Automated Parameter Sensitivity Ranking in Audio Synthesis
Authors: Ogulcan Kibar, Baris Ozcan
Organizations: Graduate School & Burhaniye Vocational School, Bahçeşehir University & Balikesir University, İstanbul, Turkey & Balıkesir, Türkiye · Computer Engineering Department, Bahçeşehir University, İstanbul, Turkey
Software synthesizers expose dozens of coupled controls, many of them redundant or perceptually inert at typical operating points. This paper presents a two-stage, measure-and-validate framework that ranks parameters by their influence on the audio output and then checks that ranking against an independent, variance-based experiment. Every rendered clip is normalized to -23 LUFS and described by five spectral fingerprints, so that gain shifts cannot masquerade as timbral change. The Sweep Test scores each parameter by spectral deviation over a 101-step sweep; the Sobol Test scores it by summed per-cell variance over a 128-point Sobol excitation. Across five architecturally distinct synthesizers (TorchSynth, Pyo, Pedalboard, Csound, and FluidSynth) spanning 48 to 76 parameters, the two tests agree at Spearman ρ= 0.82-0.96 (p-values \le 7.2 \times 10^{-15}) on the four engines that render deterministically, and at ρ= 0.32 on the one with process-level render noise--a diagnostic of that engine rather than of the method. The strong correlations survive reducing the Sobol budget from 128 to 32 points, and the complete analysis costs a one-time offline budget of about 66,000 renders.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the framework.
Fig. 2: Per-cell variance of the Sobol Test: each row is one of the K conditioned clips, variance is taken down each cell c , and the sum over cells gives Vi .
Fig. 3: Cumulative share of the total Sweep Test score in rank order. Dashed line: 90% of the total; markers: where each engine reaches it.
Rank
TorchSynth
Pyo
Pedalboard
Csound
FluidSynth
1
env-1 release
amp release
filter mode
filter type
mod-env sustain †
2
env-2 release
filter type
filter cutoff
master tune
expression
3
LFO-1-env release
filter resonance
delay time
filter cutoff
stereo balance
4
LFO-2-env release
delay mix
delay mix
osc-1 detune
pan
5
osc-2 tuning
delay time
master tune
delay mix
pitch bend
Srank1
0.92
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00 †
TABLE I: Top-5 parameters per backend by Si . † Render-noise artefact (Section V-D ).
by Sweep Test Si
by Sobol Test Vi
Rank
Parameter
Si
Rank
Parameter
Vi
1.5
env-1 release
0.92
1.0
osc-2 tuning
491 809
1.5
env-2 release
0.92
2.5
env-1 release
436 892
3.5
LFO-1 level env rel.
0.72
2.5
env-2 release
436 892
3.5
LFO-2 level env rel.
0.72
4.0
osc-2 mod depth
436 844
5.0
osc-2 tuning
0.68
5.5
LFO-1 level env rel.
307 692
TABLE II: TorchSynth top-15 by the Sweep Test score Si (left) and by the Sobol Test variance Vi (right).
Function
TorchSynth
Pyo
Pedalboard
Csound
FluidSynth
Amp-env release
0.92 (1)
0.95 (1)
0.29 (7)
0.00 (46)
0.00 (22)
Amp-env attack
0.06 (21)
0.03 (9)
0.02 (45)
0.22 (8)
0.00 (47)
Filter cutoff
—
0.03 (8)
0.42 (2)
0.37 (3)
0.03 (6)
Filter mode/type
—
0.60 (2)
1.00 (1)
1.00 (1)
—
Delay mix
—
0.29 (4)
0.31 (4)
0.26 (5)
—
Master tune
0.68 (5)
0.00 (22)
0.31 (5)
0.37 (2)
0.00 (43)
TABLE III: Functionally equivalent parameters across engines: Si with rank in parentheses.
