Would I get a higher quality file from say using Vegas to go to an intermediate codec and rendering it in Adobe Media Encoder (which I still have access to) to Avid DNxHD or is that not going to provide a noticeable quality difference?

What is your source like? I personally find 720 60p superior to 1080i but I guess it depends on how Comcast broadcast the video.

If your source is 1920x1080 or above and you have Vegas 14 or higher, you could use Magix ProRes with one customization to the template. That would allow you to keep uncompressed audio.

Under Notes:

I know this doesn't exactly contribute to an answer...

I'm surprised .xmf isn't an option for you. Most TV stations use that format natively in their master control and even "flip" all other formats to .mxf with eight audio channels (LF, RF, C, LFE, SL, SR, SAPL, SAPR respectively) for playout.

Vegas Pro plays very nice with .mxf files importing and rendering. You might want to inquire Comcast about that.

Do you know that there are several proprietary flavors of MXF?

Unless the broadcaster specifically lists Sony mxf, it won't work. I have never seen that option listed as a broadcast format.

[I see now that this comment was unnecessarily confusing. My intention is only to point out that the because some .mxf formats such as xdcam hd are supported does not mean all .mxf container formats are, not by a mile. See below.]

ProRes is your go-to option for this project.

Note that the MAGIX ProRes encoder is called "MAGIX Intermediate" since VP15. It's not an Apple-certified encoder but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use it.

It's also the most universal broadcast stream next to mpeg-2 TS, which has horrible layer II audio.

Do you know that there are several proprietary flavors of MXF?

Unless the broadcaster specifically lists Sony mxf, it won't work. I have never seen that option listed as a broadcast format.

ProRes is your go-to option for this project.

I'm the Chief Engineer at a full power TV station. I exchange .mxf files often with other stations and I've never had one come back as long as I adhere to their specs. I only suggest .mxf as something to look into for a possible option since I find that format quite universal in the broadcast world.

Same here around where MXF XDCAM HD is by far the most common type delivered for broadcasting.

Those audio specs are antiquated. All b'cast submission specs I've encountered in the last five years or so are ATSC A/85 or EBU R128. That said, give Comcast/Xfinity what they want. Typically, -20 dBFS is the reference level via a 1k Hz calibration tone and making sure program audio peaks do not exceed -10 dBFS was common prior to DTV. I would not submit a multi-channel mix either, (L-R dual mono or stereo is the safest). The idiots I've encountered at local cable TV stations could f_ck up a free lunch.

Oops! Completely forgot XDCAM as the spec sheet listed MPEG-1 Layer 2 Audio for MPEG-2 Transport Streams.

Oops! Completely forgot XDCAM as the spec sheet listed MPEG-1 Layer 2 Audio for MPEG-2 Transport Streams.

720 59.94p would have been my choice depending on the content; fast and easy to encode.

A high bitrate MPEG will look great, will render fast, no intermediate and is on the list of their accepted formats. Why try anything else? I don't understand the confusion.

A high bitrate MPEG will look great, will render fast, no intermediate and is on the list of their accepted formats. Why try anything else? I don't understand the confusion.

The reasons I brought up .mxf at all are three-fold:

1.) If .mxf is, in fact, Comcast's native master control file format you might be doing them a favor by not forcing them to be a middleman and "flip" the file;

2.) Your file would look better technically because it won't be transcoded;

3.) .mxf is easy to work with and it's a format that plays nicely with Vegas.

To rraud: There was a time I would have agreed with you about multichannel audio being easy to mess up. Today, however, the norm is an easy direct file transfer to the playout system and making sure the file hits all the checkmarks for quality control and timing. They don't fiddle with settings anymore. As long as you follow the broadcast standard: Channel 1: Left Front, Channel 2: Right Front, Channel 3: Center, Channel 4: LFE, Channel 5: Left Surround, Channel 6: Right Surround, Channel 7: SAP Left, Channel 8: SAP Right, Matthias-Claflin should be good to go. That's exactly how multichannel network programming is sent.

