Desperate to pass something, anything, Obama signed legislation governing the volume of TV commercials yesterday. You have to wonder if it’s Aprils Fools Day instead of Christmas with the title… “The CALM Act”.
Whew… thank heavens! Why they’ve ignored such a pressing issue for so long, who can say? OK, sarcasm stops dripping now.
Yes, folks. If they can’t shove thru Stimulus III via the continuining resolution, and pork up Stimulus II (the Bush tax extension) enough to their satisfaction, Congress wanted to have something to show while they’re not out Christmas… er, “holiday”… shopping. Enter HR 1084, a bill introduced by Dem Representative Anna Eschoo of California in February 2009. If such a bill weren’t embarrassing enough subject matter for the nation’s federal government to address, she got 90 of her Democrat cohorts to sign on as co-sponsors.
The Senate’s sister bill, S 2847 was introduced in the heat of the tax and spending debates on Dec 8th. Sponsor on that integral federal legislation was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, RI’s Democrat Senator, and his seven Democrat cohorts.
Voting? No records kept of the voice vote. Probably because everyone is too embarrassed to waste time on such nonsense…and they should be.
Now perhaps the Congressional types are locked up in their own little world, and away from real life America too much, and that’s why they don’t know that most of the new product lines for TV and home theatre sound have a compression feature that already prevents the “is it live, or is it Memorex?” hair whipping volume moment. But gee… I feel so much better that our Congress is on top of the cutting issues of the day. NOT!
Makes you wonder… did they try to sell this as a health mandate? ala the rightful government focus to insure the nation doesn’t experience hearing loss in their homes… LOL
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Headline on C-SPAN:
HOUSE DELAYS FURTHER ACTION ON TAX CUTS & JOBLESS BENEFITS BILL
So, thank goodness they could still do ”something……NOT!
Now, the Dems were behind this pulling of the tax bill.
But if the government is forced to shut down what do you want to bet it will be Republicans to get the blame?
Too complicated to use the mute button ehhh.
It’s worse than I thought for America’s ignorant people.
I wonder, can we get a mute button for the ridiculous play president.
And what will this crap cost?
Impact on federal revenue is zip, tarpon…. with the exception of the costs for public owned broadcast facilities for compliance. What’s important is what it will cost the several thousand thousand private broadcast entities to comply, and then how that mandate affects price of services to the consumer that they pass along. It’s much the same as the new TV broadcast standard, changing from the old NTSC to the new HD format. That at least had some viability in freeing up airwave frequencies for the ever increasing demand with new technologies. Rates go up when they have to upgrade so they pay for the increased overhead.
Here’s the CBO’s fiscal assessment. A single page, but here’s the reality for those having to comply:
And you believe that drivel?
The INDUSTRY, the same people who want to make the volume of commercials louder than the surrounding programming, that says it will cost so much. You don’t think they have a vested interest in this do you?
Gee, maybe they should just try the Window Media Player as it, and most players, have sound leveling technology built in it. For free.
This law illustrates many things, but not necessarily what you believe it does. Both versions of the bill were introduced in 2009. Over a year for the Senate bill and a year and 10 months for the House bill. It shows how slow and inefficient the government is.
The sound level on commercials issue has been around for years – over 20 years. At that time the broadcasters claimed they couldn’t regulate sound levels because different technology was used to record live programming and commercials.
Digital ended any claim of the “recording technology” difference which was not accurate to begin with.
It may be a piece of fluff legislation, but look at it this way….. it took over 20 years for the government to respond to people’s concerns.
That is truly frightening.
louctiel, you have it backwards. Those marketing firms that make commercials are not the broadcast stations that air them. Commercials are made thru independent production facilities. Most broadcasting stations do have production studios for their in house needs, true, but they are not the first choice of commercial producers. *Those* are the industry people that were consulted…. broadcast stations, not independent ad productions houses. Trust me.. used to be in that business.
Because I used to be in this business, I know full well they will be required to upgrade their various broadcast playback systems with additional compressors and peaking (limiters) electronics to meet the mandate. That has nothing to do with commercial productions facilities, who always use compression on their final product so it will be loud.
I might also add, what is next? Shall we get rid of the dynamics in films and movies as well? You know, so that the music or sound effects don’t impact you with change?
The idiocy of this happens to lie that they entertain regulating the volume of commercials as compared to content at all. The “people’s concerns” were accommodated for by the private sector, and including features in audio/theatre systems and the later models of television that already provide a constant, compressed sound feature.
Why not legislate …. VOLUME buttons …. !
