The evolution of television sound mixing

Dubbing Mixing, the art of combining multiple distinct audio sources to create the soundtrack of a television programme, is a profession that has seen enormous technological and practical change yet, much of this development remains completely unknown beyond the walls of the dubbing theatre.

Click through this story to read about some of these changes and listen to accounts from three dubbing mixers who experienced them first hand.

Text and interviews by Tim Heath.

In an age before desktop computers…

Nowadays, the term ‘post production sound’ conjures up images of the latest laptops running flashy software that gives users instant access to a vast range of effects and seemingly unlimited options for experimentation. However, long before Pro Tools and plugins, the work of dubbing mixers was a laborious task conducted on technologies that were considerably less user friendly and rather less portable.

Back to Top
Next Section

The stress of mixing 'as live'

Until the early 1980s, all mixing desks used in television post production were manual analogue desks on which all mixing had to be done ‘as live’. Mixing on these desks meant all adjustments to soundtrack were made simultaneously in real time with the images. Nothing could be saved or recalled. A single mistake, or mistimed adjustment, meant abandoning the mix and starting all over again. As a result, mixing on these desks was the source of considerable stress for dubbing mixers of the past.

Rob James, a former BBC Dubbing Mixer and Post Production Manager, experienced this practice first hand: “[Mixing on a manual desk] it’s a bit a performance in the theatrical sense… It was very very stressful!”

Ben Peisel, who spent the majority of his career at BBC Pebble Mill, had a similar experience: “When you’re mixing on a completely manual console you’re very mindful of where you’re putting your faders [...] The level of processing going on in your head was massive”.

Back to Top
Next Section

The introduction of automation

In 1976, British company Neve released its first Automated control system called Necam. Automation allowed for settings to be stored and repeated automatically, moving and adjusting the desk via a computer rather than a human operator.

The technology was slow to catch on but by 1985 the third generation, Necam 96, had become established in television production and numerous competitors such as SSL, Calrec, and MartinSound had developed their own systems. Looking back, faders that move by themselves may seem a modest breakthrough, yet both Ben and Rob believe this new technology had a significant impact on their working practices.

“Once you started to introduce automation, fader automation and mute automation, that took quite a lot of the burden [...] Automation allowed maybe slightly less talented people to tackle more complicated things”

“If you’ve got an automated console, even just faders, you can take a part of that, get most of it right, and go back and alter only the bits you’ve mucked up. This is massively less stressful than knowing that sooner or later you have to get it right”

Back to Top
Next Section

Making tough decisions and sticking to them

Manual desks were not the only technological hurdle that dubbing mixers faced when conducting their work. The number of available tracks, and therefore the number of individual sound sources available, was notoriously low.

Premixing, the process of combining sounds into a single sound source, was a common workaround. However, once a premix had been constructed, it was impossible to change without reconfiguring the desk and starting from scratch. As such, half the task of the dubbing mixer was to make tough decisions and commit to them fully.

Ben Peisel remembers that “You could run […] nine sources into your desk and do a dialogue premix and record that. Then you’d go back and play your premix but add additional effects. You ended up building up a bigger mix than you could otherwise handle.” “Each time you had to make a painful decision to go back to your premix stage might be half an hour of replumbing stuff and loading up tracks again”

Back to Top
Next Section

Do, undo, redo

With the development of digital audio workstations, such as AMS Audiofile and DAR SoundStation, dubbing mixers were faced with a new wealth of opportunity for experimentation and creativity. With the audio now in digital form, it could be edited and manipulated in ways that were simply not practical in previous years.

However, it was their ability to instantaneously undo edits with no loss of quality that was most significant to dubbing mixers. Decisions no longer had to be carefully thought out and then committed to but could be made, and unmade, with no consequence.

Rob James explains “The big big change or the single most creative difference between track laying on film and track laying on a digital device is the ability to change your mind without it costing a fortune. [With a digital device] if its physically possible you can do it.”

Back to Top
Next Section

The importance of teamwork

It was not only the equipment that was significantly different for dubbing mixers working in the analog era, so too were the working arrangements. When working with magnetic film stock and analog desks, completing a mix was the task of a team of skilled operators.

Led by the dubbing mixer, this team included an assistant, also known as a gram op, and a further assistant in charge of monitoring the resulting soundtrack. This team, in collaboration with the Picture Editor and Director, worked cohesively towards the common goal of creating a technically and stylistically impressive soundtrack.

Fiona Voight remembers her time working as an assistant at BBC Pebble Mill as one of collaboration “As an assistant you’d be watching and making sure […] you were another pair of eyes and ears you both trying to work to the end making a brilliant program, so my opinion was valid.”

Back to Top
Next Section

Working as a lone operator

Armed with Digital Workstations and fully automated digital desks, dubbing mixers soon found that much of the work that had necessitated a small team of operators could be absorbed into their own practices. In all but the most expensive programmes, dubbing mixers became responsible for their own track laying and the assistant quickly disappeared as producers looked for ways to save funds.

Both Ben and Fiona believe that this new working arrangement puts a strain on the dubbing mixer as they find themselves as the only ‘pair of ears’ during this crucial process.

“I started this whole thing of track laying your own material and then mixing it. And we could do it in the time and it worked pretty well. So we started adopting that not only for our soaps but also for our bigger dramas […] There are some disadvantages with it. Not least of which, you are the judge and jury on everything that you do until the final review with the producer.”

When working on a episode of Doctors Fiona mentions: “You’ve got to think of everything and you’ve got to try and fit it in to the time you’ve got. For today, I’ve got to get a whole episode done in a day, thats track lay the dialogue, track lay the effects, mix it, review it, thats a lot to do in 10 hours.”

Back to Top
Next Section

The evolution of television sound mixing

In an age before desktop computers…

The stress of mixing 'as live'

The introduction of automation

Making tough decisions and sticking to them

Do, undo, redo

The importance of teamwork

Working as a lone operator

Explore this subject in greater detail

Ben Peisel, Rob James and Fiona Voight were interviewed by Tim Heath, whose doctoral thesis documents changes to the working practices of sound mixers and engineers in British television production.

Explore ADAPT videos on Figshare

Sound in television outside broadcasts

Explore more television technology stories