More diffusion steps did not reliably improve the voice match
The complete indexed collection contained fifty-one converted variants. Each was independently embedded against its exact selected narrator and source waveform. Twenty-nine used four steps, eleven eight and eleven twelve.
Key finding
Matched six-sentence similarity intervals crossed zero for both eight-minus-four and twelve-minus-four steps.
Edited finding from the pinned experiment record. The report and figure metadata preserve the original workload and limits.
The boundary
Six paired Spanish sentences and exploratory bootstrap intervals. Missing step outputs remain unmeasured rather than copied from another setting.
Data
Reviewed aggregate results with explicit units, sources and qualification limits. Different cohorts remain separate.
More steps added substantial conversion delay
Six matched Spanish utterances · existing conversions
- 4 steps1.263
- 8 steps2.214
- 12 steps3.241
median conversion seconds
Conversion stage only; phone capture, translation, synthesis and network time are excluded.
View data & source
| Configuration | Value |
|---|---|
| 4 steps | 1.263 |
| 8 steps | 2.214 |
| 12 steps | 3.241 |
Origin: reviewed report table. Revision 7e6fdbe3b1d1.
Write-ups
Report tts/seed-vc2-voice-transfer-2026-10-13/verified-similarity-4-8-12/README.md
Score the audio that exists
The complete indexed collection contained fifty-one converted variants. Each was independently embedded against its exact selected narrator and source waveform. Twenty-nine used four steps, eleven eight and eleven twelve.
Compare matched sentences
Across the same six Spanish utterances, mean speaker cosine was 0.8673, 0.8709 and 0.8501 at four, eight and twelve steps. The unconverted mean was 0.5727.
Ten thousand paired bootstrap resamples gave an eight-minus-four mean difference of +0.00356, interval [-0.00927, +0.01890]. Twelve-minus-four was -0.01722, interval [-0.03896, +0.00361]. Neither establishes a consistent similarity gain from extra steps on this small set.
Keep missing evidence visible
Thirty-six eight-/twelve-step outputs were absent for eighteen other phrase/reference choices. The study explicitly disabled those selections. A four-step score was never relabeled as another setting.
Four steps remained the lowest tested delay with useful resemblance. Spanish word preservation and conversion latency still pull in different directions; the higher similarity of an English style-transfer sample did not rescue its 100% ASR word error.
Evidence and publication boundary
This is an edited account of the recorded experiment. The linked archive is private; the methods, aggregate findings and limits are included above. Reference recordings, raw conversations, authentication material and workstation configuration are excluded.
More in Speech & codecs
MOSS on a 3090: Q2 failed, AWQ4 stayed closer
Every profile began with the pinned BF16 generator. The comparison reused fixed reference codes and an FP32 decoder for the main quality measurements, keeping codec changes separate from generator quantization.
AWQ4 stayed close to the BF16 reference on WavLM and character errors; the sensitivity Q2 candidate was rejected.
Drama3: BF16 decoded the same codes about three times faster
The experiment replayed saved Spanish and English codes representing 21.5481 and 15.8824 seconds of audio. It compared FP32, BF16, mixed BF16 and two INT8 decoder variants on one RTX 3090.
BF16 reduced median decoder time from 390.07 to 129.54 ms in Spanish and from 292.42 to 96.88 ms in English.
Keeping FP32 and moving Supertonic to Triton
Rather than reduce the CPU graph precision again, this follow-up used NVIDIA Triton’s ONNX backend with CUDA execution and the unchanged FP32 graphs. The paired comparison retained both speed and acoustic checks.
The paired GPU test cut median first-audio time to about 0.35 seconds while preserving the measured ASR results.