… and install them on all elected officials, I might add, Red Rage. :0)
@ louctiel, #4:
I agree. What you’ve called drivel is indeed drivel.
Advertisers shouting through a bullhorn have been an annoyance for years. I’m pleased that someone, with little fuss, has finally stuffed a sock in it on the public’s behalf. I also can’t help but think that the federal government has done these annoying idiots–who were apparently somehow missing the fact that remotes are equipped with a mute button–a favor. It probably won’t get punched quite so often.
Why does it not surprise me that you, Greg, would think “there oughta be a law” for this crap. You should be embarrassed at the extent of nanny control you advocate.
Exactly Mata and Greg… Apparently the Dems don’t see the advantage of the appose-able thumb
MataHarley, I have nothing backwards.
The stations always claimed that they could not control the volumes of commercials because of the way the sound was originally recorded. There was no actual validity to that, but that is not the issue. TV stations want ads to be more successful so they can charge more. So when the CBO goes to the stations and the ad makers, of course they are all going to say “it is going to cost us lots of money.”
You may have been in the business but I happen to work with a sound/broadcast engineer from a local TV station. A simple call to him said the equipment was already in place from the digital transition. That is the current state of the business.
I am not sure that I am reading this right, but you appear to be advocating regulating speech as opposed to a simple technical solution.
If that is what you are saying, that is truly bizarre.
If a technical standard bothers you so much, I presume that you are for frequency bleedover , no 911 for cell phones, no standards for car tires, no building codes, no standards for fire systems, no standards for electrical devices, etc. I suppose you have no uses for noise ordinances of any type.
You want to know where it ends? It ends where Congress does the will of the people within the framework of the Constitution, and not the will of special interest groups who lie to Congress.
In this case, as in most things, a balance can be achieved.
No louctiel, I am not advocating regulating speech, fer heavens sake. The regulations are the decibel level of the commercials as it relates to the decibel level of the regular programming content. Misreading on your part.
Secondly, all broadcast stations have peak limiters and compression in place. And the stations are correct that they do not control the volumes of commercials delivered to them for airing. It is premixed, and delivered on the appropriate format to put into line for the playback in their scheduled ad slot. To equalize volume between the content programming volume and the commercials, compression would have to be applied to either increase one, or squash the other as the signal goes thru the various filters and compressors. They have some in line anyway, but not for that purpose.
The results can be extremely mutilated sound for one or the other of the two. It’s always taken a fine hand and touch to get the right compression levels without distortion, plus leaving any modicum of dynamics in the original sound.
Now I’m not really sure what your beef is. Certainly sounds like you have no problems whatsoever with the feds sticking their heads into this arena, nor do you care if it costs broadcast stations additional equipment to comply… which will then be passed along to the consumer somewhere along the line. The point is, what possible legitimate reasoning can the feds have for this assuming the right to legislate comparative volume in broadcasting? Is it damaging to one’s health? Or is it just annoying to some, so “there oughta be a law”?
Either way, the stations, production houses and preproduction facilities ate it big time for the digital conversion mandate, which was actually supposed to happen back in 2005-06, if I remember rightly. T’was’t possible with all the upgrades that needed to be done in the entire production chain. At least that had some relevance with better useage of the airwave frequencies.
This? Can’t see any reason other than somebody felt annoyed. Nor is none given by Congressional members, except for annoyance.
One more thing… INRE noise ordinances. Local… not federal. State’s rights. Standards for vehicles? Safety regulations. Building codes the same. Not even close to this in your analogy.
Since when did “annoyance” becomes a reason for federal intrusion.
@ MataHarley, #5:
Perhaps I’m not getting all of the technical aspects of this. My thought is that broadcasters can simply specify a standard limiting the dynamic range of audio tracks that advertisers will have to comply with. If advertisers want their commercials to be aired, they’d have to comply with the broadcaster’s requirements.
Wouldn’t compliance be relatively easy in the advertising production studio? Just a matter of setting the dynamic range parameters in the final editing process?
@ #10:
Sometimes a simple, straightforward law is all it takes to nail a problem. The federal “no call” list, for example, has virtually eliminated the telemarketers who were once driving me crazy. Prior to that the damn phone was ringing off the hook. My telephone is not their marketing tool.
Poor writing on yours as you are the one that compares “levels” to “content.”
Welp, according to my engineer friend, they have them in place. The stations can set the levels for audio output automatically and keep them that way.
I know the same technology exists for radio and have actually seen it in use and used it. I can’t figure out why the audio of radio could not be handled the same way as the audio of television. In fact, I know it can….. and is.
