What Producers Ask Most About Preparing Source Files Before Editing

The question behind most first emails

The question I hear most often is a plain one: what exactly do you need from me before you start? It usually arrives in the first message, and it is the right question to ask, because the answer shapes everything that follows. A recording that arrives with a clear script, sensible names and a note about its intended use can be edited calmly. One that arrives as a folder of unnamed files and a half-remembered brief turns into detective work.

In the course, preparing source files is the last of the four parts of this module, and it deals with that moment directly. Learners practise receiving authorised recordings and an approved script, checking that both are complete, and writing down what is missing before a single cut is made.

I find that most producers already hold the information. It simply lives in different places: an email thread, a shared folder, someone's memory of the shoot. The work is gathering it into one place.

Which recordings count as authorised

Producers often ask whether they can send everything they have. The short answer is that we work only with recordings you have the right to use and to hand to an editor. That means material you recorded yourself, material from contributors who agreed to be recorded, and material supplied by a client who confirmed that the speakers know how it will be used.

On the course, learners use authorised recordings only, and the first habit we teach is to note where each file came from. A single line per file is enough: who spoke, who recorded it, and who approved its use.

If a contributor has only agreed to part of a conversation, say so before editing starts. It is far easier to mark a boundary at the beginning than to discover it after a review version has gone out and someone has seen their words used differently from what they expected.

• Say who recorded each file and when
• Note any contributor who limited how their voice may be used
• Keep the signed or emailed approval alongside the audio

Why the approved script matters so much

The second question is nearly always about the script. Do you really need one if the speaker is only answering questions in an interview? For a recorded report or explainer, yes, and for an interview film we ask for a running order or a list of the questions that were put. Editing a voice is partly a matter of judgement, and judgement needs a reference.

With an approved script, a stumble is easy to recognise because it differs from the words everyone agreed. A retake can be matched to the right line, and a breath can be trimmed without clipping the start of the next word. Without one, I am guessing which version of a sentence you meant.

Approved is the important word. A script that is still being rewritten by three people leads to edits that have to be redone. We ask for the version your client or editor has signed off, with its date, and we treat later changes as a revision rather than part of the first pass.

Labelling and organising the folder

Producers also ask how fussy the naming needs to be. Not very, but it should be consistent. A name that carries the project, the speaker, the take number and the date lets an editor sort files without opening each one, and it lets you find a file again six months later when an archive request arrives.

Learners spend a full session on this, and many are surprised how much time it saves. They build a small folder structure with originals kept untouched in one place, working copies in another, and notes in a third. The originals are never edited. Every change happens on a copy.

I also ask for the sample rate and format the recordings were captured in, since mixing rates inside one project is a common cause of subtle problems later. A short text file listing these details is welcome, and it takes a few minutes to write.

• Project, speaker, take and date in every file name
• Originals in a locked folder, untouched
• One notes file listing formats, sample rates and gaps

Checking before you send

The last common question is whether anyone will tell you if something is wrong with the files. Yes, and ideally before the work begins. Part of preparation is a listening check: play each recording through on headphones, mark clipping, dropouts, phone noise and any section where the speaker moves away from the microphone.

On the course, learners write a short condition report for a set of practice recordings. It lists what they heard, where, and how serious it is. That report becomes the basis for deciding what cleanup is realistic and what needs a retake.

Telling a producer early that a take cannot be fully rescued is far kinder than delivering a compromised result. Some problems, such as a recording made in an echoing room, can be reduced but not removed, and an honest note at this stage lets you decide whether to record again while the speaker is still available.

What happens after the files are ready

Once the recordings are checked, labelled and matched to an approved script, the editing itself is straightforward and quicker than most people expect. Preparation does not appear in the finished audio, but it is the reason a first review version usually needs only small adjustments rather than a rethink.

If you would rather hand the work over, the same preparation applies. We ask for the same material, in the same order, and we confirm in writing what we received and what we understood the brief to be. That confirmation is short, and it protects both sides if memories differ later.

For learners, the habit carries into every other module. Cleanup, balancing, synchronisation and delivery all become easier when the starting point is orderly, and that is the quiet argument for doing this part properly.