Automated Analysis for ṭu
Programmatically inferred patterns from the acoustic data
Consistency & Variance
Within-group homogeneity and overall variance patterns
• F1 shows substantial variance (CV=0.69), suggesting heterogeneous voice characteristics or synthesis inconsistencies.
• Male voices (n=3) show very tight F1 consistency (CV=0.05), suggesting systematic pronunciation.
• Unknown voices (n=3) show very tight F1 consistency (CV=0.03), suggesting systematic pronunciation.
Gender Differences
Acoustic differences between male and female voices
• F1 gender difference is large (88 Hz / 13.8%, d=1.93), consistent with natural speech patterns.
• F2 gender difference is large (88 Hz / 5.6%, d=0.89).
Phonetic Analysis
Formant validation against expected vowel properties
• Formant analysis: F1=694 Hz (mid), F2=1624 Hz (front-central).
Duration Patterns
Temporal characteristics and uniformity
• Duration variance is moderate (CV=0.17, range 0.426-0.744s).
TTS Quality
Synthesis consistency and prosodic control
• gtts shows lower F1 variance than ggl, suggesting more consistent synthesis quality.
• ggl shows high pitch variance (σ=64 Hz), which may indicate natural-sounding variation or control instability.
• gtts shows excellent pitch stability (σ=16 Hz), indicating superior prosodic control.
Cross-Script Comparison
Acoustic similarity across different scripts
• Kannada and Telugu pronunciations cluster together (distance=56 Hz in F1-F2 space), showing consistent articulation across scripts.