A compact audio file is convenient for approval, but it may not be the best source for later editing. If the recording will support future films, translations or revisions, specify an appropriate production master separately from the listening copy. The two files serve different purposes even when they contain the same approved words.
The decision should be made before handover. Otherwise a team may retain only the version easiest to email, then discover months later that every new edit begins from a previously compressed copy.
Describe the future use
Tell the producer whether the audio is only for immediate review or is intended to remain an editing source. A finished narration master, a raw session recording and a final mixed soundtrack are different assets. Asking for a high-quality file without identifying which of these you need leaves the scope unclear.
Adobe's export guidance distinguishes uncompressed formats from MP3 and cautions against repeated MP3 recompression. This supports retaining a suitable editing source. Converting an already compressed recording to a larger format does not establish that lost information has been recovered.
Separate content from encoding
Confirm what the master contains: selected takes, approved edits, processing and any accompanying sound. An uncompressed file of the wrong take is not a useful master. Equally, a raw session may preserve everything but require substantial selection work before another editor can use it.
Ask for the master and review copy to share a clear version relationship. Reviewers should know which master corresponds to the words they approved, rather than infer that relationship from similar filenames. If a correction is made, replace or supersede both relevant versions deliberately.
Avoid unnecessary conversion chains
A new editor should receive the best authorised source available, not a download taken from a previously published film simply because it is easy to find. Identify the supplied source in the brief and ask the editor to confirm any limitation before work begins.
In a hypothetical corporate series, a narrator records a reusable introduction. The marketing team receives a compact review file and a separate approved production master. When a new episode is commissioned, the editor uses the master rather than extracting the introduction from an online video. The team has preserved a clearer starting point without needing to record the same line again solely because of poor handover choices.
Agree the handover boundary
A supplier may include only finished video in its standard scope. If you need standalone narration or other audio masters, request them explicitly and confirm the agreed uses. File possession should not be treated as permission for every future adaptation.
Acceptance should establish that the supplied master opens in the receiving workflow, contains the approved performance and has the agreed format and channel arrangement. The listening copy should be clearly identified as a convenience version, not silently promoted to the source of truth.
This is a practical distinction rather than a claim that compressed audio is always unsuitable for audiences. Distribution and editing have different needs. Naming both deliverables lets the production provide an efficient review experience while preserving an appropriate authorised source for the future work you actually plan to commission.
Discuss the production
Contact Live Images to discuss the proposed film, intended audience and audio requirements. Confirm suitability, scope and availability for your particular brief.
Editorial note
Original commissioning guidance prepared with AI assistance. Examples are hypothetical, not completed Live Images projects. Search intent is an editorial hypothesis, not measured demand. This draft remains unpublished.