"Loud Commercial" Legislation Proposed In US Congress 636
Hackajar writes "Have you ever caught yourself running for the volume control when a TV commercial comes on? Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) has, and is submitting legislation that would require TV commercials in the US to stay at volume levels similar to the programming they are associated with. From the article: 'Right now, the government doesn't have much say in the volume of TV ads. It's been getting complaints ever since televisions began proliferating in the 1950s. But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the "apparent loudness" of commercials.'"
I'd much rather... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate loud commercials too, but this is just too much government IMHO. I'd much rather just have intelligent TVs or receivers that turned the volume down upon detecting a commercial...based on the settings *I* want, not what the government thinks is best for me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Insightful)
In defense of the advertisers, how are they supposed to know how loud the commercials should be?
They aren't. The network is.
Now, nobody's saying that marketers are less than human and deserve to be marched into the ocean, but there's no reason why the network can't apply some volume normalization. Or why the network has to purposefully crank up the relative volume of their ads. Or why televisions or HTPCs can't do volume normalization.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Funny)
Now, nobody's saying that marketers are less than human and deserve to be marched into the ocean
I am.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Interesting)
"but there's no reason why the network can't apply some volume normalization."
Normalization implies you have other sources to compare sound levels against to maintain a constant volume. Guess what isn't a regular thing in the TV industry, since they focus mainly on video and not audio? Bingo! Normalization.
Also:
"Or why televisions or HTPCs can't do volume normalization."
That would require TVs to have a copy of the sound track from prior programs to perform normalization. On top of that, it would have to receive the data and decode/compute against prior shows to do normalization. That's going to take loads of power. Also, that will introduce so many potential piracy holes. Ain't happening. If simple ol' me with a GED can figure this out, I'll bet the engineers already figured it out.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Informative)
No, it doesn't. Volume can be controlled instantaneously, with or without recovery that temporarily normalizes the audio coming afterwards. To do it in high fidelity requires analysis of the entire audio segment; I don't think anyone cares if the commercials are handled in high fidelity, they just want them to not knock you for a loop. So you can set a threshold to be detected, and when it is, the gain is dropped, right then, and it doesn't go back up until N seconds without a violating peak go by. AM radios work like this, it's called AGC (automatic gain control) and it works fine. In the case of an Am radio, the actual amplitude varies as the signal propagation; so the AGC has to work pretty well. Fast attack, slow decay. That's all we need here, something to step on the offending audio when it gets too loud. Couple of knobs would make it very flexible, but again, as any decent Am radio demonstrates, doesn't need them.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Interesting)
My TV does volume normalisation - it has a 10-second memory of how the sound was, and uses that to stop any sudden jumps in loudness. But the advertisers/networks seem to have got wise to that and add a 10-second gap between the break in the program and the first advert.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Informative)
There are standards for loudness. Dolby, for example, sets one which DVDs using Dolby sound must adhere to. That's why the DVD-Audio release of an album is often much better mixed than the CD version. The CD is made as loud as possible, the DVD has to be at a standard level.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To summarize my rather flippant point above: since the market won't a
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Insightful)
They could sample a random amount of tv and find the correct volume, instead they make the commercials super loud. This is why people use ad blockers and stuff like myth's auto-commercial skip. If the advertisers had not become obnoxious these things would not be so popular.
I would be more than happy to buy television shows at the cost the advertisers pay for my set of eyeballs. Stations charge around $20 per thousand viewers for a 30 second spot. So the average 1 hour program has about 17 minutes worth of adds*, meaning 34 30 second add spots. $20/1000 * 34 = $0.68.
That is what I would be willing to pay to watch commercial free tv online, any higher and I will use netflix, torrents or pvrs to get my commercial free tv episodes.
*based off the nonscientific method of average length to watch tv episodes on dvd
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Informative)
My relative has a company that inserts local commercials into cable television. Frequently, local companies produce their own ads for him. Every new commercial is digitized, and he sets the volume on them one by one to be appropriate. However, the only way he figured out "appropriate" was by setting it to a a certain level, listening when it played _live_, and then calibrating future ads to the right volume based on that. His ear is the only standard for his ads precisely because the cable provider isn't doing any volume manipulation or standardization downstream of him.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I worked in broadcasting in college. We had numerous stages of normalization, depending on the input. Right before the signal goes out to the antenna stage (this was a radio station), we had a hard limiter. Hard limiters are dead simple to use. Failure to use one results in distortion if you're using forgiving equipment, or clipping if you're not. You HAVE to use it.
The lack of dynamic compression is what makes band demo recordin
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Interesting)
In defense of the advertisers, how are they supposed to know how loud the commercials should be? The producers aren't given copies of the shows beforehand; it's not like they know ahead of time.
There are broadcast standards that define that sort of thing, part of the same standards that define the color gamut, the number of effective pixels, etc.
Personally I LOVE loud commercials - it makes auto-detecting them easy which makes thing like mythtv's automatic commercial remover work better.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Informative)
It's really not a question of how loud the commercials are.
It's how much "compression" and "limiting" are used on the audio. This affects how loud it "seems", even though the needle on the meter never goes higher than the highest peak reached by the show. It's just that the needle seems stuck on that peak.
Compression and limiting are why listening to radio wears you out--it's called "listener fatigue". Your brain has to do extra work to process unnatural sound.
Radio stations do it so that they're the loudest thing on the dial as you scan across. Advertisers do it so that their commercial gets your attention.
Without legislators capable of learning about and understanding compression and limiting, don't look for any legislation that actually solves the problem.
Somewhat off-topic, but as long as we're talking about TV sound, I'm way behind on sending a letter to the people who make "Burn Notice" to thank them for the high quality of the show's audio. The actors don't mumble or get drowned out by sound effects or added music, which is more than I can say for a lot of other shows these days.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
More likely, considering the current quality of TV shows, you snoozed away and the noise should wake you so you know that you should take a leak.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Funny)
IF YOU HATE LOUD COMMERCIALS YOUR GOING TO LOVE THIS!
THE COMMERCIAL KILLER!
Stupid Filter it won't let me shout the whole time, if I stream my tv through
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If *you* want loud commercials, then turn your TV up louder. I'm tired of the networks jacking the commercial sound up, its bullshit and I shouldn't have to be responsible for fixing it. If I have the movie or TV show at 70 dB, I want the commercials at 70 dB as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On principle, yes.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Informative)
No, the broadcasters do NOT turn up the level on the commercials, the producers of the commercials do so - the guys running the tranmission chain at the stations run the tapes at the standard levels
It's the whole "Music loudness wars" all over - just for TV
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Irrelevant. The broadcasters know the commercial levels are high, compared to the show, and, given the option and technology to turn them down, do not do so. They are complicit. They could even the levels out and choose not to. Whether they are physically turning them up, or accepting them knowing they are
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Funny)
No but the guy three doors down hears them and might buy something.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Guess it's a bit like working at a burger joint and never going there to eat: You know how it's made.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, this is not a monopolistic situation, it is closer to an oligopoly.
Secondly, regulation is only good if what it regulates has a more negative effect on the economy than the increased government expenditures (which translates into higher taxation). I cannot see that this is proven to be the case; what negative impacts do loud commercials have vs. introduction of new laws which must be enforced using resources that may have been used elsewhere?
Just because you are 'tired of it' does not mean we should raise our taxes to appease you.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, if you have loud neighbors, you should just move and boycott the loud neighbors. Get rid of your HOA rules or local ordinances, because they clearly have a negative impact by being enforced -- in fact, they require even more enforcement than this proposed rule would: local police have to enforce noise rules, whereas this would be a simple, network-level enforced rule, easy to monitor and issue fines for offenders.
So, clearly, this proposed legislation is a bad idea, and noise ordinances are a bad idea as well.
Sarcasm aside, it sure would be nice if the broadcasting industry could have come together and implemented something like this to begin with. It would be really nice if they'd just said, "ok, hey, we're going to normalize our content so that typical conversation will play at 50dB. Commercials will be compressed to have a maximum volume of 55dB." Then I wouldn't have to readjust the volume every time I changed channels, or be blasted out of the room when I have the volume set high for a quiet show on a quiet network, then flip channels and hit a Dodge truck ad on Spike. I guess the invisible hand of the free market hasn't sorted that one out yet.
