You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I do see a significant reduction in latency—I see 200-300ms vs 1-1.75sec. I tripled checked that the TTFB is in the right place and empirically, the TTS is noticeably faster.
This is a breaking change though, as it requires an aiohttp_session now. There's no good way around that requirement though. We'd have to introduce a new DeepgramHttpTTSService class and deprecate this class. That is possible, but that's even more disruptive than having to add the additional arg.
If we want to move forward with this, ideally, we would make these changes in the original PR. I've notified the author. But, we should decide about the breaking change here.
This is a breaking change though, as it requires an aiohttp_session now. There's no good way around that requirement though. We'd have to introduce a new DeepgramHttpTTSService class and deprecate this class. That is possible, but that's even more disruptive than having to add the additional arg.
I think keeping the current class and adding DeepgramHttpTTSService feels better, it's what we have in other cases. If you want the fast version, just use the HTTP version, at least for now. I'm sure this will change in the future and then people can go back and use DeepgramTTSService.
I think keeping the current class and adding DeepgramHttpTTSService feels better, it's what we have in other cases. If you want the fast version, just use the HTTP version, at least for now. I'm sure this will change in the future and then people can go back and use DeepgramTTSService.
@aconchillo that makes sense. I've made this update. This is cleaner.
markbackman
changed the title
Refactor DeepgramTTSService to use HTTP directly
Add DeepgramHttpTTSService
Oct 31, 2025
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
markbackman
force-pushed
the
mb/deepgram-http
branch
from
Please describe the changes in your PR. If it is addressing an issue, please reference that as well.
This is a refactored version of #2711.
I do see a significant reduction in latency—I see 200-300ms vs 1-1.75sec. I tripled checked that the TTFB is in the right place and empirically, the TTS is noticeably faster.
This is a breaking change though, as it requires an
aiohttp_sessionnow. There's no good way around that requirement though. We'd have to introduce a newDeepgramHttpTTSServiceclass and deprecate this class. That is possible, but that's even more disruptive than having to add the additional arg.If we want to move forward with this, ideally, we would make these changes in the original PR. I've notified the author. But, we should decide about the breaking change here.