In the days of analog audio, you are right. With digital audio, you are wrong.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I suspect that it is something that you just want to beat the Congress and the White House with, but I wouldn’t want to make that accusation without proof.
Costs for additional equipment they already have?
You do remember that it was the very people that you say “ate it” that pushed for all digital, don’t you? They were the ones saying that analog and digital was costing them more money so one standard needed to be made.
Never been on a Federal reservation, have you?
Broadcasts and the broadcasting business cross state borders. Federal jurisdiction.
Jet engine noise, train standards, noise from interstate highways, …..
I can go on, but won’t.
I get what you are saying. You want this to be seen as some sort of overreaching Federal intrusion into people’s lives, when in fact it is perfectly legal and for many, it is a law that people want due to the deceptions of the industry you want to support.
Oh, and by the way, as you seem to like the way things are now without this technical condition in place, every time a commercial comes on, grab your remote and turn up the volume.
You won’t, and we all know why.
I am an electrical engineer with over three decades experience in audio processing (analog and digital) and television/radio design and analysis. Commercials are recorded at a standard level, and TV and radio stations typically use automatic volume leveling (AVL) controls to ensure that the volume of commercials does not exceed the maximum levels of broadcast content. The real problem is that commercial production companies strive to keep commercial volumes as close to constant as their content allows, so the commercials sound louder on average than a typical broadcast program that far a much greater dynamic range (difference between the softest and loudest segments.) Commercials have a very limited time frame in which to capture the audience’s attention, and volume has been the simplest and most effective method for doing so.
There are many ways to reduce the volume of commercial audio) and each broadcaster will have to choose the most economical band on its particular AVL processing. In some cases, the costs will be virtually nothing, but some broadcasters will need to spend tens of thousands of dollars for the necessary equipment. The decision depends on the actual wording of the new rules. For the record, broadcasters could have made the changes at any time, but the market didn’t scream as loudly as the sponsors whose commercials bring in the revenues. If lower volume commercials aren’t as effective (i.e. profitable) as before, sponsor’s marketing departments and commercial producers will have to come up with other ways to catch the attention of viewers/listeners. I’m pretty sure they will find ways to do so that will offend some people’s sensitivities.
I expect that the end result will be that commercials will still be louder on average than most broadcast programming, but they’ll not seem quite as loud as they do now. And people will still complain.
Jeff
@louctiel, other than the fact you’re a rude new entry here, and don’t bother to get to know your audience, your portrayal of both the cost and performance of the handling of megadata broadcast audio, and the current technology for dialnorm systems are simplistic and optimistic at best.
Wander thru the battles the industry has been going thru since 2007, in the wake of the launch of the new broadcast formats, and you’ll find that industry standards for equipment has always been difficult. Standards have their ups and downs. For consumers, it makes it more consistent… i.e. the Beta vs VHS days, or the current BlueRay rage for DVDs.
On the other hand, industry standards also limits improvements that can be achieved. Dialnorm is no different. And like everything in broadcast, there are varying pieces of equipment and factors involved… from commercial production facilities to the way the cable boxes or home theatre equipment are set up in the viewers home.
Also at stake is the broadcast facilities respect for the original content to be broadcast with the same dynamic integrity as when created…. ala a symphony, movie, etc.
For a bit of a clue on how not easy it is technology wise, one need only revisit the battles taking place of this even two years ago.
Then, there is the lack of technical expertise and misuse of systems even at the stations themselves, as pointed out by Broadcast Engineering the year before that.
Then combine that with the lip sync problems that also occur in the chain with the entry of more equipment with different performance stats.
Then, for a few basics on the interaction of equipment from different manufacturers, the amount of equipment that affects performance in the chain, and the repercussions, here’s a real simple explanation from an engineer that lays out some of the issues.
So forgive me if I toss your casual “hey, everyone’s already got it” as nothing more than a wishful opinion based on you talking to your bud.
As far as thinking that digital cured all the analog audio woes… far from it. It already suffered from high frequency deficiencies, and suffered thru the days while they worked on aliasing and the masking it inadvertently created. I know… I was there, working and living thru those days with digital editing equipment for music before CDs were but a glint in your eye. Just like the quality of the A to D / D to A converters meant night and day for audio quality, the same applies for digital compressors and limiters today anad the various algorithms used by the manufacturers
Despite digital or analog technology, the goal of a compressor remains the same… to limit bandwidth, and willl also limit dynamics. What can be done, and what the industry has been trying to work on for years, is how to do this without stripping away any of the creativity of the production… especially when you are switching from a talk show/dialogue intensive content on one station to a dynamic one on the other.
