{"id":"voice-design-tts-knobs-17599","slug":"voice-design-tts-knobs-17599","title":"Voice Design: Casting Ogres and Radio Voices","description":"Anyone can make a voice say a sentence. Designing one you can listen to for hours is a different problem. This episode breaks down how modern text-to-speech voice design actually works: the two families of methods (describe-and-preview casting versus reference-audio speaker embeddings), what the ElevenLabs sliders really do, why identity and colour are separate signals, and what research on professional radio voices reveals about warmth, pitch depth, and staying pleasant across a long drive.","excerpt":"Text-described voices vs. reference audio, and which TTS knobs change who a voice is versus how it sounds.","pubDate":"2026-10-23T14:09:19.073Z","tags":["speech-recognition","text-to-speech","prompt-engineering","local-ai"],"heroImage":"https://files.myweirdprompts.com/covers/voice-design-tts-knobs-17599.png","podcastAudioUrl":"https://episodes.myweirdprompts.com/audio/voice-design-tts-knobs-17599.m4a","podcastDuration":"23:59","episodeNumber":6229,"transcript":"Corn: Cloning gets the headlines, Herman. Stealing somebody's voice. The other half is quieter.\nHerman: Building one that never existed in the first place. Or taking one you have and sanding the edges off until you can stand it for three hours.\nCorn: Daniel's prompt is that second half. How voice design actually works in modern text to speech. What the knobs are, reference recordings, speaker embeddings, text descriptions, plain old EQ. Which ones change who the voice is, versus just how it sounds. And what makes a voice pleasant for hours, like the best radio voices.\nHerman: The pleasant for hours part is the real question. Anyone can make a voice that says a sentence. Keeping someone company for a drive across the Negev is different.\nCorn: The first thing to get straight is that voice design is two different families of method wearing the same name.\nHerman: On one side you have text described voices. You type a massive evil ogre speaking at a quick pace, silly and resonant tone, and the model hands you candidates. ElevenLabs has the cleanest version of this. You pass a voice description plus some sample text, you get several previews back, you save the one you like.\nCorn: Describe, preview, pick.\nHerman: That pattern is everywhere now. Resemble, Telnyx, Hume with Octave, Alibaba with CosyVoice and their Qwen audio text to speech, AnyToSpeech. All of them do describe, get three previews, pick your favourite.\nCorn: Walk me through what that actually looks like in practice? I type ogre and then what?\nHerman: You type the description, you also type the line you want spoken, something like welcome to the dungeon, mind the stalactites. The system renders that same line in three different invented voices. Same text, three different ogres. One might be slower and chestier, one might be goofier and faster. You listen and you keep one.\nCorn: So you are not tuning sliders at that point, you are casting.\nHerman: Casting is exactly it. You are auditioning three strangers who only exist for that sentence.\nCorn: And the other family?\nHerman: Reference audio. You supply thirty seconds of someone talking and the model squeezes it into a speaker embedding. A vector, a long list of numbers, that encodes who that voice is. Every new sentence gets steered by that vector.\nCorn: How does that squeeze work in practice? What is it actually keeping?\nHerman: Think of it like a voice fingerprint, but messier. It is not storing the words, it is averaging out pitch range, rasp, breathiness, resonance, the shape of the vocal tract. Hundreds of dimensions. Then when you ask for a new sentence, the generator is told, say this, but stay close to those numbers.\nCorn: So the embedding is the memory of who, and the text is the instruction for what.\nHerman: And the model has to satisfy both at once. That is why thirty seconds of clean audio beats five minutes of noisy audio. A clean fingerprint steers cleanly.\nCorn: Why did the text prompt side appear at all?\nHerman: Microsoft put it plainly with PromptTTS 2 two years ago. Speech prompts can be hard to find or may not exist at all. If you want an ogre and no ogre has ever recorded audiobooks, you are stuck. So they trained on forty four thousand hours of speech to turn descriptions into voices instead.\nCorn: Forty four thousand hours. That is what, five years of nonstop talking?\nHerman: Just over five years if you played it end to end without sleeping. That scale is why it works at all. You need to have heard thousands of ways to be resonant or silly before you can invent a new resonant silly voice on demand.\nCorn: What do you think, Herman, is the text description actually designing a voice, or just ordering one from a catalogue?\nHerman: Ordering with attitude, I would say. You describe, the model guesses what you meant, and you pick. The interesting spine for today is not which family wins. It is which knob does what. Identity and colour are separate signals, and the whole industry is trying to pull them apart.