YES

Replaceable in one session with an AI coding agent.

Transcription for newsrooms and media teams: an editor tying text to audio, collaborative review, and story-building from the transcript.

Promptfree, for everyone, and the only version there is
Build me the transcription and story workflow that replaces Trint.

The transcription is now free and local. **What you are building is the verification and quoting workflow**, which is where journalism actually happens.

STACK
- Node 20+ with Fastify, server-rendered HTML with a little vanilla JS
- SQLite through better-sqlite3, WAL mode, FTS5 across every transcript
- whisper.cpp with word timings, ffmpeg for conversion
- Caddy in front

THE DATA MODEL
- recordings: id, title, source, recorded_at, path, sha256, duration_ms, language, status
- words: id, recording_id, index, start_ms, end_ms, text, confidence
- edits: id, recording_id, word_index, before, after, editor, at — **append-only, so a corrected transcript still shows what the machine heard**
- highlights: id, recording_id, from_index, to_index, note, created_by
- stories: id, title, body_md
- quotes: id, story_id, highlight_id, text, verified_by, verified_at
- speakers: id, recording_id, label, name, verified

WHY THE EDIT HISTORY MATTERS HERE MORE THAN ANYWHERE
- A quote in a published piece must be defensible. **Keeping the machine's original alongside every human correction means you can always show what was actually said** and who changed what
- The source hash proves the audio has not been replaced
- Never allow a destructive overwrite of the word table

THE EDITOR
- Text with the audio playing along, current word highlighted, click to seek
- Keyboard-first: play and pause, rewind three seconds, and a slow-playback toggle, all without leaving the text
- Low-confidence words visibly marked, so attention goes where the machine was unsure
- Speaker labels applied once and propagated, with a merge and split

QUOTING, WHICH IS THE POINT
- Select text, press a key, and it becomes a quote attached to a story, carrying the recording, the timestamp and the speaker
- **A quote in the story links back to the exact second of audio.** An editor checking a piece can hear it in one click rather than searching a two-hour file
- Mark a quote verified, with who verified it and when. A story shows how many of its quotes are unverified

SEARCH ACROSS EVERYTHING
- Full text across every recording ever transcribed, results as moments with play buttons
- Filter by speaker, date and story. **The archive is the asset**: 'when did he say that' answered in seconds, across years

SECURITY, BECAUSE SOURCES
- Encryption at rest, access per recording, every read logged
- A retention and deletion path that reaches the media, and an option to keep a recording out of any shared index entirely
- Nothing sent to a third-party service. This is why local transcription matters here rather than merely being cheaper

WHAT MATTERS MOST
Append-only edits with the original preserved, and quotes that link to the second. Together they make the transcript evidence rather than a convenience.

What you lose

  • A verification workflow several journalists can share
  • Story building directly from transcript excerpts
  • Many languages with checked quality
  • A tool an organisation has already trained everybody on

If you would rather not build

  • Descript, if the audio editing half matters more
  • oTranscribe, the free browser-based manual transcription tool

The escape hatch

open source · no votes, no paid placement

whisper.cpp

$0

Local transcription with word timings; nothing leaves the machine.

ggml-org/whisper.cppfree · open source

Subtitle Edit

$0

Timing and correction tools over the transcript.

SubtitleEdit/subtitleeditfree · open source

Why this verdict

our own opinion · changed only by a person

82/100

Verdict yes at 82: whisper.cpp handles transcription and the value is the verification workflow. Local processing is a source-protection argument here, not just a cost one.

History

tracked since 14 Aug 2026 · nothing is ever overwritten

Interest · last 30 days

Nothing recorded yet. This chart fills in once the page has visitors, votes or prompt copies — it will not draw a flat line to look busy.

Questions about Trint

answered from the record above

Is Trint free?

No — the plan we track is $80 a month. Starter at $80 per seat per month billed monthly, around $60 annually.

Can you replace Trint by building your own?

YES. Replaceable in one session with an AI coding agent. Replacement score 82 out of 100, build time one session. Read what you lose before you decide.

How much does Trint cost?

$80 a month on Starter — $960 a year. Recorded 14 Aug 2026.

What do you lose by replacing Trint?

A verification workflow several journalists can share; Story building directly from transcript excerpts; Many languages with checked quality; A tool an organisation has already trained everybody on. If any of those carry weight for you, keep paying.

Is there an open-source alternative to Trint?

Yes: whisper.cpp, Subtitle Edit. The prompt on this page is for when you want it your way instead.

Related entries

same category first, most replaced first

All 25 in Screen recording & video

Not sending yet

Every week, something stops being worth paying for.

New verdicts, prices that moved, entries added. One email a week. Unsubscribe in one click. Nothing is being sent yet — your address is kept here, and the first issue is the first thing it is used for.

free forever · no tracking pixel · stored here, never passed to anyone

Esc