The only question in my mind is, does Comcast accept .mxf? I wouldn't be surprised if they do, and that would end up being a long-term plus for everyone.

Oops! Completely forgot XDCAM as the spec sheet listed MPEG-1 Layer 2 Audio for MPEG-2 Transport Streams.

+1

Also, I don't believe xdcam is an mpeg-2 transport stream, which is short GOP.

Turd, I agree with your reasoning but you are suggesting that he provide a file that does not meet their specs. Maybe they do, maybe they don't but it isn't what they are asking for.

MXF is a container, not a format. As such, it can contain any number of formats.

One such .mxf format is called xdcam. It is not short GOP Mpeg-2 TS. It does not support legacy layer II audio. Several of the other .mxf formats will never see a broadcast control room.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_Exchange_Format

Rather than continuing to dish us codec salad, please specify the format, not the container, and preferably one that meets the poster's requirements.

All together now, MOV is a container. ProRes is a format.

Jabberwocky.

david-tu & Musicvid:

I don't suggest at all that Matthias-Claflin simply supply an .mxf file and be done with it. I suggest he (or she -- I don't want to assume) inquire about that format as a possibility, then act accordingly.

You're very correct in saying .mxf is a container. Admittedly, I use the word "format" as too broad a brushstroke, but If Comcast accepts .mxf files, as I suspect they do, the specs they provide would determine the flavor therein.

but If Comcast accepts .mxf files, as I suspect they do, the specs they provide would determine the flavor therein.

Since the specs the OP posted do not suggest that, and since you seem interested in the discussion, why not end all the background discussion and see if Comcast does in fact, support your suspicion by seeking out and posting updated format submission specs for your as-yet unspecified .mxf format?

Personally, I have no interest except for accuracy and compliance, not necessarily for Comcast.

but If Comcast accepts .mxf files, as I suspect they do, the specs they provide would determine the flavor therein.

Since the specs the OP posted do not suggest that, and since you seem interested in the discussion, why not end all the background discussion and see if Comcast does in fact, support your suspicion by seeking out and posting updated format submission specs for your as-yet unspecified .mxf format?

Personally, I have no interest except for accuracy and compliance, not necessarily for Comcast.

I feel as though you believe I'm trying to hammer my suggestion -- which I'm honestly not trying to do. I just want to help someone who's asking for assistance to which I believe I can provide. I think it'd be a worthwhile endeavor for Matthias-Claflin to find out if Comcast accepts a newer industry standard, and I provided the reasons above. Perhaps the specs provided by Comcast haven't been updated to show .mxf is now allowed or, perhaps, even preferred.

.mxf is now a broadcast industry standard file, but the .mxf format contained within -- and I'm using the word correctly here -- has no broadcast industry standard that I'm aware of. I've been asked to send a variety of .mxf formats in my broadcast line of work. The .mxf format completely depends on recipient's needs -- and my experience is they're always easy to comply with in Vegas Pro. I don't have a contact at Comcast. Matthias-Claflin obviously does. It'd be quick and easy for Matthias-Claflin to ask Comcast about .mxf, and the ramifications from that simple question could result in long-term harmony between Matthias-Claflin and Comcast to the benefit of both.

It doesn't matter to me if my suspicion is correct or if Matthias-Claflin follows through with my suggestion. I just want to provide some possible assistance based on my experience.

The philosophical difference being whether to offer the suggestion speculatively or prevalidated by the literature or duplicable testing.

I've been caught more than once doing the former, yet I understand it is quite a popular social media style these days.

This should lay the discussion to rest. The updated format spec is -- ProRes MOV 422 / PCM.

http://www.studiodaily.com/2018/02/new-file-delivery-specs-ad-content-set-tv-convergence-working-group/

Thanks for sharing your perspectives