--Jeremy
Audio Compression (Score:4, Informative)
The problem actually occurs when the commercial is edited down during filming and production. This is where the sound is Compressed which essentially brings all of the Lower volume portions of the sound Up to much higher volumes often equaling the the Higher volume portions of the sound. This is not really any louder. The highest levels are not affected so it's not actually louder, but since the lower volumes have been pumped up, it appears to be louder.
The summery here is that, it's not a problem with the Broadcasters, the problem is with the Advertisers. The ability for a broadcaster to detect and correct this problem would be huge if not impossible. I can understand why the FCC gave up on it the first time.
Re:Audio Compression (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the sort of bullshit excuse that broadcasters/advertisers will use to get around any legislation introduced. "The ads really aren't any louder than the content, they only sound louder." Well guess what? THERE'S NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE! Their audience is people, not sound meters, so it does not matter what their instruments read - if the ads sound louder to human ears, then they really are louder.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am glad that I dug through the postings to find your intelligent response to the "loudness" of commercials. You are right on the nose with it being related to compression.
I have been toying with the idea of creating a "compression detector" (in hardware because I am a hardware geek) that can detect the sustained amplitude of a signal (indicating compression.. aka commercials) and then automatically pad it down by 20 dB. When the compression goes away, so does the padding. This would have a really cool eff
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, the beauty is that if you've already got one of their gizmos, you're already a customer and they don't need you to hear them.
Though they could put an uncompressed track on their commercial, saying something like "If you have one of our devices, don't you love it that this is the only commercial you can hear? Isn't the lack of shouting just glorious? If you don't have one of our devices, please enjoy this quiet ad and buy our product so this is the only type of ad you will hear from now on - elim
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"You, as a consumer, have no power in this. "
I have the power not to consume, so I don't.
.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulation is bad. Period.
Yep. No regulation has done a great job historically, just look at the economy. I mean, how else are we supposed to have things like price-fixing and monopolies. Seriously though, why does everything have to be black and white. Personally, I think regulation has a place, but in moderation, where it makes sense. Unfortunately though, no regulation only works when people can regulate themselves, which doesn't appear to be reality.
If the masses stood up and said "we'll support the station that doesn't have loud ads", then those broadcasters would eventually listen. ... The loudness of advertising is none of the states business.
That would work if they didn't all do it. Unfortunately I've never seen/heard of a broadcaster who does this, and it appears that many of the commenters haven't. Instead of just saying "regulation bad!", why not be constructive and provide an example?
Lord of the Rings Called... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not so much "black and white", its just stupid people acting stupid saying stupid things.
I love how American's have such a constructed view of who or what the are and what makes them this way. The amount of fictional works of literature that support this is astounding. However if some people took 5 seconds to look around at what is reality, or 10 seconds to actually look into how thing actually operate in the real world, they might be able to remove themselves from this fantasy that has been constructed
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To wit... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
even though only one of the top 25 subprime lenders was subject to the regulations in question
You mean Fannie Mae, the largest and hardest hit of all the subprime lenders who has about 40% market share and is subsidized by the government?
Here is a citation on the size of Fannie Mae: citation 1 [about.com]
Distribution of Bailout funds, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are second only to AIG: citation 2 [propublica.org]
So no they aren't just pulling that shit out of thin air. You could also look at government policies for the last 80 years in which the government is trying to get every American to own a home.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulation is bad. Period.
Why? Because Ronald Reagan said so? What do you think caused the current financial mess?
The loudness of advertising is none of the states business.
The state's business is whatever the voters say it is. If you don't like what they're regulating, go vote for someone else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are the consumer, but not the customer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not talking about money spent in elections. The vast majority of high office candidates are preselected by the parties, so it doesn't matter who is elected -- they'll still vote in the corporations favor on any issue where the corporations have an interest, or else the party won't support them. Ventura's a good example of what happens to exceptions: The environment is intolerable for them. The only successful exception one can point to is Ron Paul, and there, "success" is defined by not getting his way
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Insightful)
The market will not come up a solution for this, because it is the market that is doing it.
As far as has government regulation ever really worked, enjoy those basic worker's rights, as well as not being forced to work in a factory since you were 3 years old. Enjoy having a choice in a phone company, instead of being tied to Ma Bell. Enjoy having clean air. Enjoy not being banned from a store based on the color of your skin, your last name, your religion, your age, or your sex. Enjoy all those basic rights that you have because the government has stepped in and regulated something in your life.
For every bad law, there are five good laws. Believe it or not, the government is not out to get you through regulation.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Informative)
When the banks started to fall, none of the other banks were wanting to do anything to correct the problem until Greenspan told them to(He was trying to avoid government interference by allowing them to fix it themselves.). And when everything started to crumble, the government had to start bailing the rest of the banks out so that everyday people(even those who had nothing to do with the loans) wouldn't lose everything they had.
A regulated free market is good. An unregulated free market is scary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many modern TVs are running a full operating system anyway. I'm sure there's a way to hack them to make them do what you want.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt very much it has anything to do with the networks.
These "loud commercials" don't have their volume turned up per se; they have their dynamic range compressed (just like a Metallica CD [wikipedia.org]), and the gain increased, making the lows as loud as the highs. This is likely done at the production stage.
The same thing happens when you have your volume cranked up for a quiet scene that's suddenly interrupted by a loud noise, only in the case of these commercials, the whole thing is a "loud noise."
Even if the TV station or cable company are careful to keep everything broadcast safe, it will sound unreasonably loud because *everything* is at peak level, unlike the program you were watching which had highs and lows and a lower average volume.
I'm not sure how you could legislate this problem away.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Funny)
The FCC mandates a maximum signal level - let's call it X - that represents the loudest audio that you're allowed to broadcast within the signal specs. Regular television, because it's not run by complete bastards, actually understands that if you have quiet parts of your show then when something gets loud it will actually provoke a response in the viewer. Therefore, they usually broadcast at .5X and save 1X for the absolutely most exciting parts. Commercials, however, are frequently made by complete bastards who just want to bash their message into your ear with all the subtlety of Van Helsing hammering a stake into Dracula's chest. They run their audio at 1X the *entire frigging time*, and that's why the commercial seems "loud." Is it louder than the show you were just watching? No. Is it maximum loud the entire time? Yes.
And now that I look up and read your post again, I realise that I've just said the exact same thing.
MAYBE I SHOULD DO IT AT MAXIMUM VOLUME SO THAT EVERYONE HEARS IT!
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Informative)
I hate loud commercials too, but this is just too much government IMHO
Since Broadcasters (OTA/Cable/Fiber) all have to have FCC licenses, the government is already involved in the minutia of their business practices.
Here's what the bill is asking broadcasters to follow:
http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_85-2009.pdf [atsc.org]
It's 72 pages and I don't have the technical knowledge to understand it all anyways, but I think the original idea of "commercials cannot be louder than the program's average volume" is a pretty simple alternative to guidelines written by the industry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think the original idea of "commercials cannot be louder than the program's average volume" is a pretty simple alternative to guidelines written by the industry.
No, the original idea is not simpler because there is no technical definition for "loudness". It is the equivalent of saying "commercials can't be prettier than the program's average prettiness".
The best thing we have for approximating human loudness perception is the ITU-R BS.1170 loudness measure, which actually is a fairly recent development,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need a license to operate over a private cable/fiber network. Only if you're using the public spectrum do you need a license to broadcast.
While that is true, cable and satellite systems still come under some the control of the FCC, although generally not for content requirements. It should be noted that H. R. 6209 applied to "any video programming that is broadcast or that is distributed by any multichannel video programming distributor," the latter being shorthand for cable or satellite TV prov
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every, single, time that the government does one thing right for its people, five more laws will be passed reducing that victory because of laws to "help" the people "wronged" by that law.
You keep posting this. Citation, please, or quit posting it. Without a real citation, what you are posting is utter nonsense.
Re:I'd much rather... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait, the goverment says to network or whoever "Hey, make the commercials the same volume as the program" and you are complaining that the government isn't allowing you a choice? They are the one in this case trying to protect your choice of volume level!
And sorry, forcing everyone to buy a new TV for a feature when the government can implement for essentially free for everyone and at no real cost to any party involved is being technologically elitist and if you don't see how the corps just love your "solution" to death...
I take care of an elderly parent, when the commercial starts blaring at a normal volume, it is very annoying, at their volume, it's painful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"...I'd much rather just have intelligent TVs or receivers that turned the volume down upon detecting a commercial...
Magnavox had a feature called "Smart Sound" for many many years, and that's pretty much the function. It also keeps the sound from going too low, like when someone whispers. They now call it "'Automatic Volume Leveling" in current manuals. I'm sure they had a patent in force because I've never seen the feature on another brand... but it's been a long time so maybe other manufacturers are able to implement similar options.
Technology to the rescue! (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe new fangled TVs nowadays have a special feature that keep the decibals between any certain range you prefer, or some system similar to that to keep the loud bangs down while keeping the quiet dialogue up.
It'll only be another decade before it's standard, and this law (if it passes) is deprecated.
Re:Technology to the rescue! (Score:5, Funny)
As an alternative to legislating the volume of adverts, I propose that before any advert is allowed to air, the director of that advert must be forced to watch it on repeat for 12 hours, locked in a room with a loaded gun and no controls for the TV (with the TV protected by bullet-resistant glass, of course). If the director survives, the ad can be aired.
Re: (Score:2)
Imaging if you were watching a movie, and all the whispers were louder and the explosions quieter. Not so great. .
This is actually a great feature, by the way, it means you can watch this years action blockbuster while letting the room mates sleep, while not missing a beat.
And also, its a feature that you can turn ON and OFF. Thus when it comes to watching it audibly unimpeded, rest assured you have that ability.
Re:Technology to the rescue! (Score:5, Funny)
What is a Commercial? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about... (Score:4, Interesting)
But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the "apparent loudness" of commercials.'" ...every time my wife yells at me to "turn down that damned TV" because commercial suddenly starts blasting, the advertising executive for that commercial gets a 24 volt shock?
Re:How about... (Score:4, Insightful)
But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the "apparent loudness" of commercials.'" ...every time my wife yells at me to "turn down that damned TV" because commercial suddenly starts blasting, the advertising executive for that commercial gets a 24 kvolt shock?
There, FTFY.
Yes, I know the chances of surviving a 24 kilovolt shock are pretty low, but I'm willing to risk it.
Why, yes, I'm not an advertising executive. And yes, I do hate those God-awful advertisements. How could you tell?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does each channel control their commercials? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And - basically, both shows and commercials are at the same level, but they heavily compress the audio on commercials. If the network heavily compressed shows, the problem would go away - but the shows would sound like c
Re: (Score:2)
Presently I can only imagine this is due to laziness on part of the channel
You are absolutely right. They don't want to have to pay anyone another cent then they have to. No one expresses their concerns to them, though who is expressing This particular concern to their congresswoman, absolutely baffles me (isn't she supposed to be representing her constituents or something like that? Are they all 80+ years old?).
Anyways, it's not that difficult, but the networks won't feel they need to do it unless the FCC does something about it, and they won't force it unless the government says
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, something about this seems freaky. (Score:2)
"We're gonna fight a few stupid wars in which thousands of people will die needlessly, and our country will go broke!" BOO!
"Also, we're gonna pass a law to make your commercials less loud!" YEEAAAHHH!!! WE LUVZ U CONGREZZ!!!11!! USA USA!
Re:Wow, something about this seems freaky. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you support or decry this proposed law, do so on its own merits. Otherwise, we may as well compare everything to the wars and to healthcare, and ignore a huge range of very real issues which need resolution.
No fair way to write regulations? (Score:5, Insightful)
You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.
