The default naming of tracks

[snd.waves]

So I find there to be an issue that keeps popping up for me, keen to see if i'm alone. I started a post here on this some time ago, but there was little feedback. I have also written to the mothership, but after a month, no reply. So i’ll put it here again, see what bites. I guess i’ll start with a question.

Is there a menu option to change the way tracks are numbered, based on whether or not the mix tracks are recorded, or just the iso tracks?

Why do I ask this? I’ve been in reality tv for a few years now, and record using a 788T. I love it, wouldn’t change a thing. My workflow, and often a request from post, is to never record a mix track to the HDD, but send a mix/scratch to the cameras. With this setup, I find i’ll have to prompt post as to the obscure track naming. Below is how my machine names its tracks, given that I'm recording all eight iso tracks direct, no mix tracks.


input 1 - track 3
input 2 - track 4
input 3 - track 5
input 4 - track 6
input 5 - track 7
input 6 - track 8
input 7 - track 9
input 8 - track A

As far as a good workflow in post, not to mention note taking, and quick referencing, the above system seems not only totally unhelpful, but unnecessary. Input 8 as track A? Surely this makes enough sense:

input 1 - track 1
input 2 - track 2
input 3 - track 3
input 4 - track 4
input 5 - track 5
input 6 - track 6
input 7 - track 7
input 8 - track 8

Am i missing something, or could this be good impetus for change?
 

[soundpod]

You can name the tracks on the 788 what ever you want.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.

[snd.waves]

The issue is with the default for track numbering, as it relates to the input. Open up a folder of tracks in finder (mac?) and you'll quickly see what I'm referring to. This as it turns out, affects the post workflow.

[Constantin]

How about using poly files? Instead of mono which you apparently are using now

[Glen Trew]

For the productions I've worked since the days of the Deva-2, it's made sense to name them like this:

 

1- Mono mix

2- Boom

3- Boom2

4- Character name

5- Character name

Etc... Then...

X-Music Track

X-Music Timecode

 

I started this in 2003 because it made sense on many levels, explained it to post, they liked it, and it now seems to be the standard.

 

I know some people still want to have two mix tracks (radios on 1, boom on 2.. or mix on 1, 3dB lower on 2), but, since the days of "mix and multiple prefader iso tracks" no one has ever offered a logical reason as to why. So, I give them "Mix on 1, and prefader ISOs on remaining tracks", named as described above. Once the discussion takes place, no one has ever requested anything else.

[snd.waves]

Ok i’m being misunderstood. This does relate to Sound Devices, but does NOT relate to the customisable naming of tracks. This issue refers to the default (unchangeable) numbering/naming of a track in relation to its input. Yes i am using mono files, as requested by post sadly. 

 

Lets say take 1 of the scene is called ‘Kitchen’. My boom enters input 1, it iso records to track 1, the track is labelled BOOM, my notes for post say 'track 1 - BOOM'. When viewed on the computer, or as it turns out some editing software, the file is viewable as:

 

Kitchen_T01_3    (Boom - track 1)

Kitchen_T01_4    (Rad - track 2)

Kitchen_T01_5    (Rad - track 3)

Kitchen_T01_6    (Rad - track 4)

Kitchen_T01_7    (Rad - track 5)

Kitchen_T01_8    (Rad - track 6)

Kitchen_T01_9    (Rad - track 7)

Kitchen_T01_A    (Rad - track 8 

 

Track 1, Boom, is numbered channel 3, not 1

Track 2, Rad, is numbered channel 4, not 2

….

Track 8, Rad, is numbered channel A, not 8 

 

Import some files, have a look. Anyway, Im just gonna leave this here.

 

Thanks y’all! 

 

 

 

 

[Peter Mega]

The numbers you refer to are track designators. Not tracks as such.

Actually, the 788 tracks are labelled L, R, A, B etc on the front panel and meter view.

The track designators start at 1 being L, 2 being R, 3 being A etc.

Yiu should look at the input to track relationship in a different way.

Input 1 is not track 1 (it is on the 633)

The 788 can route any input to any track so therefore is not like the 633 that is fixed routing for the ISO tracks.

Hope this helps.

Mega

[pkautzsch]

The numbers you refer to are track designators. Not tracks as such.

Actually, the 788 tracks are labelled L, R, A, B etc on the front panel and meter view.

(snip)

The 788 can route any input to any track so therefore is not like the 633 that is fixed routing for the ISO tracks.

