Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Is this training speed normal? #3

Open
ywang411 opened this issue May 17, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Is this training speed normal? #3

ywang411 opened this issue May 17, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@ywang411
Copy link

Pasted Graphic
@ywang411
Copy link
Author

ywang411 commented May 17, 2024

I do not know why this is slow, thank you! My graphic card is A4500, and I run this code in a Windows operating system.

@axeber01
Copy link
Owner

axeber01 commented May 17, 2024

Generating the impulse responses at high reverberation takes quite a long time. In cfg.py, try lowering the upper bound of t60, or use anechoic = True (this will make the simulations reverberation-free). You could also add functionality to pre-generate the dataset instead of generating new data each epoch.

@ywang411
Copy link
Author

ywang411 commented May 18, 2024

Generating the impulse responses at high reverberation takes quite a long time. In cfg.py, try lowering the upper bound of t60, or use anechoic = True (this will make the simulations reverberation-free). You could also add functionality to pre-generate the dataset instead of generating new data each epoch.

Thank you for your help! I found that lower the upper bound of t60 can reduce the training time, and could you please explain how to pre-generate the dataset? Because I thought that we have already prepared Dataloader before training. And I also tried to modify code to avoid do Labelsmoothing every time I run the main.py, but failed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants