> for vocals

Page 32 of 228 · Open the original GDoc ↗

(voc. ensembles, or click here for Karaoke, here for instrumentals)

MVSEP models without download links can be used only there.

Removing/isolating vocals from AI music can give muddy results and capture other unrelated instruments easily; also, Roformers tend to stress plosives which weren’t in the original vocals at time - cristouk

Tips:

1. “I get less distortion on vocals if I delimited first on a loud mix” - 5b

2. Use the output file to separate with a Phantom Center model.

3. Then use the two output files to separate with a vocal model below one by one, then mix them together. You can get better results - gilliaan/straturkoise
4*. Or ensemble every of the two phantom center results with the vocal model or ensemble (e.g. big beta 7 and bs_roformer_mag [Max Spec/FFT]), and mix the results afterwards e.g. in Audacity - neoculture

5*. More tricks

There’s no one, the best model. It depends on the song.
Most commonly used/or the best models for the doc’s date (categorized below with links and metrics)
Links below are clickable:

- MVSep BS-Roformer 124 bands (premium only, the best SDR)

MVSep BS-PolarFormer 124 bands (the 2nd best)
MVSep Becruily BS-Roformer 124 bands (fine-tune of the first one, but less bleedless)

- MVSep BS-Roformer 2025.07 (predominantly bleedless and accurate, muddy)

BS-Roformer SW Vocals-Only (bleedless, a bit similar, FT-ed above)

- Becruily Deux (fullness/balance, but still a bit similar to the PolarFormer),

Anvuew BS_RoFormer_mag (fullness with more bleedless; very noisy at quiet parts),

BS_Roformer_mag_v2 (worse SDR, bigger fullness, you might like it more),

- unwa BS-Roformer-Leap Xe (best metrics for public model, e.g. the non Xe more highs, less mids vs Deux)

- HyperACE v2 voc (bleedless, with more fullness),

Resurrection voc (less bleedless, with even more fullness),

- Big Beta 6X (bleedless, with more fullness),

Big Beta 7 (more bleedless, vs 12.55, SW),

Revive3e (more fullness, with less bleedless, struggles with harmonies, noisy)

- Outperformed metrically, but good at times:

Gabox voc_fv7 (bleedless, much less harmony issues vs 6X),

vocfv7 beta 2 (middle-ground fullness, less crossbleeding, fuller, noisier, but less in quieter passages than Deux),

vocfv7 beta 3 (fuller; possible drum bleed in all betas)
vocfv7 beta 1 (better bleedless than voc_fv4, better BVs than 5e)

- Others/olders: BS-Roformer 12.45, voc_fv4 (might struggle with BVs vs 6X), fv5 (some might like it more vs 6X at times)
Big Beta 5e, Mel FT2 Bleedless (even more bleedless), voc_fv6, Becruily voc, Revive 2, FT3 Preview.

Full list of models

Bleedless models #1 (MVSEP exclusive; models available for download later below)

- MVSep BS Roformer 124 bands (currently only for premium/paid members of MVSep.com)

Vocals bleedless: 39.18, fullness: 18.11, SDR: 12.33'

Metrics with 3 fullness levels | Model option link

“Because it is several times slower than the original BS Roformer (which is one of the most used models on the site), we have temporarily placed it behind a paywall to ensure our servers can handle the load. We plan to make it freely available later once we add more servers. The model can provide several levels of fullness for vocals and instrumentals out of the box (you need to choose it in the form).” - ZFTurbo

“+0.4 SDR is not a small jump, I mostly check the spectrograms and frequencies appear quite more defined.

So more accurate in preserving the correct instruments overall, sound wise mostly similar to everything else non-fullness (...)

There might be something wrong with the fullness inst output, it appears to be muddier than [the] baseline.” - becruily

“So looking at this, Roformer level 1 fullness has about the same bleedless as PolarFormer (non fullness), but more fullness

and the PolarFormer fullness model is basically irrelevant now because of the extremely low bleedless score is compared to the fullness tradeoff (...) Metrics wise it looks like there is no good reason to use level 1 for instrumentals we gain 2 points of fullness and lose like 8 bleedless - dynamic64

Q: Can the 124 BS-Roformer model make insts that have the fullness of deux/hyperace? I'm trying to avoid most of the muddiness. I don't have premium atm or I would just test myself lol

