Musicians and mixing engineers often can decipher the signal processing chain they hear on a reference recording, then adapt it to new material. We present TAPE (Transformations of Audio Parameter Embeddings), which estimates this processing from the processed reference audio alone. An encoder trained to identify processors in eight major effect families maps the reference to an embedding. A differentiable digital signal processing (DSP) chain decodes the embedding into editable parameters in one forward pass and applies them to a different unprocessed recording. Its modules are equalization, compression, waveshaping, a small residual network, and reverberation. TAPE achieves lower spectral error than DeepAFx-ST, the previous state of the art for single-step regression, and lower spectral error than per-example search over a chain approximating ST-ITO's, while running 275× faster than that search. Because the decoder outputs DSP parameters, its chain can also run causally: a C++ implementation with the trained weights processed 128-sample buffers 1.8× faster than real time, with no missed deadlines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of TAPE. The encoder f maps a processed reference wetA to an embedding z , and small heads map z to the controls and gates of a five-module DSP chain that processes a different recording dryB . In training (dashed), the same plugin configuration θ renders A and B , and the output is compared with wetB . Information about the source of A in z cannot help reconstruct B , but no loss removes it from z .
Figure 2: t-SNE of held-out embeddings ( n=3,295 ), colored by effect family. The single miscellaneous plugin is not plotted.
Figure 3: Controls predicted from z for three held-out embeddings (EQ Plugin, Compressor, Reverb). (a) Five-band EQ magnitude response. (b) Module gates (distortion is the waveshaper, NN the residual). (c) RT60 per band.
Study 1 ( N=8 )
Study 3 ( N=7 )
Condition
Mean
SD
95% CI
Mean
SD
Adversarially fine-tuned
72.5
23.0
[66.3, 78.5]
72.4
27.3
Unprocessed
47.6
27.0
[38.8, 56.4]
–
–
Reconstruction only
41.3
25.0
[33.0, 50.0]
38.4
24.6
Table 1: Listening results for cross-content transfer (similarity to the reference, 0–100). Means and SDs are over all ratings, and 95% CIs are bootstrap intervals over per-listener means. Scores are for the least-squares variant. Study 1 includes the unprocessed input as a control; Study 3 repeats the main contrast on new pairs.
Method
Objective
Renders
Time
STFT L1
Peak
Peak, 24 kHz
AFx
Wins
Unprocessed dryB
–
0
–
2.335
1.808
1.724
0.894
5
TAPE, one pass
–
1
0.52
1.120
1.391
1.310
0.660
–
TAPE, one pass, TF32 disabled
–
1
0.53
1.177
1.448
1.323
–
–
Search over ST-ITO’s basic chain, full setting
ST-ITO search
AFx-Rep
4,097
143
2.906
2.317
2.150
0.259
2
ST-ITO search
f
4,097
205
2.498
1.703
1.580
0.652
5
Table 2: Search at the full setting and the released DeepAFx-ST models (60 held-out pairs, means over pairs). STFT L1 is measured against the withheld wetB at 48 kHz. Peak normalizes output and target to unit peak at 48 kHz, and Peak, 24 kHz first resamples both to 24 kHz and then normalizes each to unit peak. AFx is the cosine distance to wetA in AFx-Rep (not computed for DeepAFx-ST or with TF32 disabled). Wins counts pairs on which a method has a lower STFT L1 (48 kHz, unnormalized) than TAPE. Renders count evaluations of a chain per example; the corrective searches add TAPE’s pass and skip the final render when they keep TAPE’s output. Time is the median wall-clock seconds per five-second clip. ‡ Controls predicted at 24 kHz, rendered on the 48 kHz input. Appendix 20 gives the reduced setting and searches in TAPE’s own space.
Figure 4: Reconstruction error against wall-clock cost (60 pairs). Lines follow each search as its budget grows at the reduced setting: 8 to 128 renders of the basic chain, 8 to 32 latent candidates, or 1 to 16 TTA steps. Solid lines optimize AFx-Rep and dashed lines optimize f . Squares (ST-ITO search) and diamonds (TAPE, then chain search) mark the full setting of Table 2 , filled for AFx-Rep and open for f . The star is TAPE’s single forward pass, and the dotted line is the unprocessed input.
