Sentioscope

Speech and voice controls, as each vendor documents them

Which entries name somebody else as the voice supplier

Most vendors describe a voice as though they had built it. Two name somebody else. One lists five speech providers behind its voice field; the other names an audio company as an integration still to come. As of 2026-09-12.

Five suppliers behind one field on a requestA voice id passed on a talk belongs to one of five named speech providers, each with its own catalogue, licence terms, language codes and deprecation schedule. None of that reaches the reference.What the documentation showsOne field on the requestA voice id, with an optional language beside it.Five named providersMicrosoft, ElevenLabs, Amazon, Google and Azure OpenAI.Five sets of termsSeparate catalogues, language codes and deprecation schedules.Your own notesThe only place the provider is recorded against the character.What a production has to track itself
Fig. 1 A voice withdrawn upstream takes a character with it, and the returned file does not record which service spoke.
Where a vendor names an outside company as the source of speech. Recorded 2026-09-12.
ModelWhat is documentedDetail
D-IDMicrosoft, ElevenLabs, Amazon, Google and Azure OpenAIFive providers for the voice
Luma RayAn audio house named in a planEffects, music and a voice model

Inclusion rule. Entries whose documentation names an outside company in connection with speech, whether as a current supplier or a stated plan. A vendor describing its own catalogue does not earn a row. Order. Alphabetical by model name.

1Naming a supplier is more candid than it looks

A vendor that names its speech providers has told a reader where to find the answers it does not publish: those companies list their own voices, languages and licence terms. Delegation with attribution is better documentation than a vague catalogue.

It also makes the commercial position legible. A voice belonging to another company usually carries that company's terms, so a season of dialogue is a commitment to a supply chain rather than to one product.

2A supply chain is a set of dependencies nobody logged

Five providers means five deprecation schedules, five sets of language codes and five ways a voice can quietly stop existing. None of that reaches a production through the page that describes passing a voice id.

The cheap defence is recording the provider alongside the id in a production's own notes. The returned file does not say which service spoke, and a year later that is the one thing needed to reproduce a character.

3A named plan is weaker than a named supplier and worth logging anyway

Announcing an intention to integrate an audio company is not a control: it cannot be called, carries no limits and has no date. Logged as a capability it would mislead; ignored it would hide the only sentence that vendor has published on the subject.

For a production choosing a platform for one quarter it is worth nothing. For one choosing for two years it is worth reading, with the usual understanding that plans move.

  • Voice source
    Five speech providers are named for the voice: Microsoft, ElevenLabs, Amazon, Google and Azure OpenAIoutside catalogues named on the pageD-ID, create a talk reference / recorded 2026-09-22
  • Per-character binding
    The voice is a voice id selected from the list of available voices, with an optional language field beside ita voice id on every requestD-ID, create a talk reference / recorded 2026-09-22
  • Sound
    Plans do integrate the following audio models into the Luma generative ecosystem: ElevenLabs SFX, Music and v3named as an integration to comeLuma, information for AI assistants / recorded 2026-09-22

4Sources

Every line is read from the vendor documentation linked on the speech controls page, checked 2026-09-12. What counts as documented is on how read. Nearby: The column always filled, Speech without the bed, Regenerating a shot.