A: “No, not even close metrics wise tbh” - dynamic64

- MVSep BS PolarFormer model (124 bands) - only on MVSep (longer queue w/o premium/account)

Vocals bleedless: 39.26, fullness: 17.18, SDR: 12.02

Model option link | Metrics / fullness level 1 | Description
“Can be lacking some fullness, it's tuned for low noise.” - rainboomdash

“Very good for lead vocals. Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound good on backing vocals or choir vocals” - myself044. Sometimes deux, sometimes this picks up BVs better - pezz23

“On the contrary for me it works best to remove all vocals” - duhh_its.chris

So it might be song-dependent.
“there's not a huge dramatic difference between it and [deux] (...) There is definitely a difference, but you probably wouldn't notice it based on only one listen if you were directly comparing them (...) results sound realistic” - pezz23

“It currently achieves the highest SDR on the MultiSong dataset. It also introduces a new feature: generating two additional stems with higher fullness.” - ZFTurbo

“This model can extract Daft Punk vocoder cleanly” - RME

“the inst will always remain muddy no matter which fullness level it will be set to, since it's not the target instrument.

It sounds like phase remix demudder output, also what makes me think it’s a vocal model, is just how the inst sounds” - dca100fb8 (might be the case since the public PolarFormer is vocal target, indeed - squiddagod).

- MVSep BS-Roformer 2025.07 (only on MVSep)

Vocals bleedless: 38.25, fullness: 17.23, SDR: 11.89
The biggest bleedless metric for a single model so far. Compared to previous models, picks up backing vocals and vocal chops greatly where 6X struggles, and fixes crossbleeding and reverbs where in some songs previous models struggled before.
Sometimes you might still get better results with Beta 6X or voc_fv4 (depending on a song).

“07.2025 is by FAR the most accurate model i've tried, for instrumentals and vocals, but the mudiness kills me”

“Very similar to SCNet, very high fullness without the crazy noise” - dynamic64,

“handles speech very well. Most models get confused by stuff like birds chirping (they put it in the vocal stem), but this model keeps them out of the vocal stem way more than most. I love it!”

Works the best for orchestral choirs out of the long list of other models - .elgiano.

It can be better for metal both for vocal and instrumentals than the mesk’s models, a lot of the time (and sometimes the best).

The “only one i've found rivals that one in recognizing hard vocals is SW” - cyclorana

It’s the SW fine-tune: “it has the same params as SW, outputs are similar to [the] SW vocal-wise, but better obviously” - mesk

The first iteration of the model (2025.06: 37.83/17.30/11.82) received two small updates and was replaced by 2025.07.

It’s also good as a source model for phase fixer/swapper.

- Mel-Roformer Bas Curtiz edition (/w Marekkon5) (trained on also ZFTurbo dataset) only on MVSEP (older version of 2024.10 model)

Vocals bleedless: 39.20, fullness: 16.24, SDR 11.18.

Bleedless models #2

- unwa BS-Roformer-Leap vocal
Vocals bleedless: 38.90, fullness: 17.07, SDR: 11.72
MK Colab fork #2 | metrics (the highest vocal SDR for public model, lower than MVSep PolarFormer 62 bands)
“feels a bit fuller than [beta] resurrection v2, and it does a really good job picking up background vocals” - neoculture

“it sounds like there's a ton of fullness in high freq but more filtering in mid freqs. Imo the signature is kinda the inverse of deux.” - Musicalman [sonically, not like you were to invert something on your own]

"I found the vocals to be a bit muddy, but the instrumental is alright!" - gilliaan

"I think it['s] better on Vocal than Instrumental"

- Mel-Roformer 2024.10 (Bas Curtiz model fine-tuned by ZFTurbo) only on MVSEP
Vocals bleedless: 37.80, fullness: 17.07, SDR 11.28
Small amounts of bleeding from instrumentals (inst. bleedless 39.20), might struggle with flute occasionally, good enough for creating RVC datasets.

- BS-Roformer 2024.08 (viperx model fine-tuned v2 by ZFTurbo) on MVSEP
Vocals bleedless: 37.61, fullness: 15.89, SDR: 11.32
Good for inverts, Dolby, lots of harmonies, BGVs. Good or even the best vocal fullness for some genres ~Isling, decent all-rounder, but might be muddier than Mel models here, although it gives less vocal residues than all the Mel Kim fine-tune models here, can be also used for RVC). “I've found it very useful for extremely quiet vocals that Mel couldn't extract” - Dry Paint Dealer. It’s a second MVSEP’s fine-tune of viperx model.
Iirc, it’s used as a preprocessor model for "Extract from vocals part" feature on MVSEP.

- MVSep Becruily/ZFTurbo BS-Roformer high instrum fullness 124 bands

Only for premium MVSep users (demanding architecture).

Vocals bleedless: 36.30, fullness: 21.38, SDR: 12.25

It’s a paywalled model due to increased separation time from the model architecture. Iirc 1 credit per minute.

“It’s a fine-tune of ZFTurbo's model [BS-Roformer 124 bands], so unfortunately private”

“It’s dual model so vocals are also fullness, but whether they’re better or not than the original level 1-3 I don’t know” - becruily

for vocals it has much better bleedless metric than Deux, but less fullness.

Perfect mix of fullness and bleedless - dynamic64

Q: How does it compare to deux and HyperACE, any insight?

A: “I like it more”, “I feel like it functionally replaces the BS Rofo 124 fullness model” - -||-
“In my opinion brecruily high inst fullness vocal result seems to give the same result of BS Roformer fullness level 1” - mrmason347

- MVSep Ensemble 11.93 (vocals, instrum) (2025.06.28) - only for premium users

Vocals bleedless: 36.30, fullness: 17.73, SDR: 11.93

Surpassed sami-bytedance-v.1.1 on the multisong dataset SDR-wise.

Community bleedless models

- BS-Roformer SW 6 stem / vocals-only variant (MVSEP | Colab | nextgen.uvronline)

Vocals bleedless: 36.06, fullness: 16.95, SDR 11.36

Good for e.g. some deep voices. Might resemble MVSEP BS-Roformer 2025.07, as the SW was used as a base for it.

- unwa Big Beta 7 Mel-Roformer vocal model | MK Colab

Bleedless 38.77, fullness 16.20, SDR 11.20.

“SDR is lower than the BS model, but personally I prefer this one. (...) Although not reflected in the metrics, noise has been reduced in sections without vocals.” - unwa

More bleedless model than 6X, although people tend to prefer the latter.

It's free of distortion anvuew 12.55 model has.

Vocals bleedless 39.30, fullness 15.77, SDR 11.05
(voc. fullness is worse than the Mel Kim - 16.26, bleedless better)
inst. bleedless is still lower than base Mel-Kim model: 46.30 vs 46.56)

“I usually use big beta 6x, big beta 5e if that fails, and FT2 bleedless if I want very low noise or instruments are quiet (it gets muddy quick)” - Rainboom Dash

- Unwa’s BS-Roformer Resurrection voc (voc. variant) | yaml | Colab

Vocals bleedless: 39.99, fullness: 15.14, SDR: 11.34

Shares some similarities with the SW model, including small size (might be a retrain). The default chunk_size is pretty big, so if you run out of memory, decrease it to e.g. 523776.

Make a back of your UVR folder before installing it. We had a report that this model might break your UVR installation probably permanently for some reason.

- Unwa’s Revive 2 BS-Roformer fine-tune of viperx 1297 model | config | Colab

Vocals bleedless: 40.07, fullness: 15.13, SDR: 10.97

“has a bleedless score that surpasses the FT2 Bleedless”

“can keep the string well”

It’s depth 12 and dim 512, so the inference is much slower than some newer Mel-Roformers.

Worse bleedless than above, higher fullness

- BS PolarFormer 124 bands fullness level 1 variant - only on MVSep

voc. bleedless 32.37, fullness 20.95, SDR 11.96

- Anvuew BS-Roformer 12.55 FT1 model | yaml | nextgen.uvronline | Colab

voc. bleedless 35.17, fullness 19.88, SDR 11.54.

The metrics are better than the Unwa BS-Roformer HyperAce v2 and Gabox voc_fv7 Mel-Roformer. “It has [the second] highest SDR for vocals after Leap Xe Voc, and it's a very good model”, “unstable about noise presence in silent sections. Sometimes there is nothing. And other times it's very noisy” - dca

“I compared the model with big beta 7. Both have pretty similar outputs. But for some reason, 12.55 has a bit of distortion, while big beta 7 sounds fine [and the 12.45].

