Two ways to write the same track
Most audio description software commits to one interaction model and builds everything around it. Understanding both before you settle on a tool matters more than most feature lists — the wrong working model can make an otherwise capable tool feel slow for months.
The timeline model
How it works
Clips sit on a visual timeline alongside the video, dialogue, and scene markers. You drag a clip, retime it, split or merge it against the picture directly — the same interaction language as a video editor.
Who it suits
Visually dense content — action sequences, nature documentaries, anything where several things happen at once and picking the exact frame matters. Also describers who already think in picture, coming from a video-editing background.
The script model
How it works
Description is written linearly, top to bottom, against a running character-count budget shown per line. There's no dragging or visual timeline — the constraint is expressed as a number, not a picture.
Who it suits
Dialogue-heavy content where gaps are short and frequent, fast writers who think in text rather than picture, and describers coming from subtitling or captioning work, where a character-count budget is already the familiar constraint.
Why most tools force you to pick one
Purpose-built AD tools that offer both views are the minority. General video editors default to timeline-only, since that's the paradigm they were built around. Script-focused tools often have no visual timeline at all. Switching between the two usually means switching software — and re-importing the project.
Where Synchrogen fits
Synchrogen keeps both views on the same underlying project data, so switching from timeline to script — or back — doesn't mean exporting and reimporting anything. Write a fast pass in script view, then drop into the timeline for a scene that needs frame-accurate timing, without losing either side's work. Currently in closed beta.
FAQ
Do I need to use a timeline to write audio description?
No — a linear script view with a character-count budget per gap works for many describers, especially on dialogue-heavy content. Timeline view helps most on visually complex scenes where exact frame placement matters.
Is script-based audio description writing faster than timeline-based?
For dialogue-heavy content with short, frequent gaps, most describers write faster in script view. For visually dense scenes, timeline view tends to be faster because it shows exactly where a clip can sit without trial and error.
Can I switch between timeline and script view in audio description software?
Some tools support both, but check whether switching preserves your work or requires an export/reimport step — that difference determines whether it's actually practical to use both on the same project.