100 speakers of Hinglish Conversational Speech

Two speakers hold an unscripted conversation seeded with a scenario, recorded on separate channels so overlap and turn-taking survive into the delivered files.

A 45–60 minute paired session with both speakers on isolated microphones, either in adjacent treated rooms or split-mic in one room with bleed measured and logged.

Yield at this style: 55–65% of recorded time is accepted. Overlap regions, crosstalk bleed and one-sided stretches all cost delivered time. The lowest-yield studio style we run, and priced accordingly.

• Scenario seeds rather than scripts — a disagreement to resolve, a plan to make, an experience to compare
• Pairing designed deliberately: familiar pairs produce natural interruption, stranger pairs produce polite turn-taking, and you need both
• Scenarios that invite disagreement, because agreeable conversation produces almost no overlap to train on
• Register mixed across pairs so the corpus is not uniformly formal
• Built against Hinglish specifically: Intra-sentential switching means English words carry Indian phonology, so English acoustic models mis-transcribe them
• Code-mixing handled explicitly rather than edited out — Hinglish is the code-mixing case itself. Typical urban customer-support speech is 30-60% English tokens embedded in Hindi grammar, with switching several times per utterance.

Three to four weeks, almost entirely determined by how narrow the screening criteria are.

A single delivery with the full demographic report, since the cohort report is the point of a build this size.

Recruit by switching behaviour, not by language proficiency. Screening recordings are used to confirm speakers switch naturally rather than performing one language.

At 100 speakers the cohort is deliberately simplified: two or three dialect groups rather than the full spread, with quotas enforced in aggregate. A build this size cannot support per-cell targets and should not claim to.

Effectively doubles recruitment load, since speakers are booked in matched pairs and a single drop-out cancels the whole session. Plan on 20–25% over-recruitment.

• Intra-sentential switching means English words carry Indian phonology, so English acoustic models mis-transcribe them
• Hinglish is the code-mixing case itself. Typical urban customer-support speech is 30-60% English tokens embedded in Hindi grammar, with switching several times per utterance.
• Almost no public corpus contains genuine intra-sentential Hindi-English switching with per-token language tags. This is the highest-value gap for anyone building Indian conversational AI.

• Channel bleed measured on every session and rejected above the agreed threshold
• Diarisation labels verified against the isolated channels rather than inferred from the mix
• Turn boundaries and overlap regions checked by a native listener
• Speaking-time balance per pair audited, so a dominant speaker does not silently halve the session's value
• Whether English tokens are written in Latin or transliterated into Devanagari must be fixed by rule, not left to annotators
• Language-ID tagging per token is required for training but is skipped by most vendors

100% content QA, plus per-speaker demographic verification against the screening record.

• Crosstalk bleed that makes clean per-speaker training targets impossible to recover afterwards
• One speaker dominating, leaving a pair that delivers half the expected audio
• Unnatural politeness between strangers, producing clean but unrepresentative turn-taking
• Scheduling attrition — both speakers have to show up, so no-show rates compound rather than add

Cost at this band is driven by: Screening narrowness dominates; the recording itself is a minor cost at this size.

• Narrow criteria can make a cohort unrecruitable at any price, which is exactly what this band exists to find out
• 100 speakers cannot support per-dialect evaluation — treat the results as directional
• Hinglish carries 4 recognised varieties across Delhi NCR, Mumbai, Bengaluru, so the quota matrix is wider than the headline volume suggests
• Almost no public corpus contains genuine intra-sentential Hindi-English switching with per-token language tags. This is the highest-value gap for anyone building Indian conversational AI.

• WAV audio to your naming convention, with the per-file manifest
• Verbatim Devanagari + Latin transcripts with utterance-level timestamps
• Speaker-turn segmentation with start and end timestamps
• Overlap regions marked with participating speaker IDs
• Backchannel and interruption markers
• Per-pair relationship metadata: familiar or stranger
• Per-speaker metadata: age band, gender, region, dialect, education band
• Consent records mapped to speaker IDs
• QA report with pass rates, rejection reasons and agreement statistics
• Speaker-disjoint train / dev / test splits on request

• Speaker diarisation
• Meeting and multi-party ASR
• Turn-taking and endpointing for voice agents
• Speaker separation and target-speaker extraction

Two-party conversation does not generalise to multi-party meetings with four or more speakers, where overlap statistics change substantially. Specify that case separately.