College application intensive
Learn Pro Tools as an editorial system: organize a session, make precise nondestructive edits, build continuity, route and automate a clear mix, and deliver a verified package.
Completed outcome
Required common orientation / 75 minutes
A reusable orientation to the habits that keep creative projects reproducible, reviewable, accessible, and safe to hand off.
Complete the shared foundationGuided sequence
Module 1 / 3 hours
Translate a delivery brief into session settings, folders, tracks, routing, naming, and save discipline before editorial work begins.
Module 2 / 3 hours
Learn the Edit window as a precision environment and connect edit modes, tools, grids, selections, and shortcuts to different editorial problems.
Module 3 / 3.5 hours
Build natural speech from multiple takes using clip gain, fades, room tone, breaths, and close listening instead of visual alignment alone.
Module 4 / 3 hours
Turn the edit into a controlled session using track roles, groups, submixes, sends, automation, and restrained corrective processing.
Module 5 / 3 hours
Measure programme behavior without mixing to a number blindly, then test intelligibility and balance across realistic listening conditions.
Module 6 / 3 hours plus capstone work
Finish the project by creating masters and stems, inspecting the exported files, cleaning the session, and packaging enough evidence for handoff and archive.
Standardized coursework pack
Dialogue takes, host links, room tone, wild lines, music stems, production notes, transcript, loudness brief, and intentional edit faults. Approximately 2 GB after copying the source WAV files.
Media access: the downloadable files define the required rights-cleared pack, checks, and evidence. Large application media must be distributed by the institution through its licensed learning or storage system.
Portfolio assessment
Transform supplied raw dialogue, links, music, effects, and room tone into a coherent 6-8 minute programme that preserves speaker meaning and meets the supplied stereo delivery specification.
| Criterion | Weight | Strong evidence | Revision needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creative and editorial judgment | 25 | Choices support the brief, audience, structure, and intended experience. | Choices appear arbitrary, obscure meaning, or do not answer the brief. |
| Technical execution | 25 | The project is controlled, internally consistent, and free from avoidable faults. | Errors in sync, routing, media, timing, levels, or settings weaken the result. |
| Workflow organization | 15 | Files, tracks, bins, versions, and media can be understood and relinked by another editor. | The project depends on undocumented locations, names, or destructive actions. |
| Application fluency | 15 | The student uses appropriate tools efficiently and can explain why each was chosen. | The workflow is unnecessarily slow, fragile, or based on trial and error. |
| Delivery and quality control | 15 | All deliverables meet the specification and are verified after export. | Required files, checks, metadata, access assets, or technical properties are missing. |
| Documentation and reflection | 5 | The decision log identifies evidence, revisions, limitations, and transferable learning. | Documentation lists actions without explaining decisions or unresolved risks. |
Maintained source base
Use these sources to confirm current application behavior. Every lesson carries a visible review date and avoids presenting a menu location as a timeless principle.
Curriculum reviewed 2026-07-13.
Machine translation provided by Google Translate, on Google’s servers. We do not check these translations and they will get technical terms wrong. The English page is the authoritative one. Following a link sends this page’s address to Google. Your browser may also offer to translate this page itself, which keeps the request on your device.
