u/powleads

I build SignalEngine. On the side I made a free tool called PipeVoice: push-to-talk voice typing for Windows. Hold a key, talk, let go, and the words type where your cursor is. Terminal, browser, chat box, anywhere you type.

I'm posting here because the cleanup pass can run on a local Ollama model. After it transcribes, an optional polish step strips filler and fixes punctuation. You point that step at whatever model you've already pulled in Ollama instead of an API.

Pair it with the Local Whisper engine for transcription and the whole loop stays on the machine. No audio leaves your PC. No text either. Pull the network cable and it still works.

There's also a "Voices" feature that reformats one spoken sentence per target: flat for the terminal, tidier for Slack, fuller for Outlook. My actual day is dictating prompts to Claude Code and Cursor in the terminal instead of typing them.

Free, MIT, no account, no telemetry. I'm the maker. Tell me what you'd change, and which Ollama model you'd wire in for the cleanup step.

I built this because I stopped typing into the terminal when talking to Claude Code and Cursor. Now I hold a key, talk, let go, and the words type where my cursor is. Terminal, browser, chat box, anywhere you type.

It tidies the text for things like Slack but keeps it flat for the terminal. An optional cleanup pass strips filler and fixes punctuation.

Stack: pick your transcription engine (Gemini free by default, Groq Whisper, Deepgram live streaming, or Local Whisper offline). Cleanup runs on Gemini, OpenAI, OpenRouter, or a local Ollama model. Bring your own key.

Run Local Whisper plus Ollama and it goes fully offline. No audio and no text leaves your PC. Pull the network cable and it still works.

Free forever, MIT, no account, no telemetry. Windows 10/11 only.

I'm the maker. Tell me what you'd change, especially if it breaks on your setup.

I'm the maker, so I'll be upfront: I built this for my own typing load, not from lived disability experience. I'm a developer who talks to coding tools all day, and I got tired of typing. It's hands-free, any-app dictation. I think it might be useful for voice-first workflows, so I'd rather hear honestly from this community where it falls short than guess.

What it does: hold a key, talk, let go, and it types where your cursor is. Not into a separate window you copy out of. Straight into whatever you're already in: a terminal, a browser, a chat box, an email field, anywhere you type.

A few specifics that might matter for assistive use:

• One hotkey to hold. No clicking through a UI to start or stop. Release the key and it types.
• It works in any app, because it types as if it were a keyboard rather than living in its own window.
• "Voices": it can reformat the same spoken sentence per target. Flat for the terminal, tidied up for Slack, fuller for Outlook. Same words in, different formatting out depending on where you're sending them.
• An optional cleanup pass strips filler words and fixes punctuation.
• Fully offline path: with Local Whisper plus a local Ollama model, no audio and no text leaves your PC. You can pull the network cable and it still works. No account, no telemetry.

Honest limits I already know about:

• Windows 10/11 only right now. No Mac, no Linux. If your AT setup is on another OS, this is a non-starter, and I'd want to know that.
• It's push-to-talk, so you do need to hold a physical key. That suits some people and rules out others. If a sticky-key or toggle mode would make it usable for you, that's exactly what I want to hear.
• The default transcription engine is cloud (Gemini, free), so the privacy claim only fully holds on the offline Local Whisper plus Ollama path.
• I haven't tested it against screen readers or with switch access, and I don't want to overclaim there.

It's free forever and MIT open source. Captions are on the demo if you'd rather read than watch.

I'm not after praise. If you try it, or even just look at it, tell me the first thing that breaks for your setup and what you'd change.

Heads up, this is my own project. It's called Pipevoice, it's free and open source. I built it because I wanted voice typing on Windows I could keep on my own hardware instead of feeding my mic to whatever cloud was cheapest that month. Wispr Flow is the closest paid thing and it's $144/yr, which finally annoyed me enough to write my own.

​

The part that matters for this sub: the whole pipeline can stay local. Transcription runs on local Whisper. The optional text cleanup runs against your own Ollama box. Point both at local and nothing leaves the machine. No account, no telemetry, nothing to opt out of because there's nothing reaching out in the first place.

​

The flow is dead simple. Hold a hotkey, talk, let go, and the text drops in as real keystrokes wherever your cursor is. Doesn't matter if that's a terminal, your editor, or some random browser field. A second hotkey sends it to the clipboard instead. I also set up per-app profiles, so in my terminal it skips cleanup and auto-presses Enter, while a chat window gets the tidied-up version.

​

Don't want to run models locally? You can point transcription and cleanup at your own API keys instead. Deepgram or Whisper for the audio, Gemini or OpenRouter free tiers (or your own keys) for cleanup. Either way the audio only ever touches the provider you picked. It never comes to me. But the local Whisper + Ollama path is the one I actually run when I don't want anything off the box at all.

​

Windows 10/11, lightweight tray app, no Electron. There's a 3-min demo in the post that walks through the offline path and the per-app profiles. Source is on GitHub, link's in a comment so this doesn't trip the filter.

​

Mainly posting to get holes poked in it. If you already self-host Whisper or Ollama, tell me what's missing for it to slot into your setup, and whether the local-only path actually behaves the way you'd expect it to.

