Dataset specification · Domain scale
250 hours of Urdu Spontaneous Speech
A domain scale build of 250 hours of Urdu spontaneous speech. Fine-tuning a production model for a specific domain, accent range or deployment condition. Speakers talk unscripted on prompted topics — describing a process, recounting an event, arguing a position — with a moderator who prompts but does not lead.

- Volume
- 250 hours
- Scale
- Domain scale
- Per speaker
- 25–40 minutes of accepted audio per speaker
- Accepted yield
- 60–70% of recorded time is accepted
How Urdu spontaneous speech is captured
Speakers talk unscripted on prompted topics — describing a process, recounting an event, arguing a position — with a moderator who prompts but does not lead.
A 60-minute session covering six to eight topics, recorded continuously and segmented afterwards into utterances at natural pause boundaries.
Yield at this style: 60–70% of recorded time is accepted. Long silences, moderator speech and abandoned topics are cut in post, so recorded hours run well ahead of delivered hours. Budget for the gap.
The specification
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Language | Urdu (ur-IN, Perso-Arabic (Nastaliq)) |
| Volume | 250 hours |
| Equivalent | 500 speakers at 30 minutes each, or 250 speakers at one hour each |
| Speech type | Spontaneous Speech |
| Per speaker | 25–40 minutes of accepted audio per speaker |
| File granularity | Session-length WAV plus segmented utterance files with offsets into the parent |
| Segmentation | Pause-boundary segmentation, reviewed by a native listener rather than left to VAD |
| Moderator channel | Recorded separately and excluded from the delivered speaker audio |
| Disfluency convention | Filled pauses, repetitions and false starts transcribed, not normalised away |
| Dialects | Dakhini (Hyderabad), Lucknawi, Dehlvi, Bihari Urdu |
| Transcription | Verbatim, native-speaker, second-pass reviewed |

Designing the topic bank for Urdu
- Topic banks graded by familiarity, so speakers across education and occupation bands all have something to say
- Open prompts only — anything answerable with yes or no produces thirty seconds of audio and a stalled session
- Culturally grounded topics per region, since a prompt that works in Mumbai can draw blank looks in Guwahati
- Topic rotation across the cohort so the corpus does not over-represent a handful of subjects
- Built against Urdu specifically: Shares most phonology with Hindi but adds Perso-Arabic phonemes (/q/, /x/, /ɣ/, /z/, /f/) that many speakers merge
- Code-mixing handled explicitly rather than edited out — Spoken Urdu and spoken Hindi are largely mutually intelligible; the distinction is mainly lexical and orthographic. Decide up front whether transcription is in Nastaliq, Devanagari, or both.
Running a domain scale Urdu build
Six to eight weeks. Beyond three cities the bottleneck moves from recruitment to transcription throughput, which is why the transcriber count rises faster than the engineer count.
Four to five batches on a fortnightly cadence, sequenced so the dialects you care about most land first.
Fix the script decision before fielding; retro-transcribing a Nastaliq dataset into Devanagari after delivery costs as much as the original transcription pass.
| Parameter | At this volume |
|---|---|
| Cities | Three to four — Hyderabad, Lucknow, Delhi, Bhopal |
| Studios | Three to four rooms plus one mobile rig |
| Recruiters | Four coordinators under one programme lead |
| Speakers | ~500–600 |
| Sessions per day | 25–30 nationally |
| Team | 1 programme lead, 4 coordinators, 8 engineers, 14 transcribers, 2 QA leads |
Cohort design
At 250 hours quotas are enforced per dialect and reconciled fortnightly. Aggregate demographics are reported per batch so drift is visible while there is still time to correct it.
