Papers › Efficiently Trainable Text-to-Speech System Based on Deep Convolutional Networks with...

Efficiently Trainable Text-to-Speech System Based on Deep Convolutional Networks with Guided Attention

24 Oct 2017arXiv:1710.08969archive 2025-07-28

Hideyuki Tachibana, Katsuya Uenoyama, Shunsuke Aihara

This paper describes a novel text-to-speech (TTS) technique based on deep convolutional neural networks (CNN), without use of any recurrent units. Recurrent neural networks (RNN) have become a standard technique to model sequential data recently, and this technique has been used in some cutting-edge neural TTS techniques. However, training RNN components often requires a very powerful computer, or a very long time, typically several days or weeks. Recent other studies, on the other hand, have shown that CNN-based sequence synthesis can be much faster than RNN-based techniques, because of high parallelizability. The objective of this paper is to show that an alternative neural TTS based only on CNN alleviate these economic costs of training. In our experiment, the proposed Deep Convolutional TTS was sufficiently trained overnight (15 hours), using an ordinary gaming PC equipped with two GPUs, while the quality of the synthesized speech was almost acceptable.

Code

22 repositories listed; official and paper-mentioned ones first.

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

28 samples harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 27 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 1 of the 28 samples is pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 5 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections