Organizations: Iconic, United Kingdom · Technische Universität München, Germany · KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden · Imperial College London, United Kingdom
Abstract
Text-to-speech (TTS) evaluation is an open challenge. While the primary target was "naturalness," recent fidelity gains shifted focus toward "appropriateness" and whether speech is correct for its context. In this work, we examine how perception changes when the expected downstream use varies. We measure the appropriateness and human-likeness of five SOTA TTS systems across five domains: AI assistant, reader, actor, animated character, and spontaneous speaker. Results show appropriateness varies across domains independently of naturalness. While systems shine at reading, expressive domains remain challenging, and optimizing for one can degrade others. Furthermore, naturalness scores tend to penalize stylized speech while rewarding spontaneity. Finally, our study also highlights blind spots in one-size-fits-all evaluation metrics across more expressive domains. We demonstrate that TTS performance is not "solved" but depends on the target domain, requiring context-aware evaluation.
Automated Text-to-Speech (TTS) evaluation methods (Mean Opinion Score (MOS) predictors and Audio Large Language Models (Audio-LLM) judges) are expected to reflect human perception, yet it is unclear how well they capture the distinct aspects of speech that listeners actually perceive. We deconstruct "naturalness" into a linguistically grounded annotation schema spanning 10 distinct perceptual dimensions, and use it to construct the first dimension-level meta-evaluation benchmark for TTS, comprising 860 utterances annotated by trained linguist raters. Results from benchmarking four MOS predictors and four Audio-LLM judges reveal that MOS predictors collapse onto acoustic signal quality, while Audio-LLM judges show selective, prompt-dependent detection that does not generalise across all dimensions. Neither class reliably captures a breadth of linguistically structured speech errors. Our dataset, annotation schema, and evaluation code are publicly released to support more targeted and interpretable TTS evaluation.
Recent advances in neural text-to-speech (TTS) systems have substantially improved speech naturalness and intelligibility across many languages. However, comprehensive evaluation methodologies that jointly assess perceptual quality, speaker similarity, and acoustic fidelity across diverse speech domains remain limited, particularly for low-resource and underrepresented languages. This paper presents a reproducible, multi-metric benchmarking framework for systematic evaluation of modern TTS systems through domain-specific analysis. The proposed framework integrates complementary subjective and objective evaluation protocols and is demonstrated through a comprehensive case study on a representative low-resource language spanning four speech domains: Formal, Conversational, Literary/Storytelling, and Emotional. Four state-of-the-art TTS systems -- Indic-Parler-TTS, MMS-TTS, Microsoft Edge TTS, and Google Gemini TTS -- are evaluated using MUSHRA listening tests, ABX discrimination tests, speaker similarity scoring with Resemblyzer, and acoustic analyses based on mel-cepstral distortion (MCD) and F0 RMSE over 960 audio pairs. Results reveal substantial variation in TTS performance across speech domains, with emotional speech consistently presenting the greatest synthesis challenge (mean MCD 12.03 dB; mean F0 RMSE 889 cents), while conversational speech achieves the highest overall acoustic fidelity. Beyond the empirical findings, this work provides a reproducible evaluation framework, publicly releasing evaluation scripts, result tables, and executable Colab notebooks to support standardized benchmarking and future research on TTS evaluation for low-resource languages.
Current Large Language Models (LLMs) are primarily optimized for written text, often producing outputs that are grammatically correct and helpful yet poorly suited for spoken delivery via Text-to-Speech (TTS). In this work, we study how to make LLMs natively generate TTS-friendly text, which we frame as a preference alignment problem: instead of relying on downstream rewriting modules, we directly align LLMs to generate text optimized for spoken delivery. We introduce two preference datasets spanning different target domains, CORA and Recipe, which contain paired TTS-friendly and TTS-unfriendly responses. We further propose an evaluation suite combining a pattern-based heuristic metric, a TTS→ASR evaluation pipeline, and a MUSHRA listening study with human judges. Our experiments compare the recently proposed Feature-aware Sampling and Tuning (FaST) framework -- leveraging interpretable features instead of a black-box reward model -- against an array of alignment baselines on the TTS-friendly generation task. Notably, we found that FaST achieves the best overall tradeoff between TTS-friendliness and helpfulness across various settings. We also identified a strong correlation between our different metrics, highlighting the ability to reliably assess TTS-friendliness via an efficient heuristic.