Automated Analysis for cu
Programmatically inferred patterns from the acoustic data
Consistency & Variance
Within-group homogeneity and overall variance patterns
• F1 shows substantial variance (CV=0.65), suggesting heterogeneous voice characteristics or synthesis inconsistencies.
• Female voices (n=3) show very tight F1 consistency (CV=0.03), suggesting systematic pronunciation.
• Male voices (n=3) show very tight F1 consistency (CV=0.04), 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 (96 Hz / 12.7%, d=3.77), consistent with natural speech patterns.
• F2 gender difference is large (90 Hz / 5.2%, d=1.34).
Phonetic Analysis
Formant validation against expected vowel properties
• Formant analysis: F1=808 Hz (open), F2=1781 Hz (front-central).
Duration Patterns
Temporal characteristics and uniformity
• Duration variance is moderate (CV=0.16, range 0.476-0.768s).
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=63 Hz), which may indicate natural-sounding variation or control instability.
• gtts shows excellent pitch stability (σ=18 Hz), indicating superior prosodic control.
Cross-Script Comparison
Acoustic similarity across different scripts
• Kannada and Telugu pronunciations cluster together (distance=21 Hz in F1-F2 space), showing consistent articulation across scripts.