Backend
N
ρ(S,V)
p -value
ρ(S,Vagg)
Agreement
TorchSynth
76
+0.961
6.6×10−43
+0.948
strong
Pedalboard
56
+0.923
4.7×10−24
+0.951
strong
Csound
52
+0.874
2.9×10−17
+0.959
strong
Pyo
56
+0.823
7.2×10−15
+0.820
strong
FluidSynth
48
+0.319
2.7×10−2
+0.303
weak
TABLE IV: Spearman ρ between the S and V rankings at K=128 , for the headline log-STFT score and the five-map aggregate.
Engine
Parameter
Identifier
Si
S -rank
V -rank
Pedalboard
filter mode
flt.mode
1.00
1
1
Csound
filter type
flt.type
1.00
1
1
TorchSynth
envelope-1 release
adsr1.release
0.92
1
3
TorchSynth
osc-2 tuning
vco2.tuning
0.68
5
1
Pyo
amp-env release
amp.release
0.95
1
2
Pyo
delay time
del.time
0.22
5
42
TABLE V: Ten parameters of special interest, with Si and both rank positions.
Audio generation creates speech, music, and sound from text, media, symbolic controls, or reference audio, with growing focus on controllability and realism.
Sound matching can be formulated as optimizing synthesizer parameters against an audio-domain objective. However, objectives derived from generic audio representations are often difficult to optimize, while direct search requires rendering every candidate. We introduce Synth-JEPA, which learns mutually predictive audio and parameter representations from paired synthesizer data. At inference, candidate parameters are scored directly in this learned space, yielding a renderer-free objective whose audio geometry is shaped by parameter correspondences rather than generic audio similarity. We evaluate Synth-JEPA on Surge XT using held-out synthesizer sounds and out-of-domain NSynth and FSD50K targets, against inverse models, direct search, and learned proxy objectives. Synth-JEPA outperforms all baselines in-domain and remains competitive out-of-domain. Its matching quality continues to improve with additional test-time search, allowing compute to be traded for match quality. In pairwise listening tests, listeners preferred Synth-JEPA in 85% of trials overall. Together, these results show that an audio representation with a parameter-induced geometry allows synthesizer sound matching to be approached as an effective renderer-free search problem.
Ben Hayes, Haokun Tian, Stefan Lattner
Sony Computer Science Laboratories, Paris, France · Queen Mary University of London, UK
Existing audio-to-MIDI tools extract notes but discard the timbral characteristics that define an instrument's identity. We present Instrumental, a system that recovers continuous synthesizer parameters from audio by coupling a differentiable 28-parameter subtractive synthesizer with CMA-ES, a derivative-free evolutionary optimizer. We optimize a composite perceptual loss combining mel-scaled STFT, spectral centroid, and MFCC divergence, achieving a matching loss of 2.09 on real recorded audio. We systematically evaluate eight hypotheses for improving convergence and find that only parametric EQ boosting yields meaningful improvement. Our results show that CMA-ES outperforms gradient descent on this non-convex landscape, that more parameters do not monotonically improve matching, and that spectral analysis initialization accelerates convergence over random starts.
Given a target sound, finding the synthesizer preset that best reproduces it remains a core problem in sound design. Existing methods treat synthesis parameters as flat vectors, discarding the signal routing and parameter interactions that produce audio. We make two contributions. First, to learn a representation of parameters including their signal routing, we design a graph neural network whose message passing structure imitates FM signal processing. Second, we adapt the multimodal objective from SLAP to learn joint embeddings of audio and FM synthesizer parameters, enabling preset retrieval from a gallery. We focus on the Yamaha DX7, where six identical sinusoid operators interact according to one of 32 routing topologies. Our graph encoder's message passing weights are shared across all nodes and layers, enabling processing of arbitrary topologies of any size. When every topology is seen during training, the DX7-GNN and two baselines achieve strong audio-to-preset retrieval. When some topologies are held out for testing, the DX7-GNN substantially outperforms both baselines despite having the fewest parameters. Our ablations further support the claim that imitating FM signal flow in a parameter encoder improves generalization to unseen topologies.
David Braun, Adam Finkelstein
Dept. of Computer Science Princeton University Princeton, NJ, USA