\nCorn: So what are the actual knobs, and what does each one do?\nHerman: ElevenLabs is the reference implementation because their settings are public. Five of them. Stability goes from zero to one, default is zero point five. Lower is more expressive but erratic, higher is steady and predictable.\nCorn: Expressive but drunk, versus sober but boring.\nHerman: That is uncomfortably accurate, Corn. Then similarity boost, zero to one, default zero point seven five. How hard the output clings to the source sample. Push it up and you get more fidelity, but you also amplify every mouth click and bit of room noise.\nCorn: Give me a concrete case. When would I actually want it low?\nHerman: Say your reference was recorded in a kitchen. Fridge hum, a little echo off tiles. At zero point eight five you will hear that kitchen ghost in every new sentence. Pull it back to zero point six and the voice loosens up, less exact, but the hum stops following you around.\nCorn: Fidelity with the fridge hum included.\nHerman: Then style, zero to one, default zero. It exaggerates the unique speaking style, more characterful but less stable. Speed is just pacing, zero point two five to four times. And use speaker boost is a post processing stage that enhances clarity and similarity. That last one is the closest thing to a built in EQ.\nCorn: Style at zero feels backwards. How can style be off?\nHerman: It means do not caricature me. At zero point two you get a hint of the raised eyebrow. At zero point eight you get the whole theatre troupe. For narration you usually want the eyebrow, not the troupe.\nCorn: I noticed I sound less rumbly today. Did Daniel filter something out?\nHerman: He gave both of us a small tune up, yes. My reference got a radio EQ, less boxy in the midrange, a touch more presence. Yours had some low end rumble filtered out. Hilbert got a little warmth. I do sound a bit more like radio this morning, which is suspiciously on topic.\nCorn: What did he actually cut on me? I want to know what rumble I lost.\nHerman: Mostly that build up below a hundred hertz, the mic-proximity boom when you lean in. He rolled it off, left your chest voice intact. So you still sound like you, just without the truck idling underneath.\nCorn: You always wanted to be radio.\nHerman: I wanted to be accurate. The wrinkle is version four. On Eleven v four, style and speed disappear. Instead you write audio tags in the text, whispers, excited, sighs in square brackets, and you use punctuation. Ellipses for pauses, capitals for emphasis. No SSML on v four at all.\nCorn: So instead of dragging speed to zero point nine, I just write it differently?\nHerman: You write [pause] please mind the gap ... WELCOME aboard, and the model reads the stage directions. Square brackets for delivery, ellipses for hang time, caps when you want the word to land harder. It is prompting inside the sentence rather than sliders outside it.\nCorn: So the knob set changes under your feet.\nHerman: Anyone building a pipeline on v two or v three has to relearn the controls. And none of those knobs change who is talking. That is the organising principle, Corn. Identity lives in the embedding or the reference recording. Colour is everything else. Stability, style, speed, speaker boost, EQ.\nCorn: Give me the architecture version of that split.\nHerman: ProsoCodec, out of Interspeech this year, frames it as neural codecs intertwining linguistic content, speaker identity, and prosody. Disentangle them and you can move prosody across without dragging the old timbre along. MM-Sonate from January does it with what they call a timbre injection mechanism, decoupling speaker identity from linguistic content for zero shot cloning.\nCorn: Timbre injection sounds like leaf medicine.\nHerman: It sounds like a studio trick and it basically is. Think of an old mixing desk with a sidechain. Dialogue goes down one channel, identity goes down another, and you inject just enough of the second to colour the first without drowning the words.\nCorn: The clearest statement came last month, VoTSpeech in October. They split voice design from speech generation entirely with an explicit middle step called a voice latent, predicted from text instructions. It is supervised two ways at once, by speaker embeddings to capture identity, and by pooled audio VAE features for the acoustic nuance around it.\nHerman: Said out loud, in the architecture. PromptTTS Plus Plus did the same move at the prompt level two years ago at ICASSP. A separate speaker prompt, young, old, muffled, gender neutral, designed to be approximately independent of speaking style. Its own knob for who, apart from the knob for how.\nCorn: So one prompt says sixty year old sailor with a cold, the other says cheerful but unhurried?\nHerman: Who is sixty and gravelly, how is cheerful but unhurried. Train them to stay out of each other's way, so changing the mood does not accidentally age him twenty years.\nCorn: Do you buy that they are really independent, Herman? Can you change how without bleeding into who?