Spent the last few weeks building this and finally shipped it: PipeVoice — push-to-talk voice typing for Windows. Hold a key, talk, release, and your words get typed straight into whatever window you're in — terminal, editor, browser, chat box. No separate "dictation box" you copy out of.

​

The itch: I was spending half my day typing prompts to AI and my hands were the bottleneck. Wispr Flow is great, but I wanted something Windows-first that I controlled, that could run fully offline, and that wasn't locked to one transcription provider.

​

What it does:

Types into any app with real keystrokes — works anywhere there's a cursor

​

3 engines, switchable: OpenAI Whisper (accuracy), Deepgram (live words as you speak), or local Whisper (100% offline — nothing leaves your machine)

​

AI cleanup — optional pass that strips the "ums"/false starts and fixes punctuation so you read like you meant to. Uses Gemini free, open router laarma

​

Live overlay — a corner pill with a mic meter (and a live transcript on Deepgram)

​

Tunable — custom hotkey, vocabulary boosting for names/jargon, word fixes, auto-send

Private + free — no account, no telemetry, bring your own key (or go fully offline)

Stack, for the curious: Python (sounddevice + the keyboard lib), PyInstaller + Inno Setup for the installer, GitHub Actions building the Windows installer on every release, landing page on Vercel

.

Hardest parts, honestly:

Packaging a Python GUI into a clean one-click .exe — native deps fought me

A streaming-SDK version bump that silently broke transcription until I pinned it

​

A tray-menu library quirk that crashed on launch and took ages to track down

It's free and early. I'd genuinely love feedback — two questions: what would make you keep it open all day, and which app do you most want to dictate into?

​

→ https://pipevoice.app

i've been seeing a lot of posts lately (like one from yesterday about connecting conversions) where agencies are wrestling with getting their google ads conversion data into gohighlevel instantly. it's a common pain point, tbh.

​

we found that relying on manual exports or even some of the standard integrations just isn't fast enough. by the time the data's in, the lead's already moved on. we're talking minutes, not hours, for that to happen.

​

we built something that pipes those conversions straight into GHL the second they happen. it cut our clients' response time from like 45 minutes to under 4 minutes, which is pretty wild.

​

what's your biggest hurdle right now when it comes to getting those google ads leads into GHL fast? is it a specific field, or just the overall delay?

For about two years our setup did the "full service" thing: we'd buy sending domains for clients, configure SPF/DKIM/DMARC, run warmup, rotate inboxes — the whole managed cold-email stack. It worked, until it didn't. Every deliverability dip became our fire to put out, and one bad-reputation domain could drag a client's entire send down with it.

​

Last week we ripped it out. The new default: the client connects their own already-warmed inbox — Google Workspace or Microsoft 365 via OAuth, any SMTP, or an existing Instantly/Smartlead account — and we send through that instead.

​

Three things changed almost immediately:

​

1. Deliverability stopped being our single point of failure. A warmed, real mailbox the client already uses beats a freshly-spun cold domain almost every time.

2. Setup got faster. No DNS propagation wait, no multi-week warmup ramp before the first send. Connect the inbox, go.

3. The trust conversation got easier. "Send from your own inbox" is a far simpler thing to tell a client than "let us run a fleet of lookalike domains on your behalf."

​

The tradeoff is real: you give up volume ceiling per inbox and you're at the mercy of the provider's sending limits. For most of our clients that's the right trade — they'd rather send 80 good emails from a real inbox than 300 from a burner that lands in spam.

​

Curious whether anyone here has gone the other direction at scale — managed domains actually outperforming connected inboxes once you're past a few hundred sends a day? Where's the crossover point for you?

i keep seeing posts in here about facebook lead ads not syncing fast enough to gohighlevel. it's a super common problem, like that one thread from a few days ago where someone was asking why their leads were taking 30 minutes or more to show up. that's just too long for any agency trying to hit those speed-to-lead metrics.

we found a pretty direct way to get those leads into ghl in under 30 seconds. it's not some complicated Zapier setup that breaks every other week, it's a more direct pipeline that just works. it really helped one of our agency partners cut their client's response time from 45 minutes down to 4 minutes, which is a significant improvement.

how are you guys handling the lead ad delay? are you just accepting the standard facebook sync times or have you found a workaround that's actually reliable?

i was scrolling r/marketingagency last week and someone asked about attribution – it's a topic that comes up a lot, and honestly, i think most of us have overcomplicated it at some point.

we used to try and track everything from the first click to the final conversion. it meant a ton of dashboards, conflicting data, and clients still asking "but what's actually working?". it felt like we were just adding more noise.

what changed for us was realizing we didn't need to track every single thing. instead, we worked with a couple of our agency partners to identify the 3-4 actual signals that consistently predicted client growth. not vanity metrics, but real, actionable data points.

for one partner, this cut their reporting time by about 30% and made their client conversations way clearer. it's less about a "magic tool" and more about deciding what truly matters. imo, that's the hard part.

what signals do others here focus on when trying to prove ROI to clients?

