Evaluating Sound Similarity Metrics for Differentiable, Iterative Sound-Matching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manual sound design with a synthesizer is inherently iterative: an artist compares the synthesized output to a mental target, adjusts parameters, and repeats until satisfied. Iterative sound-matching automates this workflow by continually programming a synthesizer under the guidance of a loss function (or similarity measure) towards a target sound. Prior comparisons of loss functions have typically favored one metric over another, but only within narrow settings: limited synthesis methods, few loss types, often without blind listening tests. This leaves open the question of whether a universally optimal loss exists, or the choice of loss remains a creative decision conditioned on the synthesis method and the sound designer's preference. We propose differentiable iterative sound-matching as the natural extension of the available literature, since it combines the manual approach to sound design with modern advances in machine learning. To analyze the variability of loss function performance across synthesizers, we implemented a mix of four novel and established differentiable loss functions, and paired them with differentiable subtractive, additive, and AM synthesizers. For each of the sixteen synthesizer–loss combinations, we ran 300 randomized sound-matching trials. Performance was measured using parameter differences, spectrogram-distance metrics, and manually assigned listening scores. We observed a moderate level of consistency among the three performance measures. Our post hoc analysis shows that the loss function performance is highly dependent on the synthesizer. These findings underscore the value of expanding the scope of sound-matching experiments, and developing new similarity metrics tailored to specific synthesis techniques, rather than pursuing one-size-fits-all solutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".