If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills(link below)
http://www.facebook.com/v/203775860215 [facebook.com]
Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.
If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.
You do not under-estimate their skill, but rather their willingness to bother to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a BENEFIT of his algorithmn (Score:2)
Sometimes the commercials stay quiet altogether? That's not a failure, that's a "happy accident."
Really? (Score:2)
With all that's going on in the world, this is what we are paying our legislators to address? When are the next elections again? Come on people, we have to be able to do better than this.
IF THIS GOES THROUGH... (Score:2)
Bad idea. (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, first, thanks for recognizing the problem. But there's no way to legislate such technical detail because volume is subjective, not objective. Do you measure the peaks? The frequency spread? What about people who have hearing problems? They have a different idea of what 'loud' is. The problem is something called "audio compression" -- which results in a higher apparent volume. TV shows use a wider dynamic range than commercials -- commercials can be heard even at very low volume levels because they occ
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
Take the average of the audio energy in the base program (divided into 32-64 frequency bands across the ten octaves above 20Hz). Weight the energy using the Fletcher-Munson curve for the overall average energy level. If the time-average of the audio in the commercial sums to more than the time-average energy in the base program by more than 10%, auto-file a violation report. Fine as needed. You can do it automatically.
In fact, by expanding (if you need to, look up "compression") the audio range and decreasing the volume, you can automatically adjust the volume to within a comfortable range. It's really not much of a trick to do either.
I tend to think the legislation would be better because it would be a global solution to a global annoyance with very little downside. If you have to depend on your commercial being LOUD to get people to notice, you have something wrong. Really, all you need to do is make the people in your commercial more naked.
Let the techies at TV/radio stations speaks... (Score:2)
another reason to avoid commercials (Score:2)
I would hope that advertisers would be considering how to keep TV relevant s
Shitty Options (Score:5, Funny)
Many TVs have the ability to auto-level stuff.
But if you've got audio running to a receiver, the receiver has to do it (and likely doesn't).
At best, you've got dynamic range compression modes, which kill off the sound quality for normal programming.
Even if we have a magical loudness law that everyone magically decides to abide by, the latest tactic I've seen is far more annoying.
Commercials now exploit surround sound to the extreme. The soundstage is either panning back and forth and around, or the ad is done in such a way that billy is on my left and molly is on my right and mom is shaking and baking that chicken directly inside my fucking subwoofer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
or the ad is done in such a way that billy is on my left and molly is on my right and mom is shaking and baking that chicken directly inside my fucking subwoofer.
Billy: WHAT IS FOR DINNER TONIGHT MOM?
Mom: WHY GREAT TASTING BRAND X SHAKE-N-BAKE CHICKEN OF COURSE!
Molly: OH GOODY, JUST WHAT WE WANTED!
<Mom shakes and bakes the chicken in the subwoofer>
Subwoofer: SCRIBBBEEE...SHABOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM!
NARRATOR: MMMMMMM! CAN YOU SMELL THAT? REMEMBER, BRAND X SHAKE-N-BAKE CHICKEN FOR YOUR NEXT MEAL!
Subwoofer: SHABABOOOM!
Range compression (Score:3, Informative)
There is an issue with Dynamic range compression [wikipedia.org] use by broadcasters and advertisers to increase the apparent volume of sound while staying within legislated limits. That trick is not something that can be easily regulated, unless you do something silly like requiring all sound clips to be stored on records.
Volume and Loudness are different things (Score:2, Informative)
I've seen this here in Oz, smarmy TV spokesdrones telling us that the volume is no higher during the ads, this is true, as they are discussing the peak value in decibels.
What they don't mention is the loudness (the amount of sound) has been cranked right up, which is why they are too "loud"
When we want to discuss loudness, they always come back with irrelevant facts about volume.
Whoring for votes (Score:3, Interesting)
I am by no means opposed to regulating advertising; if anything, there is not nearly enough regulation of advertising. That said, unlike intrusive junk mail in all its forms -- postal, spam, telemarketing -- television advertising isn't attached to anything vital and is therefore easy to avoid: turn off the TV. No one needs television, and its one practical use -- news -- is much better satisfied by literally every other medium by which news is available. It's just a source of entertainment, and it is almost completely paid for by advertising. If you want to watch TV, the terrible hardship you must endure is hitting the mute button when the ads come up, you poor thing.
