4 ms·

The “narrative” example is pretty good, but the “conversational” example is rather unpleasant to listen to. (Especially if you know how well Meryl Streep deliv

The “narrative” example is pretty good, but the “conversational” example is rather unpleasant to listen to. (Especially if you know how well Meryl Streep delivers that monologue in the original: https://youtu.be/Ja2fgquYTCg https://youtu.be/Ja2fgquYTCg)

xp84 4y ago
Maybe it's because I haven't heard the source material, but that Conversational voice really appeals to me. I wish my phone and assistants used that voice. (and also I can't wait for a "real" ChatGPT-era AI to go with it, to put those braindead jokes of an "assistant" Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant out to pasture)
tedd4u 4y ago
That's a pretty high bar. Even most Hollywood productions can't afford Meryl Streep, let alone a new site, podcast, or video game. From wikipedia: Mary Louise "Meryl" Streep [is] often described as "the best actress of her generation." Streep is particularly known for her versatility and accent adaptability. She has received numerous accolades throughout her career spanning over five decades, including a record 21 Academy Award nominations, winning three, and a record 32 Golden Globe Award nominations, winning eight. She has also received two British Academy Film Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and three Primetime Emmy Awards, in addition to nominations for a Tony Award and six Grammy Awards.
rkagerer 4y ago
Agreed, the intro and narrative ones are great. The news one is terrible.
logicallee 4y ago
Let's talk about this "Narrative" example. When I listened to it, my first impression was that it must be the real actor they included for comparison purposes but that they failed to label it correctly. I thought it is not machine-generated. I couldn't tell the slightest artifact except what sounded like a low-bitrate sound encoding (maybe using a codec geared toward speech). Can you tell anything "off" about it? As for the encoding artifact such as a tinny sound or low-bitrate sound, that is the type you hear on an MP3 or low bitrate codec for speech. For example, when I record a message on https://vocaroo.com/ https://vocaroo.com/ the "premier" voice recording service it sounds 10x worse. Here is a sample I just recorded of my own speech: https://voca.ro/18oSJ1sHU5w5 https://voca.ro/18oSJ1sHU5w5 After my first impression that the narrative example might be a real human mislabelled for comparison purposes, I listened to the next two, labelled News and Conversational. I found these very easy to tell as AI-generated. Thinking back to why I found the narrative example so compelling, I thought perhaps the issue is that the first example is in British English which I'm less used to than American English. I grew up in the United States. Perhaps since the accent doesn't match my own, it is harder for me to perceive it as generated. -> Can a native speaker of British English tell us whether listening to the first example you can tell in any way that it is a robot? Maybe it is as obvious to you as the next two are to me. Still, I've listened to a fair amount of British English in my life so perhaps there is an alternative explanation for why the first one was better. For example, it could have been trained on a reader's voice who has narrated thousands of hours in very high studio quality in a fairly consistent way, leaving this type of text much easier to synthesize than the other two examples due to more training data or higher-quality audio. For me, the first one is really indistinguishable from a narrator's true voice, though it does sound a bit tinny which could also happen as an artifact of the recording process. In terms of "how confident are you that this is a real person" the second two examples I would put at 0 - it's totally obvious that it is not a real person, whereas the first one sounds like a 10 to me: obviously a real narrator. (With a bit of artifacting that sounds like an mp3.) [1] The text is here https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/books/chapters/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-fellowship-of-the-ring.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/books/chapters/the-lord-o...
- majolo 4y ago
  I'm a native British English speaker and can confirm the first example is incredibly good. It would be very difficult/impossible for most people to tell that the voice is generated from that clip alone.
- iggykova 4y ago
  Hey! ElevenLabs here, confirming that all 3 samples (including the Narrative one) were AI-generated! We'll be opening up our platform later this month and would love for you test it yourself!
  - logicallee 4y ago
    congratulations!! I can't tell the first isn't human no matter how much I try. That is an amazing achievement.

xp84 4y ago

Maybe it's because I haven't heard the source material, but that Conversational voice really appeals to me. I wish my phone and assistants used that voice. (and also I can't wait for a "real" ChatGPT-era AI to go with it, to put those braindead jokes of an "assistant" Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant out to pasture)

tedd4u 4y ago

That's a pretty high bar. Even most Hollywood productions can't afford Meryl Streep, let alone a new site, podcast, or video game. From wikipedia: Mary Louise "Meryl" Streep [is] often described as "the best actress of her generation." Streep is particularly known for her versatility and accent adaptability. She has received numerous accolades throughout her career spanning over five decades, including a record 21 Academy Award nominations, winning three, and a record 32 Golden Globe Award nominations, winning eight. She has also received two British Academy Film Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and three Primetime Emmy Awards, in addition to nominations for a Tony Award and six Grammy Awards.

rkagerer 4y ago

Agreed, the intro and narrative ones are great. The news one is terrible.

logicallee 4y ago

Let's talk about this "Narrative" example. When I listened to it, my first impression was that it must be the real actor they included for comparison purposes but that they failed to label it correctly. I thought it is not machine-generated. I couldn't tell the slightest artifact except what sounded like a low-bitrate sound encoding (maybe using a codec geared toward speech). Can you tell anything "off" about it? As for the encoding artifact such as a tinny sound or low-bitrate sound, that is the type you hear on an MP3 or low bitrate codec for speech. For example, when I record a message on https://vocaroo.com/ https://vocaroo.com/ the "premier" voice recording service it sounds 10x worse. Here is a sample I just recorded of my own speech: https://voca.ro/18oSJ1sHU5w5 https://voca.ro/18oSJ1sHU5w5 After my first impression that the narrative example might be a real human mislabelled for comparison purposes, I listened to the next two, labelled News and Conversational. I found these very easy to tell as AI-generated. Thinking back to why I found the narrative example so compelling, I thought perhaps the issue is that the first example is in British English which I'm less used to than American English. I grew up in the United States. Perhaps since the accent doesn't match my own, it is harder for me to perceive it as generated. -> Can a native speaker of British English tell us whether listening to the first example you can tell in any way that it is a robot? Maybe it is as obvious to you as the next two are to me. Still, I've listened to a fair amount of British English in my life so perhaps there is an alternative explanation for why the first one was better. For example, it could have been trained on a reader's voice who has narrated thousands of hours in very high studio quality in a fairly consistent way, leaving this type of text much easier to synthesize than the other two examples due to more training data or higher-quality audio. For me, the first one is really indistinguishable from a narrator's true voice, though it does sound a bit tinny which could also happen as an artifact of the recording process. In terms of "how confident are you that this is a real person" the second two examples I would put at 0 - it's totally obvious that it is not a real person, whereas the first one sounds like a 10 to me: obviously a real narrator. (With a bit of artifacting that sounds like an mp3.) [1] The text is here https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/books/chapters/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-fellowship-of-the-ring.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/books/chapters/the-lord-o...

majolo 4y ago
I'm a native British English speaker and can confirm the first example is incredibly good. It would be very difficult/impossible for most people to tell that the voice is generated from that clip alone.
iggykova 4y ago
Hey! ElevenLabs here, confirming that all 3 samples (including the Narrative one) were AI-generated! We'll be opening up our platform later this month and would love for you test it yourself!
- logicallee 4y ago
  congratulations!! I can't tell the first isn't human no matter how much I try. That is an amazing achievement.