Buffer
Budget (ms)
Time (s)
RTF
p99 (ms)
Worst (ms)
Missed
64
1.33
3.32
1.50
0.92
1.76
21 of 225,000
128
2.67
2.84
1.76
1.56
2.38
0 of 112,500
256
5.33
2.61
1.92
2.85
3.64
0 of 56,280
512
10.67
2.52
1.99
5.47
6.28
0 of 28,140
1,024
21.33
2.48
2.02
10.72
11.77
0 of 14,100
Table 3: Streaming the trained chain on one CPU core at 48 kHz, over the 60 five-second dry inputs of Section 7.2 , in simulated host callbacks. Time is the mean processing time per clip, excluding the once-per-reference conditioning, and RTF is the clip duration divided by that time. p99 is the 99th percentile of callback time, averaged over clips; Worst is the slowest callback over all clips; Missed counts callbacks that exceeded the budget.
Depth
Objective
Plugin acc. (%)
Config acc. (%)
Val. loss
6
Plugin AM-Softmax
78.7
0.01
0.875
8
Plugin AM-Softmax
72.5
0.00
1.115
6
Config AM-Softmax
63.9
39.0
3.908
8
Config AM-Softmax
55.9
25.6
4.341
6
Hierarchical
44.3
0.89
5.074
8
Hierarchical
46.9
0.57
5.237
Table 4: Encoder depth and training objective.
Figure 5: Module responses of the decoder. From left to right: five-band peaking EQ; compressor gain reduction (small shaded band: softplus versus hard knee); five parallel waveshapers; log-magnitude spectrogram of a parametric reverberation impulse.
Rank
Architecture
Temporal
SI-SDR (dB)
LSD
L1
CLAP Dist.
1
Causal TCN (used)
Yes
−19.29
0.871
0.184
0.405
2
Grouped SRU
Yes
−19.31
0.894
0.183
0.366
3
S4D hybrid
Yes
−19.37
0.968
0.181
0.392
4
AdaLN feed-forward
No
−19.72
0.940
0.181
0.379
Ranks 5–23 (19 architectures): SI-SDR from −20.52 to −27.04 dB
Table 5: Residual architecture comparison (23 pairs; the four highest-ranked of 23 architectures). Temporal means recurrent, convolutional-over-time, or attention-over-time capacity.
Condition
STFT L1
Time L1
CLAP Dist.
Separate
2.314
0.117
0.333
Joint finetune
1.224
0.116
0.308
Joint scratch
1.052
0.132
0.208
Table 6: Joint versus separate parameter-head training (200 validation-split clips, same-content reconstruction). CLAP Dist. is 1−cos between CLAP embeddings of prediction and reference.
Condition
Mean
SD
95% CI
Joint finetune
66.4
25.6
[57.4, 74.2]
Separate
51.1
26.1
[41.4, 60.2]
Unprocessed
49.7
26.0
[41.1, 57.9]
Joint scratch
48.8
26.5
[39.0, 58.6]
Table 7: Listening results for the curricula of the DSP chain on same-content validation clips (Study 2, N=6 ; similarity to the reference, 0–100). Means and SDs are over all ratings, and 95% CIs are bootstrap intervals over per-listener means.
Condition
STFT L1 (mean)
STFT L1 (median)
Time L1
Parametric prior
4.451
2.873
0.00198
Refined impulse
4.927
4.158
0.00099
Table 8: Parametric reverberation prior versus the refined impulse (50 clips). Each clip is a validation-split dry recording convolved with an impulse response from the reverberation plugins; z is extracted from that convolved clip, so this is same-content reconstruction, and the impulse set is not split. STFT L1 and time L1 compare the predicted impulse response with the true one, not the rendered audio. Study 4, which rated the rendered clips, detected no significant listening difference.
Family
STFT L1
Time L1
CLAP Dist.
N
Preamplification
0.713
0.057
0.028
1
Dynamics
0.927
0.027
0.073
11
Modulation
1.010
0.058
0.341
6
Reverberation
1.015
0.391
0.184
3
Saturation/Distortion
1.149
0.228
0.133
2
Chain
1.176
0.057
0.308
27
Table 9: Per-family cross-content reconstruction after adversarial fine-tuning (60 pairs, R3GAN variant). Chain is an evaluation grouping for held-out configurations that route several processors in series, not one of the eight plugin families of Table 10 . One pair with an unresolved category is included in the global row only.
Family
Plugins
Representative types
Dynamics / Compression
19
Feed-forward, vari-mu, optical, bus comp
Equalization
14
Parametric, graphic, vintage transformer
Modulation
9
Chorus, phaser, flanger, tremolo
Preamplification
9
Channel strip, transformer, tube pre
Reverberation
8
Algorithmic, plate, hall, room
Analog tape
5
Tape saturation, wow/flutter
Table 10: Plugin inventory by family (68 total).
ID
Display name
Cat.
