Open weightsAcademic research team (Yongmao Zhang et al.)/10 trustMetrics-checked

VISinger2

Name: VISinger2
Rating: 5

End-to-end singing voice synthesis with a DDSP synthesizer — 44.1 kHz vocals from score and lyrics.

About

VISinger2 is an end-to-end singing voice synthesis system that folds differentiable digital signal processing into a VITS-style framework: a DSP synthesizer with harmonic and noise branches generates periodic and aperiodic signals from the latent representation, fully compressing the phase component and fixing the glitch artifacts of its predecessor. The result is 44.1 kHz singing directly from music scores and lyrics, with a pretrained model on the Opencpop corpus.

The 2024 follow-up VISinger2+ adds self-supervised representations (HuBERT/MERT) and reports competitive numbers on the ACE-Opencpop multi-singer corpus. It remains a research codebase — training scripts, pretrained weights via drive link, no hosted service — but it is a solid baseline for anyone building SVS systems.

Specs

Context window

Not applicable — score-to-waveform synthesis model

Pricing

Free / open weights

Free quota

Unlimited (self-hosted)

API access

Research code; pretrained Opencpop weights via drive link; no hosted API

Weights

Open weights

Released

Not disclosed

Benchmarks

Provider-reported in the VISinger2+ follow-up paper (2024) on ACE-Opencpop: MCD 5.687, F0 RMSE 0.092, SingMOS 3.48 (±0.08) with HuBERT conditioning
Original VISinger2 numbers are qualitative/demo-led

Provider-reported unless a source says otherwise. Benchmarks are marketing-adjacent by nature — treat them as directional.

Use cases

singing-voice-synthesismusic-generationvirtual-singer

Trust score — 5/10

/10 trustMetrics-checked

Scored 5/10 (TIER metrics, metrics-v1). Evidence: peer-reviewed lineage (arXiv 2211.02903; VISinger2+ 2024 with objective metrics); pretrained Opencpop weights published; demo site. Strengths: real 44.1kHz end-to-end SVS, published weights, honest demo samples. Docked for: (1) community footprint is small and the license is unstated; (2) quantitative evals come from the authors' follow-up, not independent tests. License: not stated.

How the trust score is built

Full methodology →

Adoption · stars/downloads, log-scaled vs peers: 4.0/10
Maintenance · recency, releases, issue load: 4.0/10
Openness · license + docs: 5.0/10
Manual review · sanity read + red-flag check: 5.0/10

· Paper arXiv 2211.02903; VISinger2+ follow-up (2024) reports MCD 5.687 / SingMOS 3.48
· Pretrained Opencpop weights published; demo samples on zhangyongmao.github.io/VISinger2
· Small community footprint; license unstated