Screening is for willingness to talk, not literacy, which opens the cohort to speakers a scripted protocol would exclude. Expect to over-recruit by 15% for speakers who freeze on the day.
| Dimension | Typical split | Why it matters for Urdu |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Urdu forms that younger urban speakers have lost |
| Region | Uttar Pradesh / Telangana / Bihar 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 |
Urdu-specific considerations
- Shares most phonology with Hindi but adds Perso-Arabic phonemes (/q/, /x/, /ɣ/, /z/, /f/) that many speakers merge
- Spoken Urdu and spoken Hindi are largely mutually intelligible; the distinction is mainly lexical and orthographic. Decide up front whether transcription is in Nastaliq, Devanagari, or both.
- Indian Urdu specifically, and Dakhini in particular, are absent from public data dominated by Pakistani Urdu broadcast speech.
Quality gates for spontaneous speech
- Segment boundary review — bad boundaries produce truncated words that poison training more than they help
- Disfluency transcription consistency audited across transcribers, since conventions drift fast on this style
- Moderator speech confirmed absent from delivered segments
- Topic distribution checked per speaker so one dominant subject does not skew the language model
- Right-to-left Nastaliq tooling errors and diacritic loss
- Merged phonemes transcribed by sound rather than by etymology, or vice versa, inconsistently
100% technical QA, 15% content QA with stratified sampling across city, dialect and transcriber, so no single team's output goes unchecked.
What goes wrong on spontaneous speech sessions
- Speakers who dry up after a minute, leaving sessions that look complete by duration but are mostly silence
- Drift into a reading register when a speaker becomes self-conscious about the microphone
- Moderator over-prompting, which turns a monologue corpus into an interview corpus
- Transcriber normalisation — quietly cleaning up disfluencies destroys the exact signal this style exists to capture
Risks at domain scale in Urdu
Cost at this band is driven by: Transcription depth — verbatim with disfluencies costs materially more than clean-read transcription; Number of distinct dialect quotas rather than raw hours.
- Transcription becomes the critical path and stays there for the rest of the volume bands
- Coordinator turnover mid-build causes quota drift that is only visible in the final demographic report unless it is audited weekly
- Urdu carries 5 recognised varieties across Uttar Pradesh, Telangana, Bihar, so the quota matrix is wider than the headline volume suggests
- Indian Urdu specifically, and Dakhini in particular, are absent from public data dominated by Pakistani Urdu broadcast speech.
Deliverables
- WAV audio to your naming convention, with the per-file manifest
- Verbatim Perso-Arabic (Nastaliq) transcripts with utterance-level timestamps
- Filled-pause and false-start markers
- Segment offsets into the parent session file
- Topic label per segment
- Speech-rate and pause-density statistics per speaker
- 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
- Robust ASR for real user speech
- Language modelling on natural syntax
- Disfluency detection and removal
- Prosody and speech-rate modelling
Phonetic balance cannot be guaranteed — speakers say what they say. If you need specific phone contexts or a controlled lexicon, this style has to be paired with a scripted layer.
Frequently asked
Is 250 hours of Urdu enough?
Enough to shift word error rate meaningfully on a domain-specific deployment. For a general-purpose model in a low-resource language, still a starting layer.
Why spontaneous speech rather than another speech type?
Robust ASR for real user speech, Language modelling on natural syntax, Disfluency detection and removal are what this style is the right input for. Phonetic balance cannot be guaranteed — speakers say what they say. If you need specific phone contexts or a controlled lexicon, this style has to be paired with a scripted layer.
How long does a domain scale Urdu build take?
Six to eight weeks. Beyond three cities the bottleneck moves from recruitment to transcription throughput, which is why the transcriber count rises faster than the engineer count. Four to five batches on a fortnightly cadence, sequenced so the dialects you care about most land first.
What does 250 hours of Urdu spontaneous speech cost?
Quoted per delivered hour against this specification. At this band the drivers are transcription depth — verbatim with disfluencies costs materially more than clean-read transcription and number of distinct dialect quotas rather than raw hours. Send the spec and you get one fixed figure.
How much QA is applied at this volume?
100% technical QA, 15% content QA with stratified sampling across city, dialect and transcriber, so no single team's output goes unchecked.
Quote this Urdu dataset
250 hours, spontaneous speech, Urdu — domain scale. Adjust anything and send it.