we've been looking at a bunch of agencies trying to land more b2b clients for their services, especially those running GHL. it's wild how many still struggle with lead response time.

i mean, you get a new inbound lead, maybe from a Facebook ad or an organic post. does your team hit them back in 5 minutes? 15? an hour? some of the numbers we're seeing are frankly kinda slow.

we saw one agency last Tuesday that cut their average response from 45 minutes down to 4 minutes flat. that wasn't some huge tech stack overhaul, tbh. it was about optimizing how GHL notifications trigger action.

it feels like a lot of the focus is on getting leads, but not nearly enough on converting them fast. and that first touch is everything.

what's your agency's average lead response time in GoHighLevel? are you happy with it?

we've been tweaking our lead flow inside GHL for the past few months, especially after realizing we were losing good ICP clients just because we weren't fast enough. like, a solid lead would come in, and sometimes it'd be 30 minutes before a sales rep even saw it, let alone called. that's too long.

i'm convinced that the 'best way to land B2B clients' often boils down to who gets there first. we're using a webhook from our form directly into a GHL workflow that assigns immediately and pings the rep's phone. it's not perfect but it's cut our average response time from 27 minutes to just under 4. this significantly improved our agency's conversion rate.

what's your setup for getting leads to your sales team (or even yourself) instantly within GHL? are you using specific triggers, or maybe external tools? i'm curious about what's working for others here.

we see so many agencies setting up GHL automations for leads, which is a great step.

but sometimes the 'auto' still isn't fast enough. a client of ours last week had GHL set up, but the actual first human touch was still 20 minutes out. that's rough for hot leads.

we're finding the gap often isn't the tech, it's the handoff after the initial GHL ping. or sometimes, tbh, it's just GHL's native SMS delays (anyone else notice this on Tuesdays?).

curious what other agencies here are doing to truly nail speed to lead within GoHighLevel. what's your real average first response time, and what specific hacks are you using to get it under 5 minutes?

Most outbound tools layer "personalisation" on top of template emails: {{first_name}}, {{custom_field_42}}, maybe a reference to a job posting. The reply-rate ceiling on that is real.

I went the other direction. The Engine builds each prospect a fully personalised landing page — text or video — and the email it sends is just a link to THAT page.

The path:

**1. Discovery** — multi-source signal scanner pulls from Indeed job posts, Google Maps, FB Ad Library, fresh website content, news feeds. Each prospect enters with at least one buying signal already attached.

**2. Enrich + Score** — verifier cascade with multi-provider catch-all detection, role-flag respect, smtp-fallback gating. Builds a dossier: decision makers, tech stack, ad activity, review sentiment. Each prospect gets a 0-100 signal score BEFORE outreach.

**3. Proposals** — the closer agent reads the dossier and writes a 10-section page tailored to that one business. Hero with their domain, their process steps, pricing in £ (or $), an embedded mystery-test result showing how their lead response time compares to peers, a 30-day forecast. Two formats: text proposal page or video proposal with EmailThumbnail.

**4. Email** — short, a single CTA, link to the page. The page does the selling.

The whole thing is calendar-gated (last week's feature). You drag a Proposals block onto your weekly calendar — "build proposals 9am-noon Tue/Thu" — and the engine only builds them then. Calendar wins, strategy is just allocation.

The deeper bet: cold outbound has spent a decade adding more variables to template emails. The next jump isn't "even more variables." It's a different artifact entirely. A page > an email.

Anyone else shipped per-prospect-page outbound? What was the conversion lift vs templated emails?

Most outbound tools layer "personalisation" on top of template emails: {{first_name}}, {{custom_field_42}}, maybe a reference to a job posting. The reply-rate ceiling on that is real.

I went the other direction. The Engine builds each prospect a fully personalised landing page — text or video — and the email it sends is just a link to THAT page.

The path:

**1. Discovery** — multi-source signal scanner pulls from Indeed job posts, Google Maps, FB Ad Library, fresh website content, news feeds. Each prospect enters with at least one buying signal already attached.

**2. Enrich + Score** — verifier cascade with multi-provider catch-all detection, role-flag respect, smtp-fallback gating. Builds a dossier: decision makers, tech stack, ad activity, review sentiment. Each prospect gets a 0-100 signal score BEFORE outreach.

**3. Proposals** — the closer agent reads the dossier and writes a 10-section page tailored to that one business. Hero with their domain, their process steps, pricing in £ (or $), an embedded mystery-test result showing how their lead response time compares to peers, a 30-day forecast. Two formats: text proposal page or video proposal with EmailThumbnail.

**4. Email** — short, a single CTA, link to the page. The page does the selling.

The whole thing is calendar-gated (last week's feature). You drag a Proposals block onto your weekly calendar — "build proposals 9am-noon Tue/Thu" — and the engine only builds them then. Calendar wins, strategy is just allocation.

The deeper bet: cold outbound has spent a decade adding more variables to template emails. The next jump isn't "even more variables." It's a different artifact entirely. A page > an email.

Anyone else shipped per-prospect-page outbound? What was the conversion lift vs templated emails?