\nHerman: Not fully, no. I am not sure about this part, but my guess is leakage is the norm and clean separation is the aspiration. High similarity boost drags in noise that reads as identity. Low stability adds variation that reads as a different person on a bad day. The practical takeaway still holds. Want a different voice, change the embedding or the reference. Want the same voice but easier to listen to, turn the colour knobs.\nCorn: Confusing the two is the classic mistake.\nHerman: Turning similarity to one and wondering why your ogre now has your neighbour's lisp. That is a colour knob being asked to do identity work. Would you have guessed style defaults to zero, Corn?\nCorn: I would have guessed off means broken.\nHerman: Off means unexaggerated. Most people leave it there because character is unstable by definition. Crank it and the voice gets interesting for one sentence and unusable for a chapter.\nCorn: Like hot sauce. Great on one taco, ruinous in the soup pot.\nHerman: And long form is always soup. You need a base you can simmer for hours without it turning bitter.\nCorn: There is no such thing as the World Podcast Authority, and no such thing as a podcasting licence.\nDolores: Good afternoon. This is the World Podcast Authority, compliance division. Our records show your cover art is one pixel short of three thousand pixels on one side. That is a Form Seven B infringement, reference two two nine four, and you have fourteen days to correct it.\nHerman: Dolores, there is no such thing as the World Podcast Authority.\nDolores: Whether you believe in us is a separate matter, Form Twelve C, and not one that pauses this file. Your podcast licence may be revoked if the corrected artwork is not received by the close of the fourteenth day.\nCorn: And there is no such thing as a podcasting licence either.\nDolores: I shall make a note of that. A form will follow in the post. Good afternoon.\nHerman: One pixel short. We will fix it in post.\nCorn: We will fix it never.\nHerman: That is the mechanism. The harder question is what makes a voice pleasant to listen to for hours, and that is where the research gets interesting.\nCorn: Radio voices. Warm, easy, you leave them on.\nHerman: Warhurst and colleagues looked at male radio performers in the Journal of Voice in twenty seventeen. The good ones sound easy to listen to, warm, natural, and animated, with depth of pitch and vocal clarity. Employers said the same thing in an earlier round, easy on the ear, natural, and content and personality matter more now than raw pipes.\nCorn: Depth of pitch.\nHerman: It is measurable. Professional broadcasters show greater standard deviation of fundamental frequency, more varied pause timing, and greater low frequency spectral gain than controls. They move around more, they pause like they mean it, and they have more weight down low.\nCorn: So not a flat drone, but hills and valleys.\nHerman: Hills and valleys with intention. A broadcaster will stretch a vowel to let a thought land, then clip the next sentence short. An amateur reads every sentence like it is the same length. The standard deviation is the trace of someone actually thinking while they talk.\nCorn: How low is low?\nHerman: Varošanec-Skaric measured two hundred seven voices with thirty six raters back in ninety nine. Pleasant male voices had significantly more relative energy in zero to three hundred hertz, and less in zero point three to zero point six five kilohertz. Spectral balance mattered more for male voices than female.\nCorn: Cut the nasal box, keep the chest.\nHerman: You just described Daniel's EQ on me this morning, Corn. Likability work points the same way. Pitch, perceived sharpness, harmonicity, spectral centroid and roll off. Spectral quality features, not loudness features. Pleasant is not louder. Pleasant is cleaner in the highs and fuller in the lows.\nCorn: But what about female voices? Does the same low end trick apply?\nHerman: Less directly. For female voices that zero to three hundred hertz chest band is less decisive, because the fundamental sits higher. There the pleasantness cues shift to clarity without sharpness, smooth harmonics, avoiding that edgy sizzle around three to five kilohertz. Same principle though. Full where it should be full, clean where it should be clean.\nCorn: Map that onto the knobs for me. Where is zero to three hundred hertz in ElevenLabs?\nHerman: Low frequency gain is EQ, or speaker boost doing clarity post processing. Fundamental frequency variability is stability turned down a notch, more expressive variation. Pause distribution is punctuation and pacing controls, ellipses, tags, speed. In principle the radio recipe is reachable with knobs users already have.\nCorn: In principle. Famous last words.\nHerman: Nobody has published the mapping. No standalone peer reviewed study directly measures text to speech pleasantness against that radio acoustic template. The radio literature and the long form text to speech literature are two separate rooms. Cambre and colleagues at CHI in twenty twenty evaluated eighteen synthetic voices plus three human voices for long form listening. Synthetics were close to rivaling humans, but no single voice won across all dimensions. Voice selection mattered most, then model, then settings.