[HN Gopher] TADA: Speech generation through text-acoustic synchr...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       TADA: Speech generation through text-acoustic synchronization
        
       Author : smusamashah
       Score  : 92 points
       Date   : 2026-03-11 05:42 UTC (17 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.hume.ai)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.hume.ai)
        
       | OutOfHere wrote:
       | Will this run on CPU? (as opposed to GPU)
        
         | boxed wrote:
         | Why would you want to? It's like using a hammer for screws.
        
           | regularfry wrote:
           | To maximise the VRAM available for an LLM on the same
           | machine. That's why I asked myself the same question, anyway.
        
           | g-mork wrote:
           | CPU compute is infinity times less expensive and much easier
           | to work with in general
        
             | boxed wrote:
             | Less expensive how? The reason GPUs are used is because
             | they are more efficient. You CAN run matmul on CPUs for
             | sure, but it's going to be much slower and take a ton more
             | electricity. So to claim it's "less expensive" is weird.
        
               | g-mork wrote:
               | This is far too simplistic, you can't discuss perf per
               | watt unless you're talking about a job running at any
               | decent level of utilisation. Numbers like that only
               | matter for larger scale high utilisation services,
               | meanwhile Intel boxes mastered the art of power efficient
               | idle modes decades ago while almost any contemporary GPU
               | still isn't even remotely close, and you can pick up 32
               | core boxes like that for pennies on the dollar.
               | 
               | Even if utilisation weren't a metric, "efficient" can be
               | interpreted in so many ways as to be pointless to try and
               | apply in the general case. I consider any model I can
               | foist into a Lambda function "efficient" because of
               | secondary concerns you simply cannot meaningfully address
               | with GPU hardware at present (elasticity and
               | manageability for example). That it burns more energy per
               | unit output is almost meaningless to consider for any
               | kind of workload where Lambda would be applicable.
               | 
               | It's the same for any edge-deployed software where "does
               | it run on CPU?" translates to "does the general purpose
               | user have a snowball's chance in hell of running it?",
               | having to depend on 4GB of CUDA libraries to run a
               | utility fundamentally changes the nature and
               | applicability of any piece of software
               | 
               | A few years ago we had smaller cuts of Whisper running at
               | something like 0.5x realtime on CPU, people struggled
               | along anyway. Now we have Nvidia's speech model family
               | comfortably exceeding 2x real time on older processors
               | with far improved word error rate. Which would you prefer
               | to deploy to an edge device? Which improves the total
               | number of addressable users? Turns out we never needed
               | GPUs for this problem in in the first place, the model
               | architecture mattered all along, as did the question,
               | "does it run on CPU?".
               | 
               | It's not even clear cut when discussing raw achievable
               | performance. With a CPU-friendly speech model living in a
               | Lambda, no GPU configuration will come close to the
               | achievable peak throughput for the same level of
               | investment. Got a year-long audio recording to process
               | once a year? Slice it up and Lambda will happily chew
               | through it at 500 or 1000x real time
        
               | dspillett wrote:
               | In situations where you have space CPU power but not
               | spare GPU power because your GPU(s) & VRAM are allocated
               | to be busy on other tasks, you might prefer to use what
               | you have rather than needing to upgrade that will cost
               | (even if that means the task will run more slowly).
               | 
               | If you are wanting to run this on a server to pipe the
               | generated speech to a remote user (live, or generating it
               | to send at some other appropriate moment) and your server
               | resources don't have GPUs, then you either have to change
               | your infrastructure, use CPU, or not bother.
               | 
               | Renting GPU access on cloud systems can be more expensive
               | than CPU, especially if you only need GPU processing for
               | specific occasional run tasks. Spinning up a VM to server
               | a request then pulling it down is rarely as quick as
               | cloud providers like to suggest in advertising, so you
               | end up keeping things alive longer than absolutely needed
               | meaning spot-pricing rates quoted are lower than you end
               | up paying.
        
               | woadwarrior01 wrote:
               | GPUs are a near monopoly. There are at least handful of
               | big players in the CPU space. Competition alone makes the
               | latter space a lot cheaper.
               | 
               | Also, for inference (and not training) there are other
               | ways to efficiently do matmuls besides the GPU. You might
               | want to look up Apple's undocumented AMX CPU ISA, and
               | also this thing that vendors call the "Neural Engine" in
               | their marketing (capabilities and the term's specific
               | meaning varies broadly from vendor to vendor).
               | 
               | For small 1-3B parameter transformers like TADA, both
               | these options are much more energy efficient, compared to
               | GPU inference.
        
         | microtherion wrote:
         | This is bound to be a question that will be increasingly harder
         | to answer. For instance, Apple processors have at least two
         | different neural accelerators/matrix coprocessors (ANE and AMX)
         | in addition to the integrated GPU. Do these count as "CPU"?
        
           | OutOfHere wrote:
           | I think the answer is rather simple and boring -- only the
           | CPU type commonly used in cheap cloud machines counts. This
           | still is x86 only.
           | 
           | The homes at home, such as by Apple, don't count for serious
           | workflows that must run reliably.
        
