What it doesn't offer is live transcription, if you need that. An hour recording could easily take even an experienced transcriber a day’s work to complete and cost at least ten times as much or more. In our tests, conducted in English, the results were markedly better than other transcription services, and it was even better than some locally installable apps with voice training performed.Īnd, it’s also cost-effective when you consider how much time it takes to manually transcribe a podcast or meeting. The accuracy isn’t entirely uniform, with some languages being better than others, but most users appear incredibly pleased with its performance. Yes, it sounds like something Bob Ross would place in his paintings, but it’s not that.Īccording to those that use it regularly, and supported by our testing, this is a dependable means to convert audio from one of 119 different languages into text. (Image credit: Happy Scribe) Final verdict Because if this won’t achieve what you want, then the only alternative is to pay the high price of manual transcription by native speakers.īut frankly, we’ve seen lower levels of accuracy from some humans. If you are looking for fast and affordable transcription, test Happy Scribe first. We expect good results from the precise and clean recordings created for audiobooks, but Happy Scribe coped very well with live outdoor orators that other systems can’t handle.Īs a classic example of this, we processed the MLK speech from the Lincoln memorial, not the best sound quality, but it transcribed it with only a handful of mistakes. We can’t confirm that other languages are processed as accurately, but it does a better job with English than any other transcription service that we’ve seen so far. Our examples are files that are USA and British accents, but it handled both exceptionally well. It smashed through our test files with almost perfect accuracy on some content, and the most modest number of issues even on the more challenging recordings. But thankfully, Happy Scribe isn’t one of those products. In reviewing some transcription tools, we’ve seen some abysmal attempts to process the best quality audio into text. Only ten languages are supported so far, but this could be a remarkably useful feature if you need subtitles in other tongues. In Beta at this time is an additional feature where it can take the transcription and convert it into another language. A complete sub-editor exists where you can alter the timecode and alter how the words format on the screen. The subtitle creation isn’t just and export in SRT format. Once the document is sufficiently accurate, you can share it with others, export it in a range of formats or convert it to subtitles. It’s a relatively painless exercise to review each of the suspect words, listen to the audio of that section and make any changes that are required. What we found fascinating is that we’ve seen other systems that did this, where words it didn’t highlight are wrong, but that is rarely the case here. The online editor is one of the better solutions we’ve seen for reviewing transcriptions, and by default, it highlights those words that the system isn’t 100% confident.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |