DARDEN, J.
At the trial, IMPD Detective Jesus Soria testified to the following: (1) that Romo and S.S. spoke Spanish during the covert buys; (2) that Soria understands and speaks Spanish fluently; (3) that Soria was in the police vehicle translating S.S. and Romo’s conversations for a federal drug agent involved in the case; (4) that IMPD interpreter Elia James, who also understands and speaks Spanish fluently, transcribed the recordings; (5) that Soria “read through [the transcripts] . . . while listening to the audio,” (tr. 254); (6) that Soria, James, S.S., and Marion County Prosecutor’s Office translator Azaldo DeFord were involved in the preparation of the transcripts; (7) that they compared the transcribed conversations with the audio recordings and made agreed-upon corrections thereto; and (8) that the transcribed conversations were true and accurate representations of Romo and S.S.’s conversations during the narcotics transactions.
. . . .
a. Transcripts as Exhibit
Our Supreme Court has previously established the following standard for use of transcripts of taped statements at trial:
The best evidence of the conversation is the tape itself; the transcript should normally be used only after the defendant has had an opportunity to verify its accuracy and then only to assist the jury as it listens to the tape. If accuracy remains an issue, a foundation may first be laid by having the person who prepared the transcripts testify [that] he has listened to the recordings and accurately transcribed their contents. Because the need for transcripts is generally caused by two circumstances, inaudibility of portions of the tape under the circumstances under which it will be replayed or the need to identify the speakers, it may be appropriate, in the sound discretion of the trial judge, to furnish the jurors with copies of a transcript to assist them in listening to the tapes. In the ordinary case, this will not be prejudicially cumulative. Transcripts should ordinarily not be read to the jury or given independent weight. * * * Transcripts should ordinarily not be admitted into evidence unless both sides stipulate to their accuracy and agree to their use as evidence.
Bryan v. State, 450 N.E.2d 53, 59 (Ind. 1983) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
In Bryan, the Court overtly contemplated two scenarios — inaudibility or a need to identify the speakers — in which a transcript “may” be necessary. The Court also acknowledged that other such circumstances may exist. Id. Today, we find that the instant facts present yet a third scenario — one in which the audio recording is not “[t]he best evidence of the conversation” because the recording features a language that is beyond the comprehension of the entire jury. Id. Here, the record reveals the extent of the trial court’s quandary — aware of the general rule regarding the inadmissibility of transcripts; unwilling to “go through the charade of playing [the audio recordings] in Spanish first” to an uncomprehending jury, (tr. 369); and mindful of its duty under the circumstances to assist the jurors in listening to the tapes. Id.
Romo cites several cases, including Bryan, State v. Small, 736 N.E.2d 742 (Ind. 2000), Blanchard v. State, 802 N.E.2d 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), as examples of cases in which transcripts were found to have been admitted in error, albeit often harmless error. However, these cases are factually distinct from the instant facts because they did not involve audio recordings that were incomprehensible to the trier of fact. In Bryan, Small, and Blanchard, there was no existing practical impediment to the trier of fact’s ability to review and weigh the evidence presented on the recordings. Thus, the admission of the transcripts in those cases into evidence was error, because the transcripts therein clearly should only have been used as aids to the jury in listening to the recordings, and not admitted as exhibits and afforded independent weight.
Here, however, we find that given the unlikelihood of having a bilingual jury that understands and is sufficiently well-versed in the nuances and/or idiom of the language at issue to accurately comprehend the audio-taped conversation(s), the trial court acted reasonably and within its sound discretion, when it concluded that it was appropriate “to furnish the jurors with copies of a transcript to assist them in listening to the tapes.” Bryan, 450 N.E.2d at 59. Thus, we cannot say under the circumstances herein that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the transcripts into evidence and in finding that playing the Spanish audio recordings as the jury perused the English transcripts of the same would not have assisted in the jury’s comprehension thereof and would have wasted judicial resources.
b. Accuracy
Next, Romo argues that the State failed to lay a proper foundation to establish the accuracy of the transcripts. His specific challenge to the transcript appears to be that Elia James — one of four persons involved in preparing the transcript — “did not testify and therefore could not verify the transcript for accuracy.” Romo’s Br. at 6.
Romo correctly asserts that James did not testify; however, there is evidentiary support in the record for the finding that Soria also “prepared” the transcript, and was, therefore, an appropriate person for the State to call upon to lay the foundation for its accuracy. At trial, Soria, a fluent Spanish-speaker, testified that he was actually in the vehicle translating Romo and S.S.’s conversation for a federal drug agent at the time the narcotics transactions were occurring. (Tr. 273). He also testified that he, James, S.S., and DeFord were involved in the preparation of the transcripts; that he “read through [James’ transcripts] . . . while listening to the audio,” (tr. 254); that they compared the transcribed conversations with the audio recordings for accuracy and made agreed-upon corrections thereto; and that the transcripts presented at trial were true and accurate representations of the conversations on the audio recordings. See Grimes v. State, 633 N.E.2d 262, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (finding no ground for error where police officer who monitored and partially observed portions of drug transactions recorded on the audio tapes testified as to the accuracy of the audio tapes and transcripts). See also Bryan, N.E.2d at 59 (finding that the foundation as to the accuracy of a transcript may be laid by having the person who prepared the transcript testify that he has listened to the recordings and accurately transcribed their contents).
Based upon the foregoing, we find that the State established a sufficient foundation for the accuracy of the transcript. We find no abuse of discretion.
BAKER, C.J., and CRONE, J., concur.