Dataset specification · Flagship scale
2,000 hours of Punjabi Conversational Speech
A flagship scale build of 2,000 hours of Punjabi conversational speech. Foundation-model input, or a multi-year corpus intended to be the reference dataset for a language. Two speakers hold an unscripted conversation seeded with a scenario, recorded on separate channels so overlap and turn-taking survive into the delivered files.

- Volume
- 2,000 hours
- Scale
- Flagship scale
- Per speaker
- 20–30 minutes of accepted audio per speaker, in pairs
- Accepted yield
- 55–65% of recorded time is accepted
How Punjabi conversational speech is captured
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.
The specification
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Language | Punjabi (pa-IN, Gurmukhi) |
| Volume | 2,000 hours |
| Equivalent | 4,000 speakers at 30 minutes each, or 2,000 speakers at one hour each |
| Speech type | Conversational Speech |
| Per speaker | 20–30 minutes of accepted audio per speaker, in pairs |
| Channels | Two, one per speaker, never mixed down before delivery |
| Channel isolation | Bleed measured per session and logged; sessions over threshold are re-recorded |
| Overlap | Preserved, timestamped and labelled rather than edited out |
| File granularity | Per-channel session WAV plus a turn-level manifest with speaker IDs |
| Dialects | Majhi (standard), Malwai, Doabi, Puadhi |
| Transcription | Verbatim, native-speaker, second-pass reviewed |

Designing the scenarios for Punjabi
- 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.
Running a flagship scale Punjabi 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.
Cover all three historic regions (Majha, Malwa, Doaba); tone realisation differs measurably between them.
| Parameter | At this volume |
|---|---|
| Cities | Twelve or more, including tier-2 and rural catchments — Amritsar, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Chandigarh, Patiala |
| 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.
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.
| Dimension | Typical split | Why it matters for Punjabi |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Punjabi forms that younger urban speakers have lost |
| Region | Punjab / Haryana / Delhi 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 |
Punjabi-specific considerations
- 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.
Quality gates for conversational speech
- 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% 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 conversational speech sessions
- 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
Risks at flagship scale in Punjabi
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
- 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.
Deliverables
- 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
What this trains, and what it does not
- 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.
Frequently asked
Is 2,000 hours of Punjabi enough?
Enough for foundation-model pre-training input in one language, or a reference corpus intended to outlive the model that prompted it.
Why conversational speech rather than another speech type?
Speaker diarisation, Meeting and multi-party ASR, Turn-taking and endpointing for voice agents are what this style is the right input for. Two-party conversation does not generalise to multi-party meetings with four or more speakers, where overlap statistics change substantially. Specify that case separately.
How long does a flagship scale Punjabi 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 Punjabi conversational 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 Punjabi dataset
2,000 hours, conversational speech, Punjabi — flagship scale. Adjust anything and send it.