             | microtherion wrote:
             | Personally, I love synthesis that can be generated on the
             | client machine, in real time. For some applications, like
             | screen readers, this is a really important feature.
             | 
             | Of course, the big interest these days is in cloud based
             | assistants, where synthesizing on server and piggybacking
             | on the rest of the answer is quite reasonable.
        
         | vessenes wrote:
         | I could not get my Mac to successfully do anything with the
         | script from their GitHub; set device to mps, downloaded llama
         | for the first time in a year, and it just .. hangs. I presume
         | this is sortable, but I'm not sure I care enough.
         | 
         | All that said, I think it likely this has been built and
         | trained only on Nvidia
        
       | qinqiang201 wrote:
       | Could it run on Macbook? Just on GPU device?
        
       | earthnail wrote:
       | I don't understand the approach
       | 
       | > TADA takes a different path. Instead of compressing audio into
       | fewer fixed-rate frames of discrete audio tokens, we align audio
       | representations directly to text tokens -- one continuous
       | acoustic vector per text token. This creates a single,
       | synchronized stream where text and speech move in lockstep
       | through the language model.
       | 
       | So basically just concatenating the audio vectors without
       | compression or discretization?
       | 
       | I haven't read the full paper yet (I know, I should before
       | commenting), but this explanation puzzles me.
        
         | yorwba wrote:
         | It's a variable-rate codec. The audio is still compressed, but
         | by how much depends on the duration of the segment
         | corresponding to a particular text token. The TTS model
         | predicts one audio token per text token and its duration, and
         | the audio decoder fills in a waveform of the appropriate
         | length.
        
       | microtherion wrote:
       | To me, the speech sounds impressively expressive, but there is
       | something off about the audio quality that I can't quite put my
       | finger on.
       | 
       | The "Anger Speech" has an obvious lisp (Maybe a homage to Elmer
       | Fudd?). But I hear a similar, but more subtle, speech impediment
       | in the "Adoration Speech". The "Fearful Speech" might have a
       | slight warble to it. And the "Long Speech" is difficult to
       | evaluate because the speaker has vocal fry to an extent that I
       | find annoying.
        
         | sharyphil wrote:
         | > speaker has vocal fry to an extent that I find annoying.
         | 
         | Was it trained on Sam Altman?
        
         | sjcoles wrote:
         | There's a subtle modulation that happens on all of the samples.
         | It sounds almost like some kind of harmonic or phase shift?
         | This is something I notice with every AI generated speech out
         | there.
        
       | mpalmer wrote:
       | "Long speech" is a faithful synthesis of a fairly irritating
       | modern American English speech pattern.
        
         | ggus wrote:
         | "Vocal fry", aka "creaky voice". It's stereotypically
         | associated with irritating young women.
         | 
         | I like me a good rabbit hole that's interesting and also digs
         | into stereotypes.
         | 
         | Turns out, like many memes, it's not just that. It's (also?) a
         | normal speech pattern, used by different genders, ages, and
         | social groups, in many languages.
         | 
         | This doesn't mean that vocal fry isn't used as social
         | signaling. But complaining about it, well, isn't that social
         | signalling too?
         | 
         | Geoff Lindsey - Vocal Fry: what it is, who does it, and why
         | people hate it! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0yL2GezneU
        
           | mpalmer wrote:
           | Not the fry, the cadence that makes everything sound like the
           | same list of three or four things
        
       | tcbrah wrote:
       | the 0.09 RTF is wild but i wonder how much of that speed
       | advantage disappears once you need voice cloning or fine grained
       | prosody control. i use cartesia sonic for TTS in a video pipeline
       | and the thing that actually matters for content creation isnt raw
       | speed - its whether you can get consistent emotional delivery
       | across like 50+ scenes without it drifting. the 1:1 text-acoustic
       | alignment should help with hallucinations for sure but does it
       | handle things like mid-sentence pauses or emphasis on specific
       | words? thats where most open source TTS falls apart IMO
        
         | regularfry wrote:
         | Given that it's one-to-one audio and text tokens, you'd get
         | mid-sentence pauses if you just stopped feeding it.
        
       | ilaksh wrote:
       | okay so they say text continuation only without fine tuning. I
       | assume that means that we can't use it as a replacement for TTS
       | in an AI agent chat? Because it will not work without enough
       | context?
       | 
       | Could you maybe trick it into thinking it was continuing a sample
       | for an assistant use case if the sample was generic enough?
       | 
       | I appreciate them being honest about it though because otherwise
       | I might spend two days trying to make it work.
        
       | kavalg wrote:
       | MIT license, supported languages beyond english: ar, ch, de, es,
       | fr, it, ja, pl, pt.
       | 
       | https://huggingface.co/HumeAI/tada-3b-ml
       | 
       | https://github.com/HumeAI/tada
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-03-11 23:01 UTC)