Hand the band a bunch of CDs and say "Here, you deal with it." The guy
mixing with the ProTools should be able to do that. That's what
they're paying him fo

God forbid that professionalism should include making it a little easier for
the guy down the road. Did you ever think that the guy to whiom you do this is
going to spend many hours with your now ex-client complaining about how you
made his-and the client's-life harder and probably more expensive? Do you
really think that's the best way to conduct your professional life? The last
time I looked this forum was entitled "rec.audio.pro" and professionals have an
obligation to conduct themselves in the highest possible manner. Handing
someone a bunch of CDs and telling him to deal with the problems isn't proper
professional behavior. Don't you have an obligation to the client? I certainly
do. After many years as a recording engineer I morphed into a TV and film
production mixer and I can tell you that if you mane things difficult for the
next guy down the line you won't be working long. Why do you feel that is
accecptable professional behavior
Phil Brown

In article unged writes:

God forbid that professionalism should include making it a little easier for
the guy down the road. Did you ever think that the guy to whiom you do this is
going to spend many hours with your now ex-client complaining about how you
made his-and the client's-life harder and probably more expensive?

OK, maybe I was a little quick to brush that one off, but this is one
more situation where we don't have all the information. If my client's
rich uncle gave him $20,000 to finish the project that I was busting
my rate card trying to help him scrape through on his orginal budget,
and he decided to take it to someone with a reputation and ProTools,
sure, I'd hand him his pieces in the form that was most convenient to
me and let him go.

If this was really a pro-to-pro situation, I'd certainly talk to the
guy with the ProTools system and see what we could mutually agree on
thyat would be best for both of us.

The original poster suggested that he might want to retain all of the
edits (or he might not). Suppose the new guy wanted to listen to all
the recorded material and perhaps make different, or additional
editing decisions?

One thing that the original poster may not understand is that until
the AES or the DAW software developers get together and come up with a
standard format for edit lists and how to describe crossfades, the
only way to transfer an edited track between differing systems is to
create a new track that's a virtual re-recording of the complete track
with all the edits as performed. This is usually a one-button task on
most DAWs and it might be a good idea to do this for all edited or
punched tracks, if for no other reason than to have a reference as to
what the track sounded like when it left the studio.

However, every time you record something, you create a new file, and
every edit you do is in the system's unique (and unreadable by another
system without translation by an intermediate program which may or may
not work well) format and will be of no use to the new program. Few
people document their sessions well enough to be able to sort out what
pieces went into an edited track. If they did, that's great, but if
not, either they'd have to live with the existing edits on a "solid"
track or they'd have to start with the basic pieces again.

So here's one more innocently simple question that has a complicated
set of answers.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo