[gives]

Originally Posted by soundworthy

Avid state that "AAF is the new format and contains more information than the OMF. OMF loses the volume automation and names of the tracks when exporting and importing from one application to another. AAF retains the volume automation and the track names"
https://avid.secure.force.com/pkb/ar...S/FAQ/en331113

I’ve had been using OMF for decades prior to the AAF.
The volume automation has always transferred from FCP into Protools using OMFs.

Why does all Avid/Protools affiliated sites state this when i have OMF sessions from over 10 years ago that proves to me that OMFs do transfer volume automation?
Other non avid related sites support my claim.

Here's an example i made
https://vimeo.com/619438950/bc308f8092

I'd really like to find out why this is Avid's take on it.

It is and I am using both at the moment on two series shows. It's what I get. I usually get AAF and prefer that. Sometimes some editors that are certain DAW for their work have said sometimes they have trouble exporting our of certain software editors. Most experienced editors I work with have no trouble with either. Always ask for OMF or AAF embedded so it's not looking for individual files on their HD that you do not have on yours
G