100 speakers of Punjabi 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 Punjabi specifically: Punjabi is tonal: high, low and level tones distinguish words, and tone is not marked in Gurmukhi orthography
• Code-mixing handled explicitly rather than edited out — Punjabi speech mixes Hindi and English freely, with strong diaspora influence in urban registers.

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.

Cover all three historic regions (Majha, Malwa, Doaba); tone realisation differs measurably between them.

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.

• Punjabi is tonal: high, low and level tones distinguish words, and tone is not marked in Gurmukhi orthography
• Punjabi speech mixes Hindi and English freely, with strong diaspora influence in urban registers.
• Tonal variation is essentially unmodelled in public Punjabi data, and Malwai/Doabi rural speech is scarce.

• 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
• Tone is unrepresented in text, so pronunciation lexicons must be built from audio, not from spelling
• Shahmukhi vs Gurmukhi script decisions must be fixed per project

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
• Punjabi carries 5 recognised varieties across Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, so the quota matrix is wider than the headline volume suggests
• Tonal variation is essentially unmodelled in public Punjabi data, and Malwai/Doabi rural speech is scarce.

• WAV audio to your naming convention, with the per-file manifest
• Verbatim Gurmukhi 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.