Multispeaker Urdu speech synthesis with limited data neural training


Abstract

Traditional text-to-speech (TTS) systems have relied on concatenative or parametric approaches, which require a labor-intensive, complex rule-writing process involving feature engineering. These limitations compromise the naturalness of the voices produced and hinder scaling to new voices or languages. Modern end-to-end neural TTS systems have brought the technology to a new state of the art, generating more expressive, natural speech with greater flexibility. They often face slow inference, low reliability, and offer minimal control over speech characteristics. A complete feed-forward topology with a clear separation between linguistic encoding, acoustic modelling, and waveform synthesis across different modules is one of the proposals we can make to address this deficiency. Our proposed system features a phoneme-level BERT encoder to support multiple languages and connects to a Transformer-based acoustic model with convolutional and variance-prediction layers to generate efficient, high-fidelity spectral results. The vocoder reconstructs waveforms using vector-quantized representations and is trained with audio loss functions, thereby eliminating the need for complex Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) or International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)-based preprocessing. The arrangement eliminates reliance on language embeddings and tailor-made phonetic dictionaries, enabling fast, reliable synthesis as the system is expanded to include new voices or languages. The proposed system was developed and tested using UrduMSD, which includes detailed speaker information such as speaking time, gender, and the number of utterances. Both objective and subjective evaluations on a 152-hour corpus of 195 speakers yield strong results, achieving a Mean Opinion Score (MOS) of 2.94 and a Speaker Embedding Cosine Similarity (SECS) score of 2.63, demonstrating that the model produces clear, natural-sounding speech across multiple speakers and speaking styles
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].