Dataset specification · Evaluation cohort
500 speakers of Tamil Spontaneous Speech
An evaluation cohort build of 500 speakers of Tamil spontaneous speech. Speaker-count-driven work: verification, diarisation and accent robustness, where breadth matters more than hours. 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
- 500 speakers
- Scale
- Evaluation cohort
- Per speaker
- 25–40 minutes of accepted audio per speaker
- Accepted yield
- 60–70% of recorded time is accepted
How Tamil 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 | Tamil (ta-IN, Tamil) |
| Volume | 500 speakers |
| Equivalent | 250 hours at 30 minutes per speaker |
| 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 | Chennai (Madras Bashai), Kongu (Coimbatore), Madurai, Nellai (Tirunelveli) |
| Transcription | Verbatim, native-speaker, second-pass reviewed |

Designing the topic bank for Tamil
- 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 Tamil specifically: Extreme diglossia: written Tamil and spoken Tamil differ so much that read-speech corpora are near-useless for conversational ASR
- Code-mixing handled explicitly rather than edited out — Tanglish is the default urban register. Technology, finance, and workplace vocabulary is largely English embedded in Tamil syntax.
Running an evaluation cohort Tamil build
Six to eight weeks. Speaker-count targets front-load recruitment, so the coordinator team is proportionally larger than an equivalent hours-based build.
Four batches, each one a demographically complete slice rather than a convenient chunk, so early batches are usable for training on their own.
Recruit by district rather than by city alone; Chennai-only cohorts produce models that degrade sharply in the south and west of the state.
| Parameter | At this volume |
|---|---|
| Cities | Three to four — Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Salem |
| Studios | Four rooms |
| Recruiters | Four coordinators |
| Audio yield | ~250 hours at 30 minutes per speaker |
| Sessions per day | 25–30 |
| Team | 1 programme lead, 4 coordinators, 8 engineers, 14 transcribers, 2 QA leads |
Cohort design
At 500 speakers 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 Tamil |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Tamil forms that younger urban speakers have lost |
| Region | Tamil Nadu / Puducherry / parts of Karnataka and Kerala and others | Dialect spread across 6 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 |
Tamil-specific considerations
- Extreme diglossia: written Tamil and spoken Tamil differ so much that read-speech corpora are near-useless for conversational ASR
- Tanglish is the default urban register. Technology, finance, and workplace vocabulary is largely English embedded in Tamil syntax.
- Almost all public Tamil audio is literary read speech from news or scripture. Genuine colloquial Tamil, especially southern and Kongu varieties, is the single biggest gap for anyone building Tamil voice products.
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
- Transcribers normalising spoken Tamil into literary Tamil, destroying the acoustic-text alignment
- ழ / ள / ல confusion
100% technical QA, 15% content QA, plus mandatory duplicate-speaker detection across cities.
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 evaluation cohort in Tamil
Cost at this band is driven by: Cohort breadth and screening depth, not recorded hours.
- Duplicate speakers across cities inflate the apparent cohort and quietly corrupt speaker-disjoint splits
- Recruiting for breadth tempts coordinators toward the easiest available demographic, which needs weekly quota audit
- Tamil carries 6 recognised varieties across Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, parts of Karnataka and Kerala, so the quota matrix is wider than the headline volume suggests
- Almost all public Tamil audio is literary read speech from news or scripture. Genuine colloquial Tamil, especially southern and Kongu varieties, is the single biggest gap for anyone building Tamil voice products.
Deliverables
- WAV audio to your naming convention, with the per-file manifest
- Verbatim Tamil 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 500 speakers of Tamil enough?
Enough for reliable per-dialect evaluation and for training speaker-verification and diarisation systems.
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 an evaluation cohort Tamil build take?
Six to eight weeks. Speaker-count targets front-load recruitment, so the coordinator team is proportionally larger than an equivalent hours-based build. Four batches, each one a demographically complete slice rather than a convenient chunk, so early batches are usable for training on their own.
What does 500 speakers of Tamil spontaneous speech cost?
Quoted per delivered hour against this specification. At this band the drivers are cohort breadth and screening depth, not recorded hours. Send the spec and you get one fixed figure.
How much QA is applied at this volume?
100% technical QA, 15% content QA, plus mandatory duplicate-speaker detection across cities.
Quote this Tamil dataset
500 speakers, spontaneous speech, Tamil — evaluation cohort. Adjust anything and send it.