Building Voice AI Agents: Why Text Platforms Can't Just 'Add Voice'

· 5 min read ·
·
AI Voice Pipecat GenAI Architecture

Here’s something I learned the hard way while building Path AI at Layerpath: you cannot bolt voice onto a text chatbot and call it a voice agent.

The engineering constraints are fundamentally different. A text chatbot can take 2 seconds to respond and nobody notices. A voice agent has roughly 300 milliseconds before the conversation feels broken. That single constraint changes everything about how you architect the system.

Let me break down what I’ve learned about the voice AI platform landscape, why Pipecat became our choice, and why text-based systems cannot simply “add voice support.”

The 300ms Rule

Human perception is brutal. Research shows responses faster than 300ms feel natural. Responses over 1 second feel awkward. Anything beyond that and users start saying “Hello? Are you there?”

Here’s where that time budget goes:

Speech-to-text:     100-500ms
LLM time-to-first-token: 200-2000ms
Text-to-speech:     100-400ms
Network round-trips: 40-200ms
────────────────────────────────
Total:              440-3100ms

The LLM dominates - 40-60% of total latency. And here’s the problem: traditional REST API patterns serialize these steps. Transcription completes, uploads to server, LLM processes, downloads result, synthesis begins. That request-response cycling alone adds 500ms+ of unnecessary delay.

Voice platforms solve this with streaming architectures. Transcription processes audio as the user speaks. LLMs emit tokens immediately. Text-to-speech starts converting the first tokens while later tokens are still generating. Everything runs in parallel.

This is invisible to REST-based chatbot frameworks.

The Platform Landscape

The market splits into two camps: developer-centric platforms that prioritize control, and enterprise platforms that prioritize deployment speed.

Developer-Centric Platforms

Pipecat is what we use at Layerpath. Built by the Daily team, it implements a pipeline architecture where AI services cascade through standardized processors. Each processor - speech recognition, LLM inference, text-to-speech - accepts and outputs frame objects (audio frames, text frames, video frames). Data flows through with minimal impedance, hitting 500-800ms response times.

Vapi AI optimizes for rapid prototyping. Straightforward API integration, WebSocket support, prebuilt OpenAI and Claude integrations. Their Discord has 17,000+ developers. Good for getting something working fast.

LiveKit takes a full-stack open-source approach. WebRTC-first, designed for global scalability. 13,000+ developers in their Slack. Best if you’re already in the WebRTC ecosystem.

Enterprise Platforms

Retell AI, Robylon AI, Fluents.ai, and Bland AI target organizations wanting immediate deployment. Drag-and-drop builders, native CRM integrations (Salesforce, HubSpot, Zendesk), omnichannel support across voice, chat, email, WhatsApp.

Retell distinguishes itself with sub-second latency guarantees, SOC 2/HIPAA compliance, and analytics dashboards. If you need compliance checkboxes and vendor SLAs, this is the category.

ElevenLabs and Cartesia specialize in voice synthesis - cloning, emotional range, acoustic optimization. They integrate with agent frameworks rather than providing full orchestration.

Why Pipecat

Three reasons we chose it:

1. Parallel Processing Pipeline

While the LLM generates tokens, earlier tokens are already being synthesized into audio and streamed to the user. No waiting for one step to complete before starting the next.

%%{init: {"layout": "dagre"}}%%
flowchart LR
    subgraph Parallel["Parallel Execution"]
        direction LR
        STT[Speech-to-Text] --> |"streaming tokens"| LLM[Language Model]
        LLM --> |"token by token"| TTS[Text-to-Speech]
        TTS --> |"audio chunks"| User[User Hears Response]
    end

    Audio[User Speaking] --> STT

2. Service Flexibility

The modular architecture lets us swap providers without rewriting orchestration logic. Speech recognition (Whisper, Deepgram, Speechmatics), LLM backends (OpenAI, Claude, Llama), text-to-speech engines - all interchangeable.

This matters when vendors update pricing, deprecate APIs, or when specialized models outperform general ones for our use case.

3. Framework Integration

Native support for multiple transports (Daily, WebRTC, Twilio) and event-driven lifecycle management. Session initialization, client connections, disconnections - enterprise concerns that can’t be ignored.

Why Text Platforms Can’t Just Add Voice

The architectural mismatch runs deep. Five challenges make voice fundamentally different:

1. Real-Time Orchestration

Voice agents coordinate three independent AI services (STT, LLM, TTS), each with distinct:

  • Computational patterns (GPU vs CPU)
  • Scaling characteristics
  • Latency profiles
  • Cost structures (per-token vs per-minute)

Text systems optimize for single-model inference. Voice requires real-time coordination where timing errors compound into noticeable conversation delays. Pipecat’s frame-based pipeline enforces a consistent interface across heterogeneous services.

2. Streaming vs Request-Response

Text chatbots use REST APIs. User sends message, waits, gets response. Voice can’t wait.

Co-locating STT, LLM, and TTS services in the same geographic region reduces inter-service latency from 200ms (multi-region) to under 10ms. This optimization doesn’t exist in text platform architectures.

3. Audio Integrity Under Failure

A text system can retry failed API calls transparently. Voice systems cannot - the user is on the call waiting. You need graceful degradation, silence detection, turn-taking management, and conversation continuity across potential service failures.

4. Channel Dynamics

Voice operates in high-intent, synchronous channels. Users expect immediate responses and conversational flow. They can’t read hyperlinks or scroll through options - the agent must guide the conversation verbally with appropriate pausing and turn-taking.

Text excels in asynchronous interactions where users can digest complex information at their own pace. The conversation dynamics are fundamentally different.

5. Telephony Integration

Voice agents require:

  • Telephony infrastructure (Twilio, Vonage, IVR systems)
  • Call recording compliance
  • Sentiment analysis for escalation routing
  • Call-specific analytics (average handle time, first-call resolution)

These operational concerns sit outside text platform abstraction boundaries.

When to Choose What

Choose Pipecat if you:

  • Need custom LLM backends or model experimentation
  • Must integrate with legacy telephony beyond standard Twilio
  • Want on-premises or isolated cloud deployment
  • Need fine-grained monitoring of pipeline components
  • Are building specialized experiences (games, storytelling, multimodal) beyond standard patterns

Choose Vapi if you:

  • Value time-to-first-agent over customization
  • Are building voice as a secondary feature
  • Need rapid LLM provider experimentation
  • Prefer managed infrastructure

Choose Enterprise Platforms if you:

  • Are replacing existing IVR systems
  • Need SOC 2, HIPAA, or regulatory compliance out of the box
  • Operate large contact centers with complex routing
  • Want vendor SLAs and 24/7 support

The Bottom Line

Voice agent platforms represent a necessary architectural divergence from text systems, not a feature overlay. Sub-second latency requirements, real-time multi-service orchestration, and synchronous channel dynamics create constraints that text platforms cannot address without fundamental redesign.

Pipecat’s strength is maximum control over the orchestration layer while maintaining enterprise reliability. If you value customization and technical depth over deployment convenience, it’s the right choice.

If you want something working by Friday and you’re okay with platform constraints, Vapi or an enterprise platform will get you there faster.

Either way, don’t make the mistake I almost made: assuming you can just add voice to your existing chatbot. The engineering is different. Plan accordingly.

Building voice AI agents? I’d love to hear what challenges you’re facing. Reach out on LinkedIn.