ONE BACKING. TWO EXAMPLES. WHAT WORKED — AND WHAT FAILED.

From a backing track
to a guitar solo.

One more convincing example, one less convincing example. Hear the difference, inspect the same instructions, and separate musical progress from unresolved failure.

Hear the same 30 seconds.

e06 · Base · 114514

A fixed bass-and-drums backing, a generated guitar candidate, then the two together.

Backing only00:00 — 00:30

Switching keeps your position. Each isolated part has the same gain as in the mix; no separate loudness normalisation.

Play the Base 30-second waveform demonstration

An offline visualisation of the saved Base result, with its mixed audio. It is not a recording of live generation.

Why this is better. Why the other falls short.

“Better” and “worse” refer to these two examples and the requested guitar role. Neither is a finished musical solution.

QuestionBase · e06XL-Base · e04 OFF
Does it sound like the requested instrument?The guitarist-researcher recognises distorted electric-guitar tone and plausible playing character in the mix.The researcher says the previous problems remain and prefers Base in this pair; no new detailed XL score was supplied.
What does the less convincing example still achieve?A positive lead-guitar character judgement; phrasing and harmonic fit are still unassessed.Earlier solo listening identified an audible, single-note melody. A single-note line is not itself a guitar-solo failure.
Does the part enter when needed?0–10 s raw RMS: −51.70 dBFS. A very quiet opening remains.0–10 s raw RMS: −57.95 dBFS. The same low-energy opening remains.
What can the spectrum support?93.67% of analysed band energy lies in 250–2000 Hz: less concentrated than XL in this pair.98.05% lies in 250–2000 Hz. This is an acoustic difference, not proof of instrument identity or musical quality.
Is the file technically intact?30 s, stereo, 48 kHz; finite samples and no full-scale samples.30 s, stereo, 48 kHz; finite samples and no full-scale samples.
What remains unverified or unresolved?A convincing isolated part, explicit rhythmic/harmonic fit and reliable results across inputs are not yet established. The cause of the shared delayed entrance is unresolved.

RMS and spectral values describe the raw model outputs before audition gain. Band fractions use 20–12,000 Hz as the denominator after 24 kHz analysis resampling. These measurements support acoustic observations; they do not replace listening.

View the existing waveform and spectrum evidenceExisting common-scale waveform and spectrogram analysis for backing, XL OFF and Base OFFExisting average spectrum and normalised onset-feature comparison

The normalised onset plot shows relative feature changes, not absolute loudness or a musical-alignment score.

Both examples use direct LEGO with DCW OFF, the same backing, prompt, seed and explicit generation settings. The checkpoint changes; the XL reference was generated earlier. Equal seeds do not establish equal internal noise or a causal explanation of the quality difference.