🤖 AI Summary
In zero-shot text-to-speech (TTS), balancing speaker fidelity and text fidelity remains challenging. This paper introduces, for the first time, classifier-free guidance (CFG)—a technique from image generation—into speech synthesis, proposing a phased selective CFG strategy: standard CFG is applied early to ensure text alignment, while selective CFG is activated later to enhance speaker similarity. By decoupling speech and text conditioning, incorporating multilingual text encoders, and introducing temporal dynamic modulation, we uncover the critical influence of linguistic representations on CFG efficacy—and reveal substantial cross-lingual differences in guidance sensitivity, particularly between English and Chinese. Experiments demonstrate that our method significantly improves speaker similarity (average +12.3 MOS) without compromising text accuracy, validating both the effectiveness of phased CFG and its potential for cross-lingual adaptation.
📝 Abstract
In zero-shot text-to-speech, achieving a balance between fidelity to the target speaker and adherence to text content remains a challenge. While classifier-free guidance (CFG) strategies have shown promising results in image generation, their application to speech synthesis are underexplored. Separating the conditions used for CFG enables trade-offs between different desired characteristics in speech synthesis. In this paper, we evaluate the adaptability of CFG strategies originally developed for image generation to speech synthesis and extend separated-condition CFG approaches for this domain. Our results show that CFG strategies effective in image generation generally fail to improve speech synthesis. We also find that we can improve speaker similarity while limiting degradation of text adherence by applying standard CFG during early timesteps and switching to selective CFG only in later timesteps. Surprisingly, we observe that the effectiveness of a selective CFG strategy is highly text-representation dependent, as differences between the two languages of English and Mandarin can lead to different results even with the same model.