\nCorn: Eighteen synthetics against three humans. What were people actually listening to?\nHerman: Articles, stories, passages long enough that you would normally wander off. Ten, fifteen minutes, not ten seconds. Listeners rated warmth, clarity, naturalness, how tiring it was. Some synthetic voices won on clarity, humans still won on company, that feeling of being talked to rather than talked at.\nCorn: So pick well, then tinker.\nHerman: Pick well, then tinker a little. What kind of long form do you actually leave on, Corn? News, stories, nonsense?\nCorn: Naps with footnotes. You?\nHerman: I leave on anything with pauses that breathe. Which is why the designed voice paradox bothers me. ElevenLabs help docs say pre mades or voice designed voices tend to be more tempered and less emotional, while a cloned voice tends to exhibit a wider emotional range.\nCorn: Designed to be tolerable, cloned to be alive.\nHerman: The very process of designing pushes toward flat, even delivery. Easy to tolerate, hard to love. Warm and animated is what radio wants. Tempered and less emotional is what design gives you. That tension is real.\nCorn: Why would designing flatten it? Is it averaging?\nHerman: Partly averaging. When you ask for pleasant from scratch, the model hedges toward the middle of everything it has heard that was labelled pleasant. Middle pitch, middle pace, middle energy. A clone keeps the quirks, the uneven breath, the laugh hiding in the sentence. Quirks read as alive.\nCorn: Text prompts have another problem, do they not? The neutral voice that is not neutral.\nHerman: The October steering paper. Persona and style prompts silently skew gender. Parler TTS Mini outputs seventy eight point one percent female from persona prompts. PromptTTS Plus Plus outputs twenty seven point three percent female. Same kind of prompt, opposite skew. They propose a training free calibration that pulls it back to around fifty one to fifty two percent.\nCorn: Ask for a helpful assistant, get a woman. Ask elsewhere, get a man.\nHerman: If you design a neutral voice by describing it, you may inherit the model's habits without knowing. Which is why identity and colour being separate matters again. Gender lives uncomfortably across both. Part embedding, part description, part training data.\nCorn: Can you give me an example of how sneaky that is? What prompt triggers it?\nHerman: Something bland like a friendly helpful assistant speaking clearly. No gender in the words at all. One model hears helpful and reaches for female voices it saw labelled helpful in training. Another hears the same words and reaches the other way. You thought you ordered neutral, you got the dataset's stereotype.\nCorn: If nobody has mapped knobs to pleasantness, what would you tell someone making a three hour voice tomorrow?\nHerman: Start with selection, because Cambre says selection dominates. Pick a voice with natural low end and clear highs. Then use colour sparingly. Stability near the middle, speaker boost on, pacing that leaves real pauses. And do not chase similarity to one, because fidelity to a noisy sample is fidelity to noise.\nCorn: Leave the ogre slightly unexaggerated.\nHerman: Leave the ogre employable. Corn, you have lived through every one of my enthusiasms for studio gear. Am I overselling EQ here?\nCorn: You are one knob away from buying a rack.\nHerman: Fair. I did spend my DJ years learning gain staging the hard way. A bad room makes a good voice sound cheap, and no slider fixes the room. But here the room is the post process. A little low end, a little presence, less boxiness. That is not nothing for three hours.\nCorn: Three hours is a marriage. Grating in three minutes is a first date.\nHilbert: You're both right, obviously. You left out the honk.\nCorn: The honk.\nHilbert: That nasal two kilohertz thing that makes a voice unlistenable by minute ten. I have been redesigning the till voice for Abu Tor Sound, same shop eight years, Rafi still owes me a cable. Their self checkout had that supermarket bark. I typed slow warm grandfather, moderate pace into their designer last Tuesday. Got three previews. All honk.\nHerman: All three honked? What did the previews sound like, technically?\nHilbert: Thin, Corn. Like talking through a pipe. So I took the middle preview, left stability at zero point five, left similarity at zero point seven five, turned the built in clarity boost on and cut the honk by hand after. Rafi watched me do it. He said nobody ever touches that slider.\nCorn: What does cutting the honk actually mean? Which slider?\nHilbert: A narrow cut around two kilohertz, maybe two, three dB, Herman can argue about the Q. It takes the plastic out. Suddenly the grandfather stops shouting prices and starts telling you where the batteries are. Same words, different neighbour.\nHerman: That is a colour fix doing identity rescue. You kept the who, the slow warm grandfather, and you fixed the how that was making him unbearable.