Organizations: ETH Zurich · Sony Corporate Technology Center America, Inc. · Sony Europe Ltd. · Acoustics Lab, DICE, Aalto University · Sony Group Corporation
Historical music restoration (HMR) has almost exclusively focused on constrained problems such as Super-Resolution or the restoration of solo pieces, under-exploring the general task of restoring orchestral historical music, which has multiple instruments. This under-exploration is largely because the HMR domain, early-20th-century recordings, has no pre-degradation ground-truth pairs, making the restoration task unsupervised and more challenging. This paper presents a supervised end-to-end orchestral HMR benchmark by exploring both the synthetic degradation functions and the end-to-end generative deep-learning restoration methods. We simulate the historical recording degradation chain more faithfully than prior work, which makes orchestral restoration into a tractable supervised problem. A latent flow-matching model trained on the resulting synthetic pairs outperforms existing HMR baselines on intrusive, non-intrusive, and subjective evaluations. We also curate and release a 9.3-hour license-free, unpaired, historical classical-music test set, along with code and audio demos.
Figures & tables
Figure 1 : Overview of the proposed historical music restoration pipeline Rθ,CFM .
MERT [ 10 ]
Fx-Enc. [ 33 ]
SAME-L [ 27 ]
Degradation
Full Orch.
Light Orch.
Full Orch.
Light Orch.
Full Orch.
Light Orch.
Clean
5.39
5.40
5.43
5.49
5.33
5.45
Gaussian Noise
5.18
5.13
4.71
5.08
5.40
5.44
Low-Pass + Gaussian Noise
5.31
5.46
5.42
5.49
5.24
5.37
Gramophone Noise
3.90
4.42
3.86
4.63
4.57
4.82
WH + Gramophone Noise (Ours)
4.23
4.55
4.42
4.99
4.54
4.95
Table 1 : MAD ( ↓ ) between degradation ablations embeddings on FOS and historical unpaired test set. The final row directly compares the two subsets of the unpaired test set.
Codec
Paired Clean
Paired 5-Stage
Full Orchestra
Light Orchestra
CoDiCodec [ 28 ]
1.08±0.45
0.25±0.27
1.37±0.68
1.24±0.69
SAO [ 7 ]
0.39±0.19
0.12±0.17
0.80±0.50
0.88±0.58
DAC [ 14 ]
0.22±0.10
0.08±0.15
0.72±0.57
0.87±0.63
SAME-L
0.11±0.08
0.05±0.12
0.62±0.57
0.81±0.62
Table 2 : Autoencoder reconstruction Mel-MSE with equal-window aggregation. Waveforms were encoded and decoded by the corresponding autoencoder and compared against the input using Mel-MSE
Method
Params
Historical Unpaired Test Set
Synthetic Paired Test Set
AA-PQ ( ↑ )
MOS-P ( ↑ )
MOS-Q ( ↑ )
AA-PQ ( ↑ )
Mel MSE ( ↓ )
CLAP Cos. ( ↑ )
MAD ( ↓ )
Full-Orch.
Light-Orch.
Unprocessed input
–
4.94
5.00
–
1.17
5.74
3.94
0.44
5.03
Ground truth
–
–
–
–
4.44
7.44
0.00
1.00
0.00
BEHM-GAN
82M
4.87
4.93
–
–
6.05
5.33
0.45
4.94
BABE2
40M
5.88
5.87
3.70
3.52
6.35
4.99
0.56
5.46
Table 3 : Restoration performance on objective and subjective evaluations.
Figure 2 : MOS-Q and MOS-P means, 95% confidence intervals, and non-outlier ranges
Dept. of Telecommunications, Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic · Acoustic Lab, Dept. of Information and Communications Engineering, Aalto University, Finland