This paper introduces Harmonica, a family of instrument-agnostic music transcription models built around multi-depth harmonic convolution. At each model scale, Harmonica achieves the best performance among the evaluated models: the x-large model attains state-of-the-art performance in instrument-agnostic transcription, while the medium variant offers competitive accuracy with faster inference than all baselines. Pushing the limit of computational efficiency, the nano variant has only 26.3K parameters and runs at 1,622.5 times real time, yet achieves a frame F1 of 0.796 on the development set, 14.6 percentage points higher than Basic Pitch. We further demonstrate that multi-depth harmonic convolution effectively exploits harmonic information to benefit transcription performance through comparative experiments with existing harmonic aggregation methods, including harmonic stacking, harmonic attention, single-depth harmonic convolution, and the HD-Conv layer.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Frame F1 versus model size on the held-out multi-source development set.
Figure 2: Model architecture of Harmonica .
MAESTRO
MAPS
GuitarSet
GAPS
EGDB
GOAT
URMP-stem
Slakh-stem
Model
#Param
xRT
OnP
Frm
OnP
Frm
OnP
Frm
OnP
Frm
OnP
Frm
OnP
Frm
OnP
Frm
OnP
Frm
MT3 [ 9 ]
44.7M
68.7x
.958
.890
.801
.732
.891
.883
.659
.616
.448
.448
.291
.398
.829
.879
.900
.826
YourMT3+ [ 4 ]
48.5M
45.6x
.957
.769
.828
.691
.889
.835
.917
.748
.827
.725
.680
.703
.926
.920
.896
.753
MuScriptor [ 27 ]
306M
17.0x
.766
.625
.806
.683
.808
.732
.781
.742
.789
.731
.710
.783
.711
.835
.457
.488
hFT-Transformer [ 28 ]
5.5M
91.7x
.573
.283
.642
.453
.791
.803
.775
.648
.707
.653
.664
.681
.802
.854
.624
.637
PerceiverTF [ 19 ]
3.5M
152.7x
.819
.816
.728
.678
.853
.865
.843
.708
.799
.737
.618
.697
.808
.860
.751
.760
Table 1: Performance comparison of various models on instrument-agnostic music transcription. #Param : number of parameters; xRT : inverse real-time factor of inference speed; OnP : note F1 considering onset and pitch; Frm : frame-level F1 score.
Figure 3: Frame F1 per instrument family on Slakh2100.
Harmonic Aggregation
Depth
OnP
OnPOff
Frm
No harmonic aggregation
-
.822
.635
.823
Harmonic stacking [ 2 ]
Single
.851
.688
.848
Harmonic attention [ 29 ]
Multi.
.877
.737
.868
Conv, w/ shift-and-agg.
Single
.877
.731
.867
Conv, w/ shift-and-agg. (Ours)
Multi.
.889
.745
.876
Conv, w/ HD-Conv [ 30 ]
Multi.
.886
.745
.877
Table 2: Comparative study of different harmonic aggregators. OnPOff : note F1 score considering onset, pitch, and offset. All experiments are conducted three times under different random seeds, and the average performance is reported.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Purpose
Dataset
Original Split
#Record
Hour
Train
MAESTRO
Train
962
159.2
MAESTRO
Valid
137
19.4
GuitarSet
Train
480
3.9
GAPS
Train
270
14.8
EGDB
Train
1290
9.7
GOAT
Train
870
31.3
Appendix
Table 3: Dataset information. The statistics for the training split is calculated before holding out the development set.
Figure 4: Readouts from the linear probe of each layer’s output.