual is cut off tho
| WoodenChair wrote:
| I've been using this as one of several tools (noise gate in
| Audacity, The Levelator) to increase the audio quality in my
| podcast. Subjectively, I think it's been working, and I love the
| simplicity of the interface. No tuning, just trust the AI. It
| works well for standard spoken English, but will do some horrible
| things to music (it won't detect music and be like "hey don't do
| anything to this"). So you shouldn't run it on a file that
| includes both music and voice.
| michaelaudo wrote:
| Shameless plug, but i've built a similar software as an
| indiehacker. I think it's similar quality to adobe's
|
| https://www.audostudio.com/
| tr3ntg wrote:
| I was suspicious of your claim, but this seems very good. Your
| first example is way more extreme than Adobe's (a restaurant
| with background noise as loud as your voice??), but the output
| is ridiculously clear.
|
| I would definitely say this is "similar quality" to adobe's.
| Nice work.
| asimpletune wrote:
| I experienced something absolutely bizarre with this, making me
| want to try and reupload to see if the same thing occurs. I had
| some footage laying around that was taken on a windy day, with
| buses and wind and kids screaming, and for the most part it was
| greatly improved.
|
| However, a few seconds into my recording there is a part where
| there is someone else's dialogue for a few seconds. I can't make
| out what they're saying but it definitely sounds like a man, with
| a Latin-American accent, speaking English for a second.
|
| Could that be a hallucination or somehow they mixed audio from
| another recording? It only last for about a second, but it's so
| strange.
| newqer wrote:
| My guess would be it fixates on the most dominant source
| available and mutes the other factors. It probably favors human
| voices over other ambient noise, therefore singeing the man
| out.
|
| It will really get freaky when there an ambient noise
| resembling a human voice. I'm thinking the Bear scene from the
| movie Annihilation.
| sitkack wrote:
| One should take a STT transcription on the raw and modified
| media streams and do a diff to find unintended modifications.
| asimpletune wrote:
| I tried reuploading and again the exact same thing happened,
| which is interesting because it seems that it's producing audio
| fairly deterministically, which is not how I think of most AI
| produced results are but I'm not an expert.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| a lot of AI produced results can be deterministic if you want
| them to be. For stable diffusion, just set the seed of the
| initial noise, and it's deterministic. With GPT-3, set the
| temperature to 0 (always choose the highest probability
| word).
|
| It can be a useful technique for learning how slightly
| different prompts affect things
| davidzweig wrote:
| Does anyone have recommendation how to 'upsample' recordings like
| these? [0] It's ripped from old tapes, with heavy NR, and
| compressed.
|
| [0] https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/FSI/fsi-french-
| basi...
| pranxxter wrote:
| try descript.com - their tool called ,,studio sound" is quite
| incredible
| shahules wrote:
| There is an open-source tool that does the same
| https://github.com/shahules786/mayavoz
| realusername wrote:
| I've just tried it but it seems the Adobe one works better and
| outputs a clearer voice.
| shahules wrote:
| Thanks for pointing out, I'm not a regular user of HN. I myself
| am the creator of Mayavoz.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Is there a way to train it on your own voice to isolate your
| own voice but not distort it too much?
| HappyTypist wrote:
| Plugging is okay, but you should always disclose if you are
| involved (which appears to be the case here based on your
| username).
| simfree wrote:
| Their username is in the repository name, that seems pretty
| clear to me...
| Terretta wrote:
| For folks that would like something like this live during video
| conferencing, check out krisp.ai.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-19 23:02 UTC)