Hide table of contents

As of August 2023, Speechify is probably your best option.

I’ve made a 3 minute demo to show how it works (and sounds).

Listening to PDFs

For PDFs, the key strengths of Speechify are:

  1. Multi-modal UI: listening to academic papers is nice, but often you really need to use your eyes—to read a graph, grok a formula, or skip to the interesting parts. Speechify's interface makes it easy to switch between listening and reading, whether on desktop, mobile phone or iPad. To skip to a particular sentence, just click on it.
  2. Solid mobile apps (iOS and Android): files are synchronised quickly, and it remembers your playback position across devices. You can read your PDFs, tap to skip to a given sentence, etc.
  3. Great voices: the best AI voices I've heard. The pronunciation of specialist terms is imperfect, but much better than any other service.
  4. Filtering: the app can filter out citations, URLs and parenthetical remarks.
  5. Speed: everything is fast; most of the UI is well-designed.
  6. OCR: you can listen to PDFs even when they are just scans of a physical book.

The main shortcomings are:

a. It sometimes narrates text it should obviously skip. There should be more skip options, e.g. skip all tables.

b. It can't really handle formulae.

c. You can't annotate PDFs in their app.

At TYPE III AUDIO, we’ve been thinking about building a “listen to PDF” feature that delivers a narration to your podcast app. We’re still considering this, but my current view is that a multi-modal UI is the ideal setup for proper engagement with academic PDFs, and that Speechify are well on course to nailing it.

Listening to a PDF with Speechify. See my 3 minute demo.

Listening to Google Docs

Option 1. Use the Speechify app (more features, less secure)

If you grant Speechify access to your Google Drive, then you can import Google Docs into their web app. They convert your doc into a PDF, and you get the same experience I described above.

The main problem is that you have to give Speechify access to all documents on your Google Drive. For some people, that will be an unacceptable security risk.  

Option 2. Use the browser extension (more secure, fewer features)

You can use the Speechify browser extension to listen to Google Docs directly on docs.google.com.

The listening experience is similar to PDFs, but:

  1. You can't filter out citations, URLs, etc.
  2. If you want to listen on mobile, you have to click the "Bookmark" icon. When you do this, all the formatting of the Google Doc is lost.

During installation the extension requests access to all your tabs. But, you can change this to “When you click the extension”. If you do that, then your browser will only give Speechify access to a particular document (or other URL) when you click the icon.

Note: Speechify may not be suitable for listening to extremely sensitive documents

Speechify sends the text of your document to their text-to-speech API. If you are dealing with extremely sensitive material, the security/convenience tradeoff may not be worth it. Ask your IT security team if you’re unsure.

Bonus: Listen to any web page

You can also use Speechify to listen to any web page.

Their browser extension is the best way to do this. If you want to listen on your mobile, click “Bookmark” to add the article to your library.

The Speechify app also has an “add via URL” function, but it’s weirdly bad at detecting the start of the article text. You’ll often have to skip through navigation elements and other useless stuff before you get to the start of the article. I imagine they'll fix this soon.

Have you tried Speechify?

If you’ve tried Speechify, I’d love to hear from you, especially if you’re listening to academic PDFs. Do you use it regularly? If not—why not? How could it be improved?

Comment below or write to peter@type3.audio.

Comments8


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

@peterhartree Feel free to ignore: Are there any updates in your workflow of listening to G Docs or PDFs? The post is now roughly 1 year ago.

- I have been using speechify for a year now. I think it's decent, but the UI and the frequent crashes are a bit annoying for me. So I just wanted to see if there are better products out there :)

I also like Speechify. One tip:

If you do the free 3-day trial, and then don't subscribe immediately afterward, they may send you a 50% discount code to encourage you to subscribe, reducing the cost from $139 —> $70/year. (At least, this worked for me a few months ago.)

The most frustrating part of Speechify for me is that: a) big documents sometimes cause the app on my phone to crash (which is maybe more of a problem with my phone) and b) like Peter says, it will read random superfluous text, which is more of a problem with academic papers/books. (For instance, I'm listening to a 400-page book right now, and at the end of each page it says "Copyright 2023 University of Chicago Press, All Rights Reserved," which got old around page 3.) 

On Microsoft Edge (the browser) there's a "read aloud" option that offers a range of natural voices for websites and PDFs. It's only slightly worse than speechify and free – and can give a glimpse of whether $139/year might be worth it for you.

So cool!!!! Thank you :)

Quick note/warning about speechify:

  • I've been using it for about 6 months. 
  • I've had several bugs using the app and customer support couldn't help. I spent a total of about 2 hours trying to fix them, but nothing worked.
  • The main problem was that I could not use it outside my home. Every 2 minutes or so it would detect "poor internet connection" and shut down. This is extremely annoying when you're trying to listen to a newspaper while walking. 
  • Hopefully they will fix this. I still use it, but only occasionally.

Experience regarding discount

  • I tried the 50 % discount, but they increased the original prize to 200 $, so I had to pay 100 $. I massaged the support and finally after several weeks they refunded 30 $. So discount works but maybe you have to contact the support :)

In case anyone else was wondering about pricing: most of the features described require the premium plan, which is $139 / year.

(There is a free version, but it only includes some low-quality voices and doesn't allow changing speed, so it's not very useful.)

Thanks for this, this is a topic I am very interested in -- to the the killer feature missing in Speechify is the ability to highlight and sync those highlights. Or more broadly, annotating in a multimodal way is difficult.

I instead use Goodreader, where you can have e.g. a Dropbox folder of all your PDFs synced across desktop and mobile; and you can annotate those PDFs while listening, then sync to Dropbox.

The downside of Goodreader is that the voice is pretty bad, and also that you can't reflow the text to make it easier to read on mobile while in audio mode.

PS: The Readwise Reader app seems to be working towards an excellent all-in-one reader with TTS capability, but the existing version I've found to be a little too slow / some other issues. But it's still in development and seems very promising.

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
LewisBollard
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
> Despite the setbacks, I'm hopeful about the technology's future ---------------------------------------- It wasn’t meant to go like this. Alternative protein startups that were once soaring are now struggling. Impact investors who were once everywhere are now absent. Banks that confidently predicted 31% annual growth (UBS) and a 2030 global market worth $88-263B (Credit Suisse) have quietly taken down their predictions. This sucks. For many founders and staff this wasn’t just a job, but a calling — an opportunity to work toward a world free of factory farming. For many investors, it wasn’t just an investment, but a bet on a better future. It’s easy to feel frustrated, disillusioned, and even hopeless. It’s also wrong. There’s still plenty of hope for alternative proteins — just on a longer timeline than the unrealistic ones that were once touted. Here are three trends I’m particularly excited about. Better products People are eating less plant-based meat for many reasons, but the simplest one may just be that they don’t like how they taste. “Taste/texture” was the top reason chosen by Brits for reducing their plant-based meat consumption in a recent survey by Bryant Research. US consumers most disliked the “consistency and texture” of plant-based foods in a survey of shoppers at retailer Kroger.  They’ve got a point. In 2018-21, every food giant, meat company, and two-person startup rushed new products to market with minimal product testing. Indeed, the meat companies’ plant-based offerings were bad enough to inspire conspiracy theories that this was a case of the car companies buying up the streetcars.  Consumers noticed. The Bryant Research survey found that two thirds of Brits agreed with the statement “some plant based meat products or brands taste much worse than others.” In a 2021 taste test, 100 consumers rated all five brands of plant-based nuggets as much worse than chicken-based nuggets on taste, texture, and “overall liking.” One silver lining
 ·  · 1m read
 ·