This is Part Three in a three-part series on the evolution of multitrack production sound recording and how the workflow is still being solved.

Read Part 1
Read Part 2

In the last segment of this article, it was put forth that while the
technology to implement a superior workflow utilizing the benefits of both a
mono mix and split tracks is firmly in place, that workflow is not regularly
being utilized. When it is, it is rarely being used to its full advantage.
Why?

The possibilities for problems are many, and range from tiny technical
inconsistencies and manufacturer incompatibilities all the way to a broad
misunderstanding of the philosophy of the workflow. While the technical
limitations can be easily overcome with appropriate focus, the man missing
ingredient, as it has been for decades of bridging post production
environments with production workflows, is thorough communication and
understanding.

On the surface, there are plenty of simple technical pitfalls with relation
to the various devices in each department (production, telecine, picture
editorial, and sound editorial) being able to integrate effectively and
utilize the files in the same method. Avids, telecine media such as DVCAM
and DIgiBeta tape, production recorders of various manufacture, EDL and ALE
files, and telecine controllers all often have particular idiosyncracies
that are not replicated on other machines. Sampling rates, NTSC video
pulldowns, bit depth, file format and suffix, number of tracks in polyphonic
files, variance in Avid software, optical disc formats, and other elements
can cause hiccups and translation errors across platforms, resulting in
problematic audio and organization, delays, and headaches for all involved.
These factors conspire to hamper and strangle the workflow.

While the minor issues can often be addressed on a case by case basis, a key
and far more significant technical stumbling block is the almost ubiquitous
changeover from traditional conforming process. In traditional practice,
once the picture editorial completed their process and "locked" the picture,
the sound editoriial team loaded and synced the sound from the original
recorded media to match the cut. This process, while somewhat time
consuming, preserved the recorded integrity of the production mixer's
tracks. Due to shrinking post production schedules (and perhaps an effort
to save steps), the current standard shortcut is to use the OMF or AAF
process to deliver sound directly from the picture editors' NLE workstation
output to the sound editorial team.

There are numerous stumbling blocks present in this scenario, but the most
glaring of them boil down to two. One consists of the potential for error
and degradation in what essentially consists of a grand game of "telephone".
In the conform workflow, any signal degradation due to signal path
limitations in telecine controllers and output media, or NLE devices like
Avid and its variety of software versions and platforms, was completely
eliminated by restoring the original sound from the recorded source.
Contrarily, in the OMF/AAF workflow, any such degradations (of which there
are numerous possibilities) become a permanent part of the film's sound. In
addition, sound editing decisions and alterations made on the fly by picture
editors may make destructive changes that, in the OMF or AAF workflow, often
cannot be reversed.

The more obvious and relevant problem to the workflow is that picture
editors seldom have the desire to cut with all of the available tracks in
their editing timeline. Most often, these tracks are not needed by the
picture editorial department; even if the mono mix is flawed, it is often
suitable for their purposes. Fine sonic tuning is generally not performed
at this stage, and the materials provided on the isolated tracks are not of
use for the picture editorial department. Having many tracks in the
timeline that are unneccessary at that stage creates a clumsy working
environment for the picture editor, and the overwhelming majority of picture
editors either only carry the mono mix or the mono mix and whatever single
additional tracks they deem necessary for a particular shot (usually in the
interest of supporting the story as opposed to sonic craft).

The consequence, of course, is that the sound editors, once receiving the
work track via AAF or OMF, now have no direct access or correlation to all
of the painstakingly recorded additional tracks that justify the utilization
and benefits of the mono mix in the workflow. Technology is scrambling to
provide another solution through the use of production-entered metadata
fields to locate the additional tracks later. Although somewhat ginger
steps have been taken in that direction by updates in Digidesign's Pro Tools
software to indicate to the editor when other tracks have been recorded on a
used file, many sound editors confirm that despite the appearance of the
pieces in place, there is still no solid solution for locating additional
tracks after the fact when using OMF or AAF audio. The hassle involved in a
manual find-and-search process – now more difficult than ever before since
production time code often does not translate property to FLX files and EDLs
– often makes ADR an attractive alternative to locating, implementing, and
using the original performances recorded on those additional tracks on set
in the first place. In this case all is lost.

The situation also puts production mixers in a peculiar fix. In the
high-stress, time-critical world of a film set, can a mixer give the okay to
the director that a take has successfully been captured if it is only
captured in additional iso tracks and not on the mix? If it does not go
through the telecine process and subsequently through picture edit and the
OMF or AAF, is there ever any guarantee that the additional track will be
looked for, can be found, and will be used? Will the knowledge that an
additional track exists be enough job security for studio executives who
only hear the mono mix in dailies, when that mix is problematic or less than
ideal? Such conundrums threaten to cripple the benefits of this workflow at
the source, and illustrate why it is absolutely critical and essential that
all involved parties work to find a solution to standardize the workflow so
it may be implemented with confidence across the board.

Since it seems extremely unlikely that the post conform workflow will
return, further development and innovation on the parts of the software
developers is important, since it is so essential that a way is found to
quickly access additional tracks in the OMF/AAF workflow. In addition,
standardizing technical options and processes in both production recording
equipment, telecine controllers, NLEs and DAWs will all ensure that tracks
can be transferred easily from one place to another. Communication amongst
manufacturers and an easily recognizable definition of standards will go to
some length to achieve this aim.

Finally, a key focus must reside on better communication between production
and post production as to the nature of the workflows. Recent educational
seminars by the Cinema Audio Society in Los Angeles and Gotham Sound and
Postworks in New York are a definite step in the right direction, but the
onus falls on both technicians and producers on specific productions to
ensure that said communication takes place and room is made for tests and
troubleshooting. This will ensure a smooth ride that also utilizes the
material to its best advantage and acheives the goal of production sound as
it has always existed – to preserve actors' performances and to sound great
while doing so. The revolution is in our hands and has been in our hands
for some time. Now we must act.