[HN Gopher] Our New Sam Audio Model Transforms Audio Editing
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Our New Sam Audio Model Transforms Audio Editing
        
       Author : ushakov
       Score  : 162 points
       Date   : 2025-12-16 20:25 UTC (7 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (about.fb.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (about.fb.com)
        
       | ajcp wrote:
       | Given TikToks insane creator adoption rate is Meta developing
       | these models to build out a content creation platform to compete?
        
         | mgraczyk wrote:
         | I doubt it, although it's possible these models will be used
         | for creator tools, I believe the main idea is to use them for
         | data labeling.
         | 
         | At the time the first SAM was created, Meta was already
         | spending over 2B/year on human labelers. Surely that number is
         | higher now and research like this can dramatically increase
         | data labeling volume
        
           | embedding-shape wrote:
           | > I doubt it, although it's possible these models will be
           | used for creator tools, I believe the main idea is to use
           | them for data labeling.
           | 
           | How is creating 3D objects and characters (and something
           | _resembling_ bones /armature but isn't) supposed to help with
           | data labeling? As synthetic data for training other models,
           | maybe, but seems like this new release is aimed at improving
           | their own tooling for content creators, hard to deny this
           | considering their demos.
           | 
           | For the original SAM releases, I agree, that was probably the
           | purpose. But these new ones that generate stuff and do
           | effects and what not, clearly go beyond that initial scope.
        
       | yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
       | > Visual prompting: Click on the person or object in the video
       | that's making a sound to isolate their audio.
       | 
       | How does _that_ work? Correlating sound with movement?
        
         | yodon wrote:
         | Think about it conceptually:
         | 
         | Could you watch a music video and say "that's the snare drum,
         | that's the lead singer, keyboard, bass, that's the truck that's
         | making the engine noise, that's the crowd that's cheering, oh
         | and that's a jackhammer in the background"? So can AI.
         | 
         | Could you point out who is lead guitar and who is rhythm
         | guitar? So can AI.
        
           | scarecrowbob wrote:
           | I mean, sometimes I -mixing- a show and I couldn't tell you
           | where a specific sound is coming from....
        
             | yodon wrote:
             | > sometimes I -mixing- a show and I couldn't tell you where
             | a specific sound is coming from
             | 
             | And in those situations it won't work. Is any of this
             | really a surprise?
        
           | recursive wrote:
           | I thought about it. Still seems kind of pointless.
           | 
           | That doesn't seem any better than typing "rhythm guitar". In
           | fact, it seems worse and with extra steps. Sometimes the
           | thing making the sound is not pictured. This thing is going
           | to make me scrub through the video until the bass player is
           | in frame instead of just typing "bass guitar". Then it will
           | burn some power inferring that the thing I clicked on was a
           | bass.
        
             | yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
             | To be fair, it's one of 3 ways to prompt
        
         | janalsncm wrote:
         | If it's anything like the original SAM, thousands of hours of
         | annotator time.
         | 
         | If I had to do it synthetically, take single subjects with a
         | single sound and combine them together. Then train a model to
         | separate them again.
        
       | ac2u wrote:
       | I wonder if the segmentation would work with a video of a
       | ventriloquist and a dummy?
        
       | m3kw9 wrote:
       | Can I create a continuous "who farted" detector? Would be great
       | at parties
        
         | IncreasePosts wrote:
         | Each person's unique fartprint is yet another way big tech will
         | be tracking us
        
           | BoorishBears wrote:
           | They're already analyzing poop, what's a mic to go with your
           | toilet camera?
           | 
           | https://www.kohlerhealth.com/dekoda/
        
           | samat wrote:
           | And ads based on a fart! I guess you could throw in some
           | spectrography for content aware ads too!! 'Hmm, I sense you
           | like onions, you would love French soup in the restaurant
           | downstairs today!'
        
         | rmnclmnt wrote:
         | Bighead is back! << Fart Alert >>!
        
       | teeray wrote:
       | I wonder if this would be nice for hearing aid users for reducing
       | the background restaurant babble that overwhelms the people you
       | want to hear.
        
       | ks2048 wrote:
       | I recently discovered Audacity includes plug-ins for audio
       | separation that work great (e.g. split into vocals track and
       | instruments track). The model it uses also originated at Facebook
       | (demucs).
        
         | tantalor wrote:
         | Is "demucs" a pun on demux (demultiplexer)?
        
           | ipsum2 wrote:
           | Yes.
        
         | TylerE wrote:
         | Audacity is very very very far from state of the art in that
         | respect.
        
           | wellthisisgreat wrote:
           | What's a good alternative ?
        
             | 5-0 wrote:
             | I suppose that depends on the use case.
             | 
             | For mash-ups specifically, using yt-dlp to download music
             | and split into stems with Demucs, using the UVR frontend,
             | before importing into a DAW is effortless. The catch is
             | that you can't expect to get OK-ish separation on anything
             | other than vocals and "other", which really isn't a problem
             | for mash-ups.
             | 
             | https://github.com/Anjok07/ultimatevocalremovergui
        
               | nartho wrote:
               | IS there any DAW plugins that do that ?
        
             | embedding-shape wrote:
             | If you're already in the Ableton ecosystem, their newly
             | released stem separation is actually very good, at least
             | for the small amount of testing I've done so far. Much
             | better than demucs, which shouldn't come as a surprise I
             | suppose.
        
             | TylerE wrote:
             | I use RipX DAW personally. It very cleanly seperates
             | vocals, guitar, bass, and drums.
        
           | vhcr wrote:
           | This new SAM model actually competes against SOTA models.
           | 
           | https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1pp9w31/ama_wit.
           | ..
        
             | embedding-shape wrote:
             | Their answer:
             | 
             | > If you are interested in how well we do compared to
             | demucs in particular, we can use the MUSDB18 dataset since
             | that is the domain that demucs is trained to work well on.
             | There our net win rate against demucs is ~17%, meaning we
             | do perform better on the MUSDB18 test set. There are
             | actually stronger competitors on both this domain and our
             | "in-the-wild" instrument stem separation domain that we
             | built for SAM Audio Bench, but we either match or beat all
             | of the ones we tested (AudioShake, LalalAI, MoisesAI, etc.)
             | 
             | So ~20% better than demucs, better than the ones they
             | tested, but the acknowledge there are better models out
             | there even today. So not sure "competes against SOTA
             | models" is right, but "getting close to compete against
             | SOTA models" might be more accurate.
        
         | embedding-shape wrote:
         | > for audio separation that work great
         | 
         | What did you compare it to? Ableton recently launched a audio
         | separation feature too, and probably the highest ROI on
         | simple/useful/accurate so far I've tried, other solutions been
         | lacking in one of the points before.
        
       | yunwal wrote:
       | This is hilariously bad with music. Like I can type in the most
       | basic thing like "string instruments" which should theoretically
       | be super easy to isolate. You can generally one-shot this using
       | spectral analysis libraries. And it just totally fails.
        
         | duped wrote:
         | what in theory makes those "super easy" to isolate? Humans are
         | terrible at this to begin with, it takes years to train one of
         | them to do it mildly well. Computers are even worse - blind
         | source separation and the cocktail party problem have been the
         | white whale of audio DSP for decades (and only very recently
         | did tools become passable).
        
           | yunwal wrote:
           | The fact that you can do it with spectral analysis libraries,
           | no LLM required.
           | 
           | This is much easier than source separation. It would be
           | different if I were asking to isolate a violin from a viola
           | or another violin, you'd have to get much more specific about
           | the timbre of each instrument and potentially understand what
           | each instruments part was.
           | 
           | But a vibration made from a string makes a very unique wave
           | that is easy to pick out in a file.
        
             | duped wrote:
             | Are you making this up? What spectral analysis libraries or
             | tools?
             | 
             | String instruments create similar harmonic series to horns,
             | winds, and voice (because everything is a string in some
             | dimension) and the major differences are in the spectral
             | envelope, something that STFT tools are just ok at
             | approximating because of the time/frequency tradeoff (aka:
             | the uncertainty principle).
             | 
             | This is a very hard problem "in theory" to me, and I'm just
             | above casually versed in it.
        
               | 613style wrote:
               | He's not making it up and there's no reason for that
               | tone. Strings are more straightforward to isolate
               | compared to vocals/horns/etc because they produce a near-
               | perfect harmonic series in parallel lines in a
               | spectrogram. The time/frequency tradeoff exists, but it's
               | less of a problem for strings because of their slow
               | attack.
               | 
               | You can look up HPSS and python libraries like Essentia
               | and Librosa.
        
               | IndySun wrote:
               | Hmmm... was 'tone' a pun?
               | 
               | Why mention a strings 'slow attack' as less of a problem?
               | No isolation software considers this an easy route.
               | 
               | Vocals are more effectively isolated by virtue of the
               | fact they are unique sounding. Strings (and other sounds)
               | are the similar in some ways but far more generic. All
               | software out there indicates this, including the examples
               | mentioned.
        
               | mrob wrote:
               | All wind instruments and all bowed string instruments
               | produce a perfect harmonic series while emitting a steady
               | tone. The most important difference between timbres of
               | different instruments is in the attack, where inharmonic
               | tones are also generated. Several old synths used this
               | principle to greatly increase realism, by adding brief
               | samples of attack transients to traditional subtractive
               | synthesis, e.g.:
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_arithmetic_synthesis
        
               | dleeftink wrote:
               | I might misremember, but iZotope RX and Melodyne were
               | pretty useful in this regard.
        