 

This implies the following routing:

Input 1 to Track L (Kitchen_T01_1)

Input 2 to Track R (Kitchen_T01_2)

Input 3 to Track A (Kitchen_T01_3)

...

Input 8 to Track F (Kitchen_T01_

 

This is even a routing preset in the menu, as the manual just told me.

 

Use X1 and X2 for your camera mix buses.

[snd.waves]

Thanks for the replies fellas!

This is turning into a bit of a molehill, but its fun anyway

I guess my point is Peters, i’m not recording a mix, so why are tracks 1 & 2 still assigned to it?

This issue has less to do with the input/track relationships, or routing, and everything to do with file numbering and management in the absence of recorded mix tracks.

I utilise all twelve tracks on the 788. I record the inputs direct to tracks A-H, the L/R mix bus is for camera feeds, and X1/X2 as comm feeds for producers/speakers/video split.

If my whole workflow is telling the 788 that input 1 is track 1, not unusual, then surely having the file numbered accordingly should be standard?


The current default file numbering, without recording a mix track is this:

Input 1 to Track A (Kitchen_T01_3)

Input 2 to Track B (Kitchen_T01_4)

Input 3 to Track C (Kitchen_T01_5)

…

Input 8 to Track H (Kitchen_T01_A)



I find this confusing, and so has post on a number of occasions. Tracks 1 & 2 are assigned to the L/R mix bus, but there is no mix recorded! i’d argue that not recording a mix, at least in the reality world, is not an unusual workflow. maybe it is?

I just think to address this would really just complement the 788’s awesome power and capabilities.

[Marc Wielage]

What if you just did Mix on Track 1, then isos to all the other tracks... and told the post people not to use Track 1 if they don't want it? Call it a "reference" track. Problem solved.

 

Sometimes, the way for post to solve these issues is to accept there are limitations of hardware and software that require workarounds, and there are no solutions that are ideal 100% of the time. I also think they're asking for something very dicey and risky: attempting to use all the isos for every scene. 

[chris_bollard]

You can create a custom input to track routing scheme and have whatever input you like assigned to whatever track you wish. From there you should name each track with a meaningful and unique label - that makes it clear who is in what track in your sound report so post doesn't get confused

[Peter Mega]

This is from the Sound Devices forum

"We can't use the our track designators on the files because of the Broadcast Wave file spec. The number at the end of the file name is the track interleave number, the spec doesn't have an allowance for letters--Avid, ProTools and other software that uses mono files would have no idea what to do with a file labeled XXXYYY_L.wav"

 

and also

"The designators are HEX so they progress 1 - 9 then A - F, so A is the designator for the 10th track."

 

Its like the spots on a leopard, the track designators (or track interleave number) don't/cant change.

[Constantin]

Thanks for the replies fellas!

This is turning into a bit of a molehill, but its fun anyway

I guess my point is Peters, i’m not recording a mix, so why are tracks 1 & 2 still assigned to it?

.

Don't think of L/R as mix tracks, think of them as two iso tracks. Just rename them to whatever and you have exactly what you were asking for. Can't you use X1/X2 for the cameras as well as comteks?

Besides, if post is asking for mono files, for whatever reason, but they are also not capable to understand that 3 is iso 1, after you've explained it to them, they are, well.., stupid

[mikewest]

On a busy drama it's hard to find the time to name tracks with changing scenes.

 

That said with focusing with blocks, rigging radios /rehearsals and doing the job

 

mike

[Wandering Ear]

I've always found the track naming on the 788 to be a little confusing.  I prefer a linear numbering instead of the L,R,A,B,C, etc.  Even though the 788 is fully capable of routing any input to any track, the naming convention forces your thinking into a specific workflow, which doesn't always match what I'm doing.  For example, most of the time I prefer to record a mono mix and iso's.  I know I can turn off the R track, but calling them L and R also designates there is a spatial relationship between the tracks, which in my work there isn't.

snd.waves, your track numbers are what they are because of your routing assignments.  You have iso 1 going to track 3 (A in SD nomenclature).  If it's important for your workflow to have the bwav track numbers correspond, then create a new track routing preset, and route accordingly.  You can also route your outputs independently, so you still will be able to mix to camera and ifb etc..

[CraigF]

not going to say post is stuped but not having and using the mix track from the recorder they are losing the Advanced Recoder Workflow freatures of Pro Tools (assuming post sound is using Pro Tools)