Dataset specification · Flagship scale
2,000 hours of Gujarati Telephony Speech
A flagship scale build of 2,000 hours of Gujarati telephony speech. Foundation-model input, or a multi-year corpus intended to be the reference dataset for a language. Speech captured over a real telephony path — a genuine call through the network, not studio audio downsampled afterwards to imitate one.

- Volume
- 2,000 hours
- Scale
- Flagship scale
- Per speaker
- 10–20 minutes of accepted audio per speaker
- Accepted yield
- 50–60% of recorded time is accepted
How Gujarati telephony speech is captured
Speech captured over a real telephony path — a genuine call through the network, not studio audio downsampled afterwards to imitate one.
Scenario-driven calls between a caller and an agent or IVR flow, each leg recorded separately, across a deliberate spread of handsets and network conditions.
Yield at this style: 50–60% of recorded time is accepted. Dropped calls, network artefacts beyond tolerance and unusable legs are discarded. Real network conditions are the point of the style and also its main cost.
The specification
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Language | Gujarati (gu-IN, Gujarati) |
| Volume | 2,000 hours |
| Equivalent | 4,000 speakers at 30 minutes each, or 2,000 speakers at one hour each |
| Speech type | Telephony Speech |
| Per speaker | 10–20 minutes of accepted audio per speaker |
| Sample rate | 8 kHz narrowband, matching what a deployed contact-centre model actually receives |
| Codec | G.711 and AMR-NB captured explicitly, with the codec recorded per call in the manifest |
| Legs | Caller and agent recorded on separate legs, never as a mixed call recording |
| Network conditions | Handset type, network carrier and packet-loss events logged per call |
| Dialects | Standard (Amdavadi), Surti, Kathiyawadi, Kachchhi-influenced |
| Transcription | Verbatim, native-speaker, second-pass reviewed |

Designing the call flows for Gujarati
- Call scenarios drawn from real contact-centre intents: balance enquiry, complaint, booking change, escalation
- IVR flows scripted with deliberate mis-entry and barge-in paths, since those are where deployed systems fail
- Handset spread specified up front — low-end Android, feature phone, landline — because handset variance is a real acoustic axis
- Background conditions varied on purpose: street, vehicle, indoor, since real callers are rarely in quiet rooms
- Built against Gujarati specifically: Murmured (breathy-voiced) vowels are phonemic in Gujarati and are absent from most shared Indic acoustic models
- Code-mixing handled explicitly rather than edited out — Business and trade vocabulary is heavily English; Gujarati diaspora speech adds further English structure. Specify whether diaspora speakers are in or out of scope.
Running a flagship scale Gujarati build
Twenty to twenty-eight weeks, run in two or three waves. Wave one establishes the protocol and the transcription convention; later waves scale against a proven baseline rather than an assumed one.
Continuous fortnightly delivery from week four, roughly fourteen batches, each with acceptance testing and a rolling demographic reconciliation against the target quota matrix.
Surat and Rajkot recruitment is essential for dialect coverage; Ahmedabad-only cohorts sound uniform.
| Parameter | At this volume |
|---|---|
| Cities | Twelve or more, including tier-2 and rural catchments — Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara, Rajkot, Bhavnagar |
| Studios | Fourteen rooms plus six mobile rigs |
| Recruiters | Sixteen coordinators, three regional managers, one programme director |
| Speakers | ~4,000–5,000 |
| Sessions per day | 120–150 nationally |
| Team | 1 programme director, 3 regional managers, 16 coordinators, 30 engineers, 80 transcribers, 8 QA leads |
Cohort design
At 2,000 hours the quota matrix is enforced per cell, not in aggregate. Every dialect, age and gender combination carries its own target and is signed off individually before final acceptance, because an aggregate 50/50 split can hide a cell that was never filled at all.
Recruitment must be stratified by handset and carrier as well as by dialect, which adds a screening axis the other styles do not have.
| Dimension | Typical split | Why it matters for Gujarati |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | 50 / 50 | Pitch range differences change acoustic model behaviour; unbalanced cohorts bias recognition |
| Age | 18-25: 30%, 26-40: 40%, 41-60: 30% | Older speakers retain conservative Gujarati forms that younger urban speakers have lost |
| Region | Gujarat / Daman & Diu / Dadra & Nagar Haveli and others | Dialect spread across 5 recognised varieties |
| Education | Mixed, including below-graduate | Prompt-reading fluency correlates with education and skews prosody |
| Condition | Studio / quiet room / field | Match the noise profile of your deployment |
Gujarati-specific considerations
- Murmured (breathy-voiced) vowels are phonemic in Gujarati and are absent from most shared Indic acoustic models
- Business and trade vocabulary is heavily English; Gujarati diaspora speech adds further English structure. Specify whether diaspora speakers are in or out of scope.
