Turboscribe versus Rev - the two best and most generous transcription tools

I asked NotebookLM to do the heavy lifting of comparing three transcripts saved from Turboscribe (x1) and Rev (x2)

This is an edited version of how it replied to my question:

“I am interested in any differences between the three transcripts particularly regarding the use of interjections and the use of phrases like 'like', 'you know', 'um' etc”

Differences appear in the transcripts regarding interjections and phrases such as "like," "you know," and "um." The transcript generated by TurboScribe.ai, includes these kinds of interjections and phrases more frequently compared to the two transcripts generated by Rev.com

For example, the TurboScribe transcript includes the parts in bold that are missing from the Rev transcripts:

·         "[M] Right. It's like we're on the edge of this revolution, you know, and how we learn and practise speaking. Like it's a total paradigm shift"

·         "[M] Exactly. And they went step by step, you know, first analyse the speech, then identify errors"

·         "[M] Exactly. So you got to clean up the transcript a bit. And then that's when the fun starts. Use ChatGPT to actually like analyse your speech and give you feedback"

·         "[M] They encourage teachers to, like, play with it, change it, adapt it, you know, and even share their own versions with other teachers"

These examples show the more conversational style captured by TurboScribe, including interjections ("wow") and fillers ("like", "you know"). The two transcripts captured by Rev appear to have had some of these conversational elements removed or edited out, presenting a cleaner version of the dialogue.

On the other hand, below is a comparison of how Rev.com with the verbatim option selected and Turboscribe, which has no such option, handles transcribing. It is very revealing:

Rev.com:

Rev heard ‘boat’ and ‘things’ and as it had been asked to create a verbatim transcript it didn’t examine how likely this sequence of words was.

Turboscribe.ai:

Turboscribe, on the other hand, correctly interpreted the learner’s intention because ‘bought’ and ‘thinks’ are more likely in the context. But this desire to predict what is more likely led it to also correct ‘womans’ to ‘women’, ‘say’ to ‘said’ and ‘are’ to ‘was’ and to insert ‘can’ into the phrase ‘you can guess’

Both Turboscribe and Rev interpreted what I heard as ‘ask her’ as ‘asked her’, but I imagine that is because the /t/ is hard to produce and often omitted by native speakers. Why ‘that’ was omitted by Turboscribe in the phrase ‘said no’ must also be down to frequency. About 161,000,000 results without ‘that’ v. About 26,900,000 results with ‘that’ according to Bing. 

There are other important differences between free accounts using Turboscribe.ai and Rev.com:

The most important advantage of Turboscribe is that it can be used from the age of 13 with parents’ permission. The other factor to bear in mind is that Rev.com only works in English on a free account at the moment. The transcripts are automatically synchronised while listening on Rev.com, whereas with Turboscribe.ai the user needs to move the page up to follow them.

But the key reason for not being able to recommend Rev.com on a mobile device is that it is: 

No longer possible to edit or download transcripts using a mobile device

When using a PC, this is not a problem.

Support on Rev.com is excellent and I haven’t needed to contact support on Turboscribe.ai

Your students can get feedback every time they speak

 Voice Recorder

But which one? I’ve got two apps installed with the same name and nearly identical icons. I’ve now discovered that it was installed from the start as it, like my mobile, is from Samsung.

I wanted to record myself giving a talk at a conference and I know that with my free accounts at Turboscribe.ai and Rev.com the limit is 30 minutes, so I tried rehearsing my talk using this ‘Voice Recorder’. It recorded my rehearsal successfully and when asked produced a transcript of a kind, but with nothing like the accuracy of the two other apps mentioned above.

I uploaded the combined voice and text file to ChatGPT and said, “Can you make a better transcription?”

I then listened to the resulting version, which was much better, although it still included one or two points that were not exactly the same as what I had said. I asked ChatGPT to correct these mistakes.

I then made a screen recording on my Android phone of it being read aloud by ‘Vale’

The second things I did was to upload the same voice and text file to NotebookLM. It produced a very flattering account of what I had said rehearsing for my talk at the #APACELT25 conference. It was fairly accurate in its discussion of my ideas and added some additional ideas of its own. 

This is a summary it:

AI-Powered Speech Feedback for Language Learners

1 source

This presentation outlines a workshop using Turboscribe.ai for speech-to-text transcription and ChatGPT for language analysis to provide students with instant feedback on their spoken English. The process involves recording a story, transcribing it using Turboscribe, identifying and correcting errors, and then using a five-step ChatGPT prompt to generate improved transcripts at different language levels. A sample student recording and its analysis are demonstrated, showcasing how the tools enhance language learning. Finally, the presenter shares resources and methods for incorporating these technologies into language teaching.

It is about fifteen minutes long and I have downloaded the audio file and uploaded it to Turboscribe.ai as it transcribes all the 'like' and 'you know' fillers. 

Here is the whole podcast with a transcript on Turboscribe.ai :

I had planned to record myself giving the talk live at APAC 2025, but for one reason or another I simply forgot to clip on the wireless microphone connected to my mobile. I’ll be giving an improved version of this talk at TESOL Spain in Burgos and, I hope improved again, at IATEFL in Edinburgh. Maybe I’ll get around to recording it live!