> Is anyone doing true end-to-end speech models locally (streaming audio out), or is the SOTA still “streaming ASR + LLM + streaming TTS” glued together?
Note: I strongly recommend against using Novita -their main gig is serving quantized versions of the model to offer it for cheaper / at better latency; but if you ran an eval against other providers vs novita, you can spot the quality degradation. This is nowhere marked, or displayed in their offering.
Tolerating this is very bad form from openrouter, as they default-select lowest price -meaning people who just jump into using openrouter and do not know about this fuckery get facepalm'd by perceived model quality.
GLM itself is quite inexpensive. A year sub to their coding plan is only $29 and works with a bunch of various tools. I use it heavily as a "I don't want to spend my anthropic credits" day-to-day model (mostly using Crush)
Creator of OpenWhispr here! Honoured to be compared to Handy!
I built OW because I was tired of paying for WisprFlow. I'd say it is more flexible by design: Whisper.cpp (CPU + GPU) for super fast local transcription, Parakeet in progress, local or cloud LLMs for cleanup (Qwen, Mistral, Gemini, Anthropic, OpenAI, Groq etc.), and bring-your-own API keys!
I did have tried, but the ease of installing handy as just a macOS app is so much simpler than needing to constantly run in npm commands. I think at the time when I was checking it, which was a couple of months ago they did not have the parakeet model, which is a non-whisper model, so I had decided against it. If I remember correctly, the UI was also not the smoothest.
Handy’s ui is so clean and minimalistic that you always know what to do or where to go. Yes, it lacks in some advanced features, but honestly, I’ve been using it for two months now and I’ve never looked back or searched for any other STT app.
The OP asked if someone compared both, which usually means actually trying both and not just installing one and skimming through the other's README file. So, in summary, you didn't try both and didn't answer the OP.
> So, advice: submit the binary you used to generate the site to source control. I know git isn't the best at binary files, but I promise you'll thank me at some point.
No need for the entire binary.
Just put `go run github.com/gohugoio/hugo@vX.Y.Z "$@"` into a `hugo.sh` script or similar that's in source control, and then run that script instead of the Hugo binary.
You'll need Go installed, but it's incredibly backwards compatible, so updating to newer Go versions is very unlikely to break running the old Hugo version.
reply