For the lead vocals, they’re quite similar, but for the backing vocals, 12.55 sounds slightly buried (you probably wouldn’t notice unless you listen really closely)” - neoculture

- Anvuew BS-Roformer 12.45 vocal model | download

For UVR RTX 5000 patch and torch._dynamo error, edit “use_torch_checkpoint: True” to False (or delete the line).

Can be muddy. Not so balanced like Beta6X or vocfv7beta1, but “it properly doesn't capture the instrument here. Even FT2 bleedless gets tricked by this part, but this does just fine.” - rainboomdash

- Unwa BS-Roformer HyperACE v2 vocal model | separate Colab #2 | MVSEP

voc. bleedless 34.08, fullness 19.10, SDR 11.40
JFYI - there was no v1 of the voc variant.

“Compared to the Resurrection vocal model, this new model achieves higher scores across the board except for the bleedless score.”

“I feel like most songs hyperace gets a good bleedless result but ill probably stick with voc_fv7 beta3 or revive e3” - 5b

“it seems to be like... trying really hard to pull certain stuff out that is causing noise, I think

it doesn't sound that bleedless to me, due to that reason (..) there's some noise during some quieter parts but I'll def be adding this to the list of models I use. I was testing against fv7beta2, during louder parts there seemed to be less noise, but during quieter parts there seemed to be more noise (...)

I'll prob use fv7beta2 for the most part still, but I'll try adding a hyperace vocal model to the mix of models I use. lol, soon I'll be using 10 models throughout one song” - Rainboomdash

Note: It also uses its own inference script (bs_roformer.py) and is different from the previous one, and it’s also incompatible with UVR. “You can use this model by replacing the MSST repository's models/bs_roformer.py with the repository's bs_roformer.py.”

To not affect functionality of other BS-Roformer models by that file, so older BS-Roformers will still work, you can add it as new model_type by editing utils/settings.py and models/bs_roformer/init.py here (thx anvuew).

For error while installing the py file for HyperACE model in Sucial’s WebUI:

from models.bs_roformer.attend import Attend

ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'models'"

The fix: “SUC-DriverOld/MSST-WebUI use the name "modules" and ZFTurbo/Music-Source-Separation-Training use the name "models". And Unwa's bs_roformer.py that you replace with, also use "models" - fjordfish
In order to make it work in Sucial MSST Web UI you have to edit line (...) in the bsroformer.py file that is included with (...) model and change the word "models" to "modules". - rage313_

- Gabox voc_fv7 Mel-Roformer | yaml | makidanyee’s Colab

voc. bleedless: 33.85, fullness: 17.99, SDR: 11.16’

For UVR RTX 5000 patch and torch._dynamo error, edit “use_torch_checkpoint: True” to False (or delete the line)..

Sometimes results sound not as noisy as BigBeta5e (but it depends on a asong) and voc HyperACE (which might sound less muddy, but noisier), but it catches harmonies much better than BigBeta6X:

voc_fv7 is "a little noisy, quiet, but at least it's capturing [the harmonies] (...) As with all models, it varies drastically song to song on how full it is compared to other models

fv7 was also cutting the reverb really aggressively on one song compared to big beta 6x" - rainboomdash

“it is probably the highest SDR or log wmse score in my model to date.”

“There's some noise audible; it doesn't sound as clean when you compare to a more bleedless model (...) but it's certainly not fullness... (...) I think calling it bleedless wouldn't be crazy... makes more sense than "middle of the road" - rainboomdash
“Significantly better” than 5e for some people, although slower. Some leaks into vocal might occur, plus “The biggest problem with the model is the remaining background noise. If it were cleaner, it would already be an almost perfect result.” - musictrack

“6X has a lot less noise on vocals, but it's pretty muddy. I would prefer something in between [5e and 6X]. I tried to apply the phase [fixer/swapper] to the vocals and the noise was reduced, but only slightly.” - Aufr33

Some people might prefer fv5 instead [at least on some songs] ~5b

“6x is picking up BV just fine, where voc fv4 is failing” - Rainboom Dash

Training details:

“dim 512, depth 12. It is the largest Mel-Band Roformer model I have ever uploaded.” - “the same as [the] Bas Curtiz Edition” model. It has a bigger SDR vs smaller depth 6 Big Beta 6 model. “I've added dozens of samples and songs that use a lot of them to the dataset”

Fullness models

- becruily dual Mel-Roformer model “deux” (its vocal stem):
voc. bleedless: 28.30, fullness: 23.25, SDR: 11.37’

Compatible with UVR Roformer patch (including the RTX 5000 one) | Colab | uvronline | MVSEP
“Unfortunately [both stems] won't null to the mixture perfectly, this applies to any multi stem model” - becruily
“vocal model picks up some things super well, like certain backing vocals or there was yelling in the background that it picked up that fv7beta didn't (...) generally slightly less full than fv7beta3 from the songs I tested, but has less instrumental bleed and slightly less noise.”, “generally does pretty well with harmonies”

“it’s good, but lot of noise during quieter parts that other vocal models don't have” - rainboomdash

“deux vocal stem has more backing vocals than Gabox fv7 beta 1-3 and other models I've ever tried, but it may be rather noisy on silent parts or fadeouts” - makidanyee

Gabox fv7 beta 2 is less noisy at quieter passages - rainboomdash

Also mag V2 - dca

“I find deux does the best at keeping reverb trails intact” - Pipedream, it's “super great” at it - rainboomdash
“sounds great! I don't hear the dips in the vocals from some songs that are overly compressed” - Rage313

It doesn't work with speech and dialogues from movies - dca100fb8

“it leaves spectrums looking strange and wavey in my experience, like every time” - cyclorana, dynamic64

“I exported it using FP16 just for the smaller size [only 432 MB], the quality is the same.” - becruily

- Colab auto-cleaning Deux result acapella by billieoconnell using the invert-clean model by becruily

- anvuew BS_RoFormer_mag | MK Colab

voc. bleedless: 32.17, fullness 22.15, SDR 11.09'

“specialized for magnitude spectrum accuracy” - anvuew, “isn't made to be used as a standard vocal model. It's only where magnitude is the most important (like RVC [SVC, TTS]). [The] mag is also perceptually pretty noisy”, “very noisy at quiet parts” - rainboomdash
“pure magnitude spectrum loss, so its phase is less accurate.”

“managed to pull out harmonies I knew were missing from my test track as well as not extracting some vocal sampled perc that had been in other models previously” - cristouk

“I found it to be less noisy than deux (for vocals obviously) and almost same fullness”, “like deux but without the noisy problem” - dca

Vocals bleedless: 27.50, fullness: 26.22, SDR: 10.74

Higher fullness than voc_fv6 and Becruily deux.

“Too noisy and SDR drops a lot, so I just shared it on GDrive instead of HF” - anvuew

The older mag had 22.15 fullness, and it's the only metric which increased in the V2.

Still, it turned out to be a favourite model of one of our members (5b), so it probably needs some recognition anyway.

- Unwa bs_roformer_revive3e | config | Colab | nextgen.uvronline.app

voc. bleedless: 30.51, fullness: 21.43, SDR: 10.98‘

“A vocal model specialized in fullness.

(...) the opposite of version 2 — it pushes fullness to the extreme.

Also, the training dataset was provided by Aufr33. Many thanks for that.” - Unwa

“seems to sound better than beta5e, it sounds fuller, but this also means it sounds noisier” - gilliaan. For some people, it’s even the best, but “has issues with harmonies

and noisy” - rainboomdash

Even more fullness, less bleedless

- Gabox experimental Mel-Roformer voc_fv6 model | yaml | Colab

voc. bleedless: 26.61, fullness: 24.93, SDR: 10.64
“Definitely not bleedless” - rainboomdash, “Sounds like b5e with vocal enhancer. Needs more training, some instruments are confused as vocals” - Gabox. “fv6 = fv4 but with better background vocal capture” - neoculture

“very indecisive about whether to put vocal chops in the vocal stem or instrumental stem.

sometimes it plays in vocals and fades out into instrumental stem and sometimes it just splits it in half kinda and plays in both at the same time lol” - Isling

“I think [it] is the fullest vocal model I've heard, aside from maybe the SCNet high fullness ones lol. Oh and revive 3e and b5e are full too but yeah.” - Musicalman

- SCNet XL very high fullness on MVSEP

voc. bleedless: 25.30, fullness: 23.50, SDR: 10.40

- SCNet XL IHF (high instrum fullness by bercuily)

voc. bleedless: 25.48, fullness: 22.70, SDR: 10.87

(it was made mainly for instrumentals, but “It can also be an insane vocal model too”

____

- MVSEP SCNet XL IHF

voc. bleedless 28.31, fullness 17.98, SDR: 11.11

“It has a better SDR than previous versions. Very close to Roformers now.” also, vocal bleedless is the best among all SCNet variants on MVSEP. Metrics. IHF - “Improved high frequencies”.

“Certainly sounds better than classic SCNet XL (...) less crossbleeding of vocals in instrumental (...), and handles complex vocals better” - dca

Middle of the road #1 (lower fullness)

“Beta 1 and 3 are higher fullness, beta 2 is more middle-ground (still a fullness model)

I think 3 might be more consistent with not having some songs be overly noisy” - rainboomdash

“The fv7 betas sound great but always too much drum bleed in vocal stem for me” - cyclorana

“I like how the vocfv7beta models sound but unfortunately they have great issues with keeping reverb tails and instruments bleeding in vocals.

But they [sound] full without most noise.

Particularly beta1 and beta3” - dca

- Gabox vocfv7 beta 2 Mel-Roformer model | yaml | Colab

voc. bleedless: 31.55, fullness: 20.44, SDR: 10.87

“fullness went down a little bit” vs beta 1 (...) Definitely an improvement over fv4 (...) still quite a bit fuller than big beta 6x, but has less noise than even fv4 (...) at least when the instruments are loud, fv7beta2 is usually quite a bit less noisy than fv4, while still maintaining a decent amount of fullness... it is a bit less, but not too much (...) both are pretty noisy with fv4 (...) sometimes the noise can be pretty significant with fv7beta1, and fv7beta2 may have the fullness you desire. (...) “I'm really liking the balance of fullness and noise for most songs. fv4 and fv6/fv7beta1 are usually pretty noisy... this is less noisy, but still has a good amount of fullness.” still gonna have an issue with backing vocals compared to fv7beta1 sometimes… (...) “Fv7beta2 has still been significantly better with BV than fv4, despite quite a bit less noise” but “significant issues on one song, while fv6/fv7beta1 didn't”. Less noisy at quieter passages than Deux - rainboomdash

- Gabox vocfv7 beta3 Mel-Roformer | yaml | Colab | nextgen.uvronline.app

voc. bleedless 30.83, fullness 21.82, SDR 10.80

“beta 1 and 2... eh, pretty close to same instrumental bleed,

but beta 3 [is] definitely a step up from the two songs I compared (...)

most songs so far, fv7beta3 is fuller than fv7beta1,

def less robotic sounding at times (when a voice gets quiet/hard to capture, and it just fails).

Just had another song where fv7beta1 was fuller than fv7beta3, but it was also a lot noisier.

A large majority of the songs I tested, fv7beta3 was fuller... I think fv7beta3 is usually a bit noisier than fv7beta1? But also sounds fuller in those cases, I'd say it's generally worth [the]

instrumental bleed. Usually worse with fv7beta3 versus fv7beta1, but it depends.

Fv7beta2 is always less full/less noise, but [has] only slightly less instrumental bleed than fv7beta1” - rainboomdash

- Gabox Mel-Roformer vocfv7 beta 1 (a.k.a. vocfv7beta1) model | yaml | Colab

voc. bleedless: 30.81, fullness: 21.21, SDR: 10.96

“one step below the extreme fullness models (...) fv6 on average is more full” - rainboomdash. "Just a better fv4 it seems, better bleedless" (bleedless: 29.07, fullness: 21.33, SDR 10.58)

vs fv4 "It is noisier... Kinda closer to beta 5e?” “It's slightly less noise and fullness than beta 5e but picking up the backing vocals REALLY well, significantly better than beta 5e”

But it's pulling the backing vocals out even better than 5e” “the backing vocals are so good!

“it does have significant synth bleed, too... it at least wasn't coming through at full volume

when I say fullness, I specifically mean how muddy it sounds”,
“seems to capture partial instruments a lot.” - rainboomdash

_______

- Gabox Mel-Roformer voc_fv4 | yaml | Colab | Huggingface / 2

voc. bleedless 29.07, fullness 21.33, SDR 10.58

“Very clean, non-muddy vocals. Loving this model so far” (mrmason347)

Good for anime and RVC purposes, currently the best public model for it (codename)

“The important thing for an RVC dataset is to get lead vocals so fv4 is good for that

The newer karaoke models are also helpful” - Ryan

Some might prefer voc_gabox2 instead, occasionally - chroniclaugh.

The opposite of Beta6x which has “lower noise but [is] less full/muddier (...) noise/muddiness seems between 6x and 5e, but even 6x is picking up BV just fine, where voc fv4 is failing”

Some people might want to test it with even overlap 32, and then:

“It's close to perfect, the only thing is it kinda struggled with picking up the adlibs and the delay, but the lead vocal is almost perfect I think. (...) on another song (...) 5e is just too noisy and 6x is muddy, fv4 is best of both worlds (...) has segments with constant significant vocal bleed (for the most part, it's not audible at all) (...) I was trying to get an acapella and every model failed except this one. It's not perfect, but I guess some songs are just too hard for the AI.” - Rainboom Dash

Good also for instrumentals, if you need less vocal residues than typical instrumental Roformers (even less than Mel Kim, FT2 Bleedless, or Beta 6X - makidanyee.

“even beta 6x is a lot better at pulling that background vocal out than voc fv4...

and that's a less full model. hmm, fv6 is noisier and also not picking up the backing vocals as full as the last mel band roformer” - rainboomdash

“feel so full AF, but it has noticeable noise similar to lew's vocal enhancer”
You can alleviate some of this noise/residues by using phase fixer/swapper and using becruily vocals model as reference (imogen).
It seems to fix some issues with trumpets in vocal stem - maxi74x1.
“It's noisy and, IDK, grainy? When the accompaniment gets too loud. (...) Definitely not muddy though, which is a welcome change IMHO. I think I prefer beta 4 overall” - Musicalman “ending of the words also have a robotic noise” - John UVR
“Perhaps a phase problem is occurring” - unwa. Phase swapper doesn’t fix the issue (it works for inst unwa’s models).
If you try big beta 5e on a song that has lots of vocal chops, the vocal chops will be phasing in and out and sound muddy (Isling).

“Excellent for ASMR, for separating Whispers and noise, the quality is super good

That's good when your mic/pc makes a lot of noise. All the denoise models are a bit too harsh for ASMR (gilliaan)”

Worse for RVC than Beta 4 model below (codename, NotEddy)

It can handle reverb tails better than 6X.

- Mel-Roformer vocal by becruily model | config for ensemble in UVR | MVSEP | Colab
voc. bleedless: 31.26, fullness: 20.72 (on pair with 5e), SDR: 10.55 | Huggingface / 2

Lower bleedless than 5e,“pulling almost studio quality metal screams effortlessly, wOw ive NEVER heard that scream so cleanly”

(on older UVR beta patches) If you use lower dim_t like 256 at the bottom of config for slower GPU these are the first models to have muddy results with it.
Consider setting 485100 chunk_size in the yaml for the highest SDR.
Currently used on x-minus/uvronline as a model for phase fixer.

- Gabox Mel-Roformer voc_fv5 | yaml | Colab

voc. bleedless: 29.50, fullness: 20.67, SDR: 10.56

“fv5 sounds a bit fuller than fv4, but the vocal chops end up in the vocal stem. In my opinion, fv4 is better for removing vocal chops from the vocal stem” - neoculture. Examples

Other models

- BS-Polarformer (PoPE) 62 bands vocal model on MVSep

Bleedless 35.90, fullness 17.68, SDR 11.75.

Looks like further trained from the below.

- BS-Polarformer a.k.a. PoPE vocal by ZFTurbo model vocals | HF inference / #2
SDR: 11

Trained on a new arch enhancement - you need updated MSST to run it.

Decent results, just needs some polish, maybe fine-tuning. Only a bit worse metrics than the Mel Kim.

- BS-Polarformer Aname instvoc

mirror: model | yaml | HF inference / #2

Fine-tune of the ZFTurbo’s, also decent.

- MVSep BS-Roformer vocals from “MVSep Mega 53 Stems” single model | yaml | splifft | MVSepless: HF / HF CPU / Colab / newer (you can pick which stems you want there, but it’s in Russian, and HF doesn’t support auto-translate, but Colab might)

The model can be muddy, it's small. It was further trained on MVSep in the all-in-one model and returns only present stems there.

Might be a retrain from some of the MVSep BS-Roformer vocal models on the site, not sure, but it's only 77MB, so probably very fast, but its performance might be limited.

Hint: On HF, if you don't check any models from the list after choosing the OG model, all will be processed.

Older or outperformed models

- Gabox Mel-Roformer voc_gabox2 model | yaml | Colab

voc. bleedless: 33.13, fullness: 18.98, SDR: 10.98

- Gabox Mel-Roformer Vocal F (fullness) v3 model | Colab | Huggingface / 2

voc bleedless: 32.15, fullness 19.97

- Gabox Mel-Roformer Vocal F (fullness) v2 model | Colab | Huggingface / 2

voc bleedless: 33.40, fullness: 19.31

- Aname Mel FullnessVocalModel (yaml) model | Colab | Huggingface / 2

voc. bleedless: 32.98 (less than beta 4), fullness: 18.83 (less than big beta 5e/voc_fv4/becruily, more than beta 4)

- Gabox Mel-Roformer voc_gabox (Kim/Unwa/Becruily FT) model | Colab Huggingface / 2

voc. bleedless: 34.66 (better than 5e, beta 4 and becruily voc), fullness 18.10 (on pair with beta 4, worse than 5e and becruily)

- Mel-Roformer unwa’s beta 4 (Kim’s model fine-tuned) download | Colab | Huggingface / 2

voc. bleedless: 33.76, fullness: 18.09
“Clarity and fullness” - even compared to newer models above.

Beta 1/2 were more muddy than Kim’s Roformer, potentially a bit less of residues, a bit more artificial sound. Ringing issues in higher frequencies fixed in beta 3 and later. It’s good for RVC (and favourite codename’s public model for RVC before voc_fv4 was released). Fuller vocals than Bas Curtiz FT on MVSEP (but can bleed more synths) ~becruily
Unwa’s vocal models are capable of handling sidechain in songs - John UVR

Bleedless models #3

- BS-Roformer Revive unwa’s vocal model experimental | yaml

voc. bleedless: 38.80, fullness: 15.48, SDR: 11.03

viperx 1297 model fine-tuned. “Less instrument bleed in vocal track compared to BS 1296/1297” but it still has many issues, “has fewer problems with instruments bleeding it seems compared to Mel. (...) 1297 had very few instrument bleeding in vocal, and that Revive model is even better at this.

Works great as a phase fixer reference to remove Mel Roformer inst models noise” (dca)

- SYHFT V5 Beta - only on x-minus/uvronline (still available only with this link for premium users, and for free)

Vocal bleedless: 37.27, fullness, 16.18, SDR: 10.82

Other models #2

- Unwa’s Kim Mel-Band Roformer FT2 | model | Colab
voc. bleedless: 37.06, fullness: 16.61 (fullness worse vs the previous FT, but both metrics are better than Kim’s)
It tends to muddy instrumental outputs at times, similarly like the OG Kim’s model was doing, which didn’t happen in the previous FT below. Metrics

- Unwa Kim Mel-Band Roformer FT3 Preview | model | yaml | Colab | uvronline via special link for: free/premium (scroll down) or nextgen.uvronline.app

voc. bleedless: 36.11, fullness: 16.80, SDR: 11.05

“primarily aimed at reducing leakage of wind instruments to vocals.”

For now, FT2 has less leakage for some songs (maybe till the next FT will be released)

- Unwa’s Mel Big Beta 6 vocal model | yaml | Colab | Huggingface / 2 | AI Hub Colab
Similar to FT series. “Although it belongs to the Big series, the characteristics of the model are similar to those of the FT series. (...) this model is based on FT2 bleedless with the dim increased to 512”.

Muddier than Big Beta 5[e], might be better than FT2 at times.
“If you liked the output of the Big Beta 5e model, you may not like 6 as much; it does not have the output noise problem of 5e, but instead sacrifices Fullness. (...) Simply put, it is a more conservative model” (unwa)

For anime and RVC “isn't as audibly and spectrally full as fv4 + can at times have flat-line artifact at the very top, but then, fv4 can sometimes have "crunchy" noise present at some places, so an ensemble of those 2 is probs a good idea (or might be fv4 flash more on less aggressive scenes).” codename

- Unwa’s Kim Mel-Band Roformer FT vocal model | Colab
Voc. bleedless 36.95 (vs 36.75), fullness 16.40 (vs 16.26) metrics for vocals are enhanced vs the original Mel Kim model. SDR-wise it’s a tad lower (10.97 vs 11.02).

Older models list continues later below