Cited by 1,004Speech Recognition and SynthesisSpeech and Audio ProcessingMusic and Audio Processing

“Waveglow: a flow-based generative network for speech synthesis,”

Open access
Prenger, Ryan, Valle, Rafael, Catanzaro, Bryan·2019·ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

Abstract

In this paper we propose WaveGlow: a flow-based network capable of generating high quality speech from mel-spectrograms. WaveGlow combines insights from Glow [1] and WaveNet [2] in order to provide fast, efficient and high-quality audio synthesis, without the need for auto-regression. WaveGlow is implemented using only a single network, trained using only a single cost function: maximizing the likelihood of the training data, which makes the training procedure simple and stable. Our PyTorch implementation produces audio samples at a rate of more than 500 kHz on an NVIDIA V100 GPU. Mean Opinion Scores show that it delivers audio quality as good as the best publicly available WaveNet implementation. All code will be made publicly available online [3].

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icassp.2019.8683143

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When the sampling frequency of audio deepfakes is less than 16 kHz, perceived speech quality drops significantly, and a higher sampling rate may give way to higher audio quality.

    “When the sampling frequency (sampling rate) of the audio deepfakes is less than 16 kHz, perceived speech quality of audio deepfakes drops significantly, and the higher sampling rate may give way to higher audio quality (Prenger et al., 2019).”

    From Audio deepfakes: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as Prenger et al., 2019

    The Introduction states that perceived speech quality drops significantly below a 16 kHz sampling rate and that higher rates produce higher-quality speech. It makes this point about speech synthesis generally, not specifically about audio deepfakes; the paper does not establish the claimed effect for that category. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prenger, R., Valle, R., & Catanzaro, B.
Affiliations
Nvidia (United States) (US)
Venue
ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-05
Pages
3617-3621
ISSN
1520-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2898847420
Cited by
1,004
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 156 · 2022: 161 · 2021: 220 · 2020: 169 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
58.16
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
Keywords
WaveGlow, speech synthesis, flow-based generative models, glow, WaveNet, audio generation, likelihood maximization, high-quality audio

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review