This is nothing more than a politician looking to score some easy votes by attacking something that everyone dislikes but which, since it actually harms no one, won't matter much if the bill disappears in committee and is never seen again. Congress' time would be better spent doing something about unavoidable forms of advertising instead of making a fuss about one of the few entirely avoidable forms.
I Like Loud Commercials (Score:5, Funny)
Loud commercials are the perfect reminder that I've forgotten to fast forward the DVR. Commercials that employ this behavior are really just shooting themselves in the foot (not to mention the station's foot).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What are these 'commercials' of which you speak? (Score:5, Funny)
How about certain noises? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds, police sirens, and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times? That nonsense has made me jump out of my damn seat a couple times, now.
Also, on a less serious note, ban commercials from using that one blaring alarm clock stock sound that they all love to use. You know, the one that sounds exactly like the alarm clock I had for years, and always makes me feel miserable and pissed off.
Easy fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop watching TV.
you're an old joke (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694 [theonion.com]
Install your own compressor (Score:3, Insightful)
Years ago I got an Alesis Nanocompressor for my parents and installed it inline between the audio outputs of the cable box and the TV. Now the blasted commercials bother them no more.
Cost: $50 used plus some audio adapter cables.
Yes I know some TVs have built in compressors. Guess what, they don't work worth a damn.
Commercials are what drove me to dump cable/broadcast TV forever... not just the volume but the increasing ratio of ads to program per hour. Way too many commercials and they're even showing them in sidebars during the program. I ceased watching TV since 2000 and I do not miss it.
If the government wants to help, they can mandate decent quality compressors in new TVs that are enabled by default. It won't cost any more than those V-chips or the digital TV receivers.
The FCC has been hearing for DECADES about obnoxiously loud commercials, and now they want to help...?
fair (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there is no "fair" way to write the text when you already know that those subject to the rules will hire very expensive law firms to find any and all loopholes.
I have rules in my online game (battlemaster.org) - and one of them is roughly "attempts to exploit the rules and violating their spirit while formally abiding by the words double the punishment". It's time the legal system adds a rule like that, especially for corporations who willfully and intentionally choose that route.
We have "contempt of court" already. It's time to add "contempt of the meaning of the law" to it.
Re: (Score:2)
With the country in recession and several wars / potential wars going on constantly I would hope that politicians would pay attention to higher priority tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. If enough people were that concerned about the volume of commercials, they wouldn't watch the shows and the problem would fix itself. No need to legislate something that can be dealt with by the nature of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
This same Congresswoman tried to legislate "Clap On" lights in the workplace, skip protection in CD Players, and some other feature or product that already solves a problem only the elderly face.
Re: (Score:2)
My 55" Sony has a volume limiter option but it never made much difference at either setting. The only tv that a volume limiter option worked was an old Philips 19" CRT from my bedroom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Billy Mays didn't need no stinking dynamic range compression. Billy Mays was always at full volume in real life.
Re:Not that simple (Score:5, Interesting)
He's right you know, the volume IS the same. ...the trick they use however, is to speak at the maximum level before audio clipping occurs, and that's pretty darn loud.
Not only that, they also pump up the middle tones (The audible sound spectrum is ca. 100hz to 20 khz), and the frequencies at 500-3khz is where speech is located, you can make it sound like it's 10 times louder - and STILL keep the same volume. ;)
This is a well known "secret" in the business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV.
1. Existing TV volume
2. Decibel limit
The problem is that perceived loudness is not simply sound pressure level, but it is weighted spectrally, and often has temporal qualities (a loud noise in the middle of quiet may be perceived as louder than a continuous high loudness) as well as semantic qualities (a loud gunshot is not perceived as loud as equivalently "loud" talking).
ITU-R BS.1770 is the best non-temporal/non-semantic measure we have for use right now.