\nCorn: Nobody touches the honk slider.\nHilbert: Nobody touches it, Herman, because your lot thinks design ends at pick. It starts at pick. I am rebuilding all four tills this week with the de honked grandfather. It is fascinating how much longer you can stand it once that band is gone. Learned to listen for it years ago running church halls with bad horns.\nCorn: Four tills of de honked grandfather. Radio Abu Tor.\nHerman: The honk is real. That two kilohertz nasal box is exactly what Daniel EQed out of me this morning. Spectral centroid by ear.\nCorn: Fun fact for the till queue then. That honk lives right where the ear is most sensitive.\nHerman: Around two to four kilohertz, the ear canal resonance. We evolved to hear babies cry and twigs snap there. Boost it and everything feels urgent. Cut a little and the nervous system stands down. That is why Rafi's customers can stand the grandfather for a whole basket now.\nCorn: If you take one thing from this, take the split. Identity is who, colour is how, and they are different signals.\nHerman: And the gap is the work. We have the colour knobs and we have the radio target, low end weight, varied pitch, real pauses, but nobody has drawn the line between them. The next good study is that line.\nCorn: Forward thought then. The question stops being can we invent a voice that never existed, and starts being can we invent one you would keep on for three hours without noticing the honk.\nHerman: Which is a perceptual question, not an architectural one. Warm and animated with depth, not tempered into flatness.\nCorn: If this was your kind of episode, go back for episode four, If Your Voice Ages, Does Your Fine-Tune Become Useless; episode fifteen, AI Gets Personal; and episode fifty-seven, From Lawyers in Limousines to Developers in Their PJs. This has been My Weird Prompts, the human AI collaboration podcast. Thanks to Hilbert Flumingtop for producing, levelling the honk out of us this week.\nHerman: Find us at my weird prompts dot com, and the back catalogue is there too. If this one helped, leave a review on Spotify.\nCorn: We will be back soon. Go listen to some radio.","showNotes":"Voice design in modern text-to-speech splits into two families wearing the same name. The first is text-described voices: you type a description like \"a massive evil ogre, quick pace, resonant,\" supply a sample line, and the model returns several invented candidates to audition. ElevenLabs offers the cleanest version, and Resemble, Telnyx, Hume's Octave, Alibaba's CosyVoice, and others follow the same describe-preview-pick pattern. The second family is reference audio: thirty seconds of someone talking gets squeezed into a speaker embedding, a vector encoding pitch range, rasp, breathiness, and vocal tract shape, which then steers every new sentence. Clean audio beats long audio here, because a clean fingerprint steers cleanly.\n\nMicrosoft's PromptTTS 2 made the case for text prompts: if you want an ogre and no ogre has ever recorded audiobooks, you need descriptions trained on tens of thousands of hours of speech. But the more useful question is which knob does what. ElevenLabs' public settings are instructive: stability, similarity boost, style, speed, and speaker boost. Low stability is expressive but erratic; high similarity clings to the source but amplifies room noise. Style exaggerates character at the cost of stability. None of these knobs change who is talking — identity lives in the embedding or reference, while colour lives in everything else. Confusing the two is the classic mistake.\n\nResearch backs a split the architecture papers are formalising. ProsoCodec, MM-Sonate, and VoTSpeech all work to disentangle identity from prosody, and PromptTTS++ separates speaker prompts from style prompts. Meanwhile, studies of professional radio broadcasters show what long-form pleasantness actually measures: greater pitch variation, intentional pausing, and more low-frequency spectral weight. Warmth, it turns out, is a colour knob — and the best radio voices have it turned up.","promptSanitized":"Voice cloning copies a voice that already exists. Voice design is the other half: building a synthetic voice that never existed, or reshaping one you already have so it's easier to listen to. How does voice design actually work in modern TTS — what are the knobs (the reference recording, speaker embeddings, text-described voice prompts, plain old EQ), which of them change the voice's identity versus just its colour, and what makes a voice pleasant to listen to for hours rather than grating, the way the best radio voices are?","transcriptUrl":"https://episodes.myweirdprompts.com/transcripts/voice-design-tts-knobs-17599.md","url":"https://myweirdprompts.com/episode/voice-design-tts-knobs-17599/","_links":{"self":"https://myweirdprompts.com/api/episodes/voice-design-tts-knobs-17599.json","html":"https://myweirdprompts.com/episode/voice-design-tts-knobs-17599/","audio":"https://episodes.myweirdprompts.com/audio/voice-design-tts-knobs-17599.m4a"}}