- Very little spontaneous Gujarati audio exists publicly; nearly all of it is Ahmedabad read speech.
Quality gates for telephony speech
- Codec and sample rate verified per file, rejecting any studio audio that has been downsampled to fake a telephony path
- Echo and double-talk checked on both legs
- DTMF events verified against the call log
- Level normalisation applied per leg, since handset output levels vary far more than studio microphones do
- Breathy vowels have no consistent orthographic marking
- Kathiyawadi lexical items replaced with standard equivalents
100% technical QA, 5% content QA stratified across every axis, a blind 2% re-transcription audit, and a monthly cross-wave consistency review comparing early and late batches for drift.
What goes wrong on telephony speech sessions
- Studio audio downsampled to 8 kHz and passed off as telephony, which has none of the codec or packet-loss characteristics that matter
- Echo and double-talk that make the agent leg unusable
- Carrier and handset monoculture, producing a corpus that only represents one acoustic path
- Over-clean recordings from participants who move somewhere quiet to take the call, defeating the purpose
Risks at flagship scale in Gujarati
Cost at this band is driven by: Wave structure and the programme governance it requires; Long-tail demographic and dialect quotas, which dominate the final third of the build.
- Drift between waves is the defining risk: audio recorded in month one and month six must be indistinguishable in convention, or the corpus splits into two datasets
- Speaker pool exhaustion is a live constraint in all but the largest languages and shapes which cities are used
- Staff turnover across twenty-eight weeks is a certainty, so handover documentation is part of the deliverable rather than an afterthought
- Storage, transfer and manifest integrity become engineering problems in their own right at this size
- Gujarati carries 5 recognised varieties across Gujarat, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, so the quota matrix is wider than the headline volume suggests
- Very little spontaneous Gujarati audio exists publicly; nearly all of it is Ahmedabad read speech.
Deliverables
- WAV audio to your naming convention, with the per-file manifest
- Verbatim Gujarati transcripts with utterance-level timestamps
- Call metadata: duration, codec, handset class, carrier, packet-loss events
- Intent label per call and per turn
- DTMF and hold, transfer and barge-in events
- Agent and caller leg identifiers
- 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
What this trains, and what it does not
- Contact-centre and IVR ASR
- Voice bots operating over the phone network
- Intent classification on narrowband audio
- Robustness to codec and packet loss
Narrowband telephony audio is the wrong input for TTS or any wideband model — the frequency content simply is not there. Use it for models that will be deployed on a phone line and nothing else.
Frequently asked
Is 2,000 hours of Gujarati enough?
Enough for foundation-model pre-training input in one language, or a reference corpus intended to outlive the model that prompted it.
Why telephony speech rather than another speech type?
Contact-centre and IVR ASR, Voice bots operating over the phone network, Intent classification on narrowband audio are what this style is the right input for. Narrowband telephony audio is the wrong input for TTS or any wideband model — the frequency content simply is not there. Use it for models that will be deployed on a phone line and nothing else.
How long does a flagship scale Gujarati build take?
Twenty to twenty-eight weeks, run in two or three waves. Wave one establishes the protocol and the transcription convention; later waves scale against a proven baseline rather than an assumed one. Continuous fortnightly delivery from week four, roughly fourteen batches, each with acceptance testing and a rolling demographic reconciliation against the target quota matrix.
What does 2,000 hours of Gujarati telephony speech cost?
Quoted per delivered hour against this specification. At this band the drivers are wave structure and the programme governance it requires and long-tail demographic and dialect quotas, which dominate the final third of the build. Send the spec and you get one fixed figure.
How much QA is applied at this volume?
100% technical QA, 5% content QA stratified across every axis, a blind 2% re-transcription audit, and a monthly cross-wave consistency review comparing early and late batches for drift.
Quote this Gujarati dataset
2,000 hours, telephony speech, Gujarati — flagship scale. Adjust anything and send it.