An on-device claim and a privacy policy can quietly diverge

The audio task

A DJ or remix producer using real-time stem separation on unreleased or licensed audio needs to know whether that audio stays on the device or is sent to a server before the set is finished. Marketing copy about on-device processing and a vendor's actual privacy policy are two different documents, and only one of them is legally binding.

What the documents show

Algoriddim's Neural Mix product page frames its stem-separation feature as built to run using on-device hardware acceleration, without describing server involvement. Algoriddim's privacy policy, effective May 2025, confirms that specific category of on-device handling for streaming-service account information, stating that data will only be processed within the app on the device and not be transferred to Algoriddim's servers, but the policy does not repeat or extend that same confirmation to the audio processed by Neural Mix specifically. iZotope's privacy policy, effective 20 December 2023, separately lists user-generated audio content that a person uploads, generates, transmits, or otherwise makes available among the categories of information it may collect, and states that data may be used for research and development to improve its services, without stating a specific retention period for audio or a specific position on AI training.

Rights status

Neither document makes an explicit, audio-specific promise either way. Algoriddim's policy demonstrates the company is capable of stating an on-device-only guarantee when it chooses to, since it does so for account data, which makes its silence on Neural Mix audio a gap rather than an oversight to assume away. iZotope's policy establishes that audio content is a named, collected category for at least some of its services, without saying how long it is kept or whether AI systems train on it.

What to check before you use it

This is an editorial method, not a claim about what either vendor actually does with audio. Before trusting an on-device marketing claim, search the vendor's actual privacy policy for the word audio or the specific feature name, not just for the word device. Where the policy is silent on the feature in question, treat that silence as unresolved rather than as an implicit confirmation of the marketing claim.

• Does the vendor's privacy policy, not its product page, name the specific AI feature by name?
• Where the policy is silent on a feature, has the vendor made that silence explicit anywhere else, such as a support article?
• For unreleased or client-owned audio, does the answer change the choice of tool for that session?

A feature can be genuinely on-device and still have a privacy policy that never says so in writing. Until a vendor's policy names the audio-processing feature directly, the marketing claim and the legal document remain two separate statements that a producer working with unreleased material has to reconcile independently.