Peff
4k_eq
4K EQ
eq
20
airwindows_chorus
Airwindows Consolidated (Chorus)
chorus
10
airwindows_consolidated_compressor
Airwindows Consolidated (Compressor)
compressor
10
airwindows_consolidated_eq
Airwindows Consolidated (EQ Algorithms)
eq
10
airwindows_consolidated_modulation
Airwindows Consolidated (Modulation Algorithms)
modulation
10
airwindows_consolidated_preamp
Airwindows Consolidated (Console/Preamp)
preamp
10
Table 11: Sixty-eight training plugins with stable identifiers, display names, condensed category tags, and differentiable control counts ( Peff ).
Component
Specification (8-layer; 6-layer omits two blocks)
Frontend
Hann FFT, NFFT=2048 , hop 960 at 48kHz ; 80 mel bins from 0 to 24kHz , decibel scale with an 80 dB floor.
Drive up to +36 dB; tone low-pass 500Hz to 20kHz ; makeup −12 to +6 dB
Table 13: Actuator spans after sigmoidal remapping.
k
Name
sk(x)
1
Tanh saturation
gotanh(gix+b)
2
Hard clip
goclip(gix+b,−1,1)
3
Asymmetric tube
gotanh(g±(x+b)) , g+ if x+b≥0 , else g−
4
Diode
gou2+εu(1−e−κ∣u∣) , u=x+b
5
Sine wavefolder
gosin(gix+b)
Table 14: Waveshaper curves mixed by the softmax in Equation 6 .
Method
Objective
Renders
Time
STFT L1
Δ [95% CI]
Peak
AFx
f
Unprocessed dryB
–
0
–
2.335
+1.215 [ +0.929 , +1.537 ]
1.808
0.894
0.797
TAPE, one pass
–
1
0.52
1.120
–
1.391
0.660
0.372
Search over ST-ITO’s basic chain
ST-ITO search
AFx-Rep
128
4.2
3.278
+2.158 [ +1.687 , +2.709 ]
2.395
0.394
0.673
ST-ITO search
f
128
6.1
3.143
+2.023 [ +1.689 , +2.382 ]
2.255
0.819
0.510 †
Random search
AFx-Rep
128
4.1
3.033
+1.913 [ +1.545 , +2.312 ]
2.288
0.508
0.733
Table 15: One forward pass versus per-example search at the reduced setting (60 held-out pairs; means over pairs). STFT L1 is measured against the withheld wetB ; Peak normalizes output and target to unit peak first. Δ is the change in STFT L1 relative to TAPE, with a 95% bootstrap interval. AFx and f are cosine distances to wetA in AFx-Rep and in our encoder; each search lowers the distance it optimizes. Renders count full evaluations of the basic chain or of g per example; TTA also takes 16 backward passes. Time is the median wall-clock seconds per five-second clip. † Searches of the basic chain with f optimize f on peak-normalized audio, which reaches 0.29 and 0.27; the column shows the unnormalized distance.
48 kHz
24 kHz, peak-normalized
ST-ITO search
DeepAFx-ST, music
Family
N
Dry
TAPE
AFx-Rep
f
Dry
TAPE
Official
48 kHz
Dynamics
11
2.087
0.927
2.448
2.426
1.280
0.947
1.527
1.309
Equalization
9
2.358
1.299
3.917
2.160
2.572
1.842
2.767
2.554
Modulation
6
1.763
1.010
2.762
2.327
0.967
1.043
1.358
1.210
Reverberation
3
2.055
1.014
2.034
1.362
1.579
0.914
2.012
1.728
Table 16: Full-setting search and DeepAFx-ST by effect family (60 pairs; lower is better). Left: STFT L1 at 48 kHz, with 4,097 renders of the basic chain per search. Right: peak-normalized STFT L1 after resampling output and target to 24 kHz, for the official recipe and the 48 kHz rendering ablation of the music model. One pair with an unresolved category is omitted.
ST-ITO search
Latent CMA-ES
Latent TTA
Family
N
Dry
TAPE
AFx-Rep
f
AFx-Rep
f
Oracle
Dynamics
11
2.087
0.927
2.997
3.403
0.948
0.927
0.743
Equalization
9
2.358
1.299
4.030
3.141
1.390
1.412
1.047
Modulation
6
1.763
1.010
3.037
3.000
1.014
1.242
0.877
Reverberation
3
2.055
1.014
1.929
1.922
1.037
1.017
0.955
Saturation/Distortion
2
1.547
1.149
1.573
2.287
1.152
0.943
0.923
Table 17: STFT L1 by effect family for the comparison of Table 15 (60 pairs; lower is better). Searches use 128 renders of the basic chain, 32 latent candidates, or 16 TTA steps. One pair with an unresolved category is omitted.
Stage
Median
5th percentile
Equalizer (biquad cascade vs. FFT-grid response)
54.4
29.7
Compressor (single precision)
105.2
82.3
Tone filter (one-pole vs. zero-phase)
8.2
7.0
Mean removal (DC blocker vs. clip mean)
19.7
15.2
Waveshaper stage, all changes
12.6
6.1
Table 18: Signal-to-error ratio (dB) between streamed stages and the offline formulation used in training, over 100 random settings on 5 s clips.
This paper introduces PEACE, the first joint embedding of audio effect code and output audio. Building on SLAP's multimodal objective, we pair an AFx-Rep audio encoder with two code encoders for Faust, a functional language for audio signal processing. First, we evaluate a fine-tuned T5 transformer over Faust source code. Second, we evaluate a message-passing graph neural network over an intermediate representation of the Faust compiler, capturing both topology and UI parameters. We evaluate on audio-to-code retrieval, where masking UI parameters at inference yields embeddings that encode effect chain topology alone. When parameters are visible, the two code encoders tie on retrieval of mixed-length chains but have tradeoffs on single-effect galleries. With parameters fully masked, PEACE recovers ordered chain topology far above chance without the limitations of supervised methods. PEACE outperforms pretrained models on an out-of-distribution reverb retrieval benchmark and can improve frozen audio-only representations. Its dual understanding of topology and parameters lays the groundwork for music information retrieval systems that search, generate, and condition on DSP code.
Digital audio workstations expose rich effect chains, yet a semantic gap remains between perceptual user intent and low-level signal-processing parameters. We study retrieval-grounded audio effect control, where the output is an editable plugin configuration rather than a finalized waveform. Our focus is Texture Resonance Retrieval (TRR), an audio representation built from Gram matrices of projected mid-level Wav2Vec2 activations. This design preserves texture-relevant co-activation structure. We evaluate TRR on a guitar-effects benchmark with 1,063 candidate presets and 204 queries. The evaluation follows Protocol-A, a cross-validation scheme that prevents train-test leakage. We compare TRR against CLAP and internal retrieval baselines (Wav2Vec-RAG, Text-RAG, FeatureNN-RAG), using min-max normalized metrics grounded in physical DSP parameter ranges. Ablation studies validate TRR's core design choices: projection dimensionality, layer selection, and projection type. A near-duplicate sensitivity analysis confirms that results are robust to trivial knowledge-base matches. TRR achieves the lowest normalized parameter error among evaluated methods. A multiple-stimulus listening study with 26 participants provides complementary perceptual evidence. We interpret these results as benchmark evidence that texture-aware retrieval is useful for editable audio effect control, while broader personalization and real-audio robustness claims remain outside the verified evidence presented here.
Shihao He, Yihan Xia, Fang Liu +2
College of Electronics and Information Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
We present InstructFX2FX, a system for sequential audio effect refinement through multi-turn natural-language instructions. Existing text-to-effect systems are largely single-shot, mapping one textual descriptor to one preset. Real audio engineering is instead sequential: engineers refine an existing effect chain through successive instructions. This poses a stateful problem that single-shot systems do not address: given the current effect parameters state and a new instruction, update the sound while preserving what earlier instructions already achieved. InstructFX2FX addresses this with a hybrid architecture that divides labor between a language model and CLAP-guided optimization. The LLM serves as a high-level planner that selects effects and proposes the initial parameter state, motivated by recent evidence that LLMs can outperform CLAP-based optimization for single-turn text-to-effect mapping; CLAP-guided optimization then refines the existing parameter state, providing a more stable and robust refinement mechanism than LLM reprompting. In the demo, attendees drive a dry recording through successive natural-language instructions: after each turn, they choose how strongly the effect is applied, then issue the next instruction based on what still differs from the sound they intend. In a preliminary evaluation on SocialFX-derived descriptor pairs, CLAP-guided refinement achieves lower DSP-feature MMD than an LLM+LLM initialize-then-reprompt baseline on 9 of 10 pairs. Trajectory analysis further shows that, for differentiable effects, optimization tends to gradually move the audio toward the new target while retaining the effects of the previous instruction, highlighting the potential for gradual refinement.
Song-Ze Yu, Milan Liessens Dujardin, Yuxuan Cai +4
Center for New Music and Audio Technologies (CNMAT) University of California, Berkeley