               | jb1991 wrote:
               | If you look at the actual harmonics of a string and of
               | horn, you will see how wrong you are. There is a reason
               | why they sound different to the ear.
               | 
               | It's because of this that you can have a relatively
               | inexpensive synthesizer (not sample or PCM based) that
               | does a crude job of mimicking these different instruments
               | by just changing the harmonics.
        
               | mrob wrote:
               | There is one important difference between the harmonics
               | of string and wind instruments: it's possible to build a
               | wind instrument that suppresses (although not entirely
               | eliminates) the even harmonics, e.g. a stopped organ
               | pipe. If it sounds like a filtered square wave it's
               | definitely a wind instrument. But if it sounds like a
               | filtered sawtooth wave it could be either.
        
           | coldtea wrote:
           | > _what in theory makes those "super easy" to isolate? Humans
           | are terrible at this to begin with,_
           | 
           | Humans are amazing at it. You can discern the different
           | instruments way better than any stem separating AI.
        
         | photon_garden wrote:
         | I had the same experience. It did okay at isolating vocals but
         | everything else it failed or half-succeeded at.
        
           | embedding-shape wrote:
           | Like most models released for publicity rather than
           | usefulness, they'll do great at benchmarks and single
           | specific use cases, but no one seem to be able to release
           | actually generalized models today.
        
         | lomase wrote:
         | Like everything AI you just have to lie a little and people
         | whith 0 clue abot SOTA in audio will think this is amazing.
        
         | hamza_q_ wrote:
         | Use Demucs bruh https://github.com/adefossez/demucs
        
           | yunwal wrote:
           | Hilarious that this is maintained by facebook and yet SAM
           | fails so badly
        
       | throwaw12 wrote:
       | This is super cool. Of course, it is possible to separate
       | instrument sounds using specialized tools, but can't wait to see
       | how people use this model for bunch of other use cases, where its
       | not trivial to use those specialized tools:
       | 
       | * remove background noise of tech products, but keep the nature
       | 
       | * isolate the voice of a single person and feed into STT model to
       | improve accuracy
       | 
       | * isolating sound of events in games and many more
        
       | 7734128 wrote:
       | Finally a way to perhaps remove laugh tracks in the near future.
        
         | sefrost wrote:
         | There are examples on YouTube of laughter tracks being removed
         | and there are lots of awkward pauses, so I think you'd need to
         | edit the video to cut the pauses out entirely.
         | 
         | - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23M3eKn1FN0
         | 
         | - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgKgXehYnnw
        
           | embedding-shape wrote:
           | Cutting the pauses will change the beats and rhythm of the
           | scene, so you probably need to edit some of the voice lines
           | and actual scenes too then. In the end, if you're not
           | interested in the original performance and work, you might as
           | well read the script instead and imagine it however you want,
           | read it at the pace you want and so on.
        
             | vintermann wrote:
             | And have a video model render an entirely new version for
             | you, I guess.
        
       | samuell wrote:
       | I tried this to try to extract some speech from an audio track
       | with heavy noise from wind (filmed out on a windy sea shore
       | without mic windscreen), and the result unfortunately was less
       | intelligible than the original.
       | 
       | I got much better results, though still not perfect, with the
       | voice isolator in ElevenLabs.
        
       | AkshatJ27 wrote:
       | You can try it out in the playground:
       | https://aidemos.meta.com/segment-anything/gallery/ There seem to
       | be many more fun little demos by meta here like automatic video
       | masking, making 3d models from 2d images, etc.
        
       | theflyestpilot wrote:
       | sample anything model?
        
       | Oras wrote:
       | To try: https://aidemos.meta.com/segment-anything/editor/segment-
       | aud...
       | 
       | Github: https://github.com/facebookresearch/sam-audio
       | 
       | I quite like adding effects such as making the isolated speech
       | studio-quality or broadcast-ready.
        
       | keepamovin wrote:
       | FB has been a pioneer in voice and audio, somehow. A couple of
       | years ago FB-Research had a little repo on GitHub that was the
       | best noise-removal / voice-isolation out there. I wanted to use
       | it in Wisprnote and politely emailed the authors. Never heard
       | back (that's okay), but I was so impressed with the perceptual
       | quality and "wind removal" (so hard).
        
       | websiteapi wrote:
       | I wonder if it works for speaker diarization out of the box. I've
       | found that open source speaker diarization that doesn't require a
       | lot of tweaking is basically non-existent.
        
         | hamza_q_ wrote:
         | Yeah I was frustrated by slow and hard to use OSS diarization
         | too; recently released a library to address that, check it out:
         | https://github.com/narcotic-sh/senko
         | 
         | Also https://zanshin.sh, if you'd like speaker diarization when
         | watching YouTube videos
        
           | websiteapi wrote:
           | looks interesting. will check it out.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-12-23 23:01 UTC)