As is usual with a non tech group like Congress, they come in johnny-come-lately with a mandate for something the private sector has been working on themselves… with no need of a mandate. Nor is Congress equipped to create technology standards for the equipment that will accomplish their wishes so they don’t have to be annoyed.
What a statement. If they already possessed dialnorm broadcast capabilities, they’d already be in use. Some of the bigger main networks have been implementing them. What, you haven’t noticed? LOL I take it because your buddy has something for his, what, radio station?, that means “everyone” has them? In which case, why the need for the Calm Act at all?
Sorry… I was extremely active in the business when the original mandate came down. Not one broadcast facility was pining for a change from NTSC. Not that any of us liked the NTSC format, mind you, but it was a necessary change because of the heavy load on the frequencies… not because someone was annoyed with a square picture.
Lawdy, good thing you don’t. Already making enough of a fool of yourself already.
All the items you mention are involved in the Noise Control Act back to 1972. Obviously they couldn’t regulate that trains, jets and autos be quieter than technology would allow, so it ended up manifesting repercussions in building codes, highway locates, etc. All other normal ordinances about noise were left to local and municipal governments… as they should be.
What’s the difference? It was to regulate ambient sound that may be a nuisance to the general public in the great outdoors and public places, or using the “public health” argument … not the sanctity of your dang living room!
I see… in addition to being a professed audio specialist, you’re now a constitutional lawyer? You find this “legal” based on the above? Boy would I love to meet you in a court room.
What an adolescent observation. Then again, your edge throughout all this pretty much indicates where you come from on nanny regulation.
The difference between you and I is you want government to mandate something because you’re annoyed… you’re an “there oughta be a law” kind of guy. I’m content to have the private sector accommodate for the public’s demand… which they’ve been working on, and some have already been implementing. Just because the government says “do it”… and they’ve been doing it without their mandate anyway… doesn’t speed up the implementation of a process that, appparently, is far more complex that your amoebic thought processes can handle.
Not to mention, @JVerive, that there are commercial productions houses with deplorable sound departments… LOL. Some of these guys have always had a heavy hand the on the compressors… drives me crazy.
And something most people never think about. Audio goes thru many analog to digital transducers, and always ends up analog at the human ear. Cardinal rule in audio… the less in the processing chain, the better the quality.
But somehow, it doesn’t surprise me that Congress pines for a homogenized world without dynamics.
A lot of us are still using TV sets that don’t stop the loud commercials, and we aren’t always near the “Mute” button when the commercials come on. I live in an apartment complex and am one of those night people you hear about and I am always having to use the “Mute” or turn down the volume. Some stations more than others. This is long overdue, but very low on the importance scale.
@MataHarley: #3
I don’t know anything about electronics, but there had to be a device installed that turns up the volume on commercials or they would be the same volume as the shows, LIKE THEY USED TO BE. Why can’t they just turn off that device?
I’m still running off of an antenna and could watch over 30 stations if I want to. I’m old enough to remember NOT turning down the volume when commercials came on. I can’t tell you what year.
Smorgasbord, technology for both commercial production, as well as audio playback systems in the home for broadcast has been improving in the market. Remember, we all used to listen to audio out of 2-3″ speakers in our televisions. Not quite as noticable. Nowadays, even in the late model NTSC TV’s, the speaker systems are better, the production for commercials, movies and general entertainment content more dynamic. Its a matter of the technology, morphing with the times.
But it’s rather like beta testing software. Find some bugs and the problem, implement something to fix it, and it affects something else down line. We’re talking a vast variety of equipment from station to stations, from cable box to cable box, and from home audio system to another. That’s why engineers were finding that their handling of metadata was fighting with some of the different models of cable and dish receivers, TV “auto volume” features, etc.
Life used to be a lot simpler in the past… but definitely less “dynamic” overall. LOL
However the industry has been working on it because of both consumer and broadcaster demand. Having Congress lay down a mandate doesn’t change either the desire or the speed… but it does provide a great revenue grab if technology doesn’t meet their demands in their time frame.
Smorgasbord, INRE your comment:
Let’s see if I can explain compression and how most commercial ad production works. Dynamics is when you have soft quiet moments, and then have a crescendo… or swell in/sudden volume change for creative effect. This could be a film scene on a quiet pond, and the Loch Ness monster rising roaring… it could be a symphony’s interpretation of the classics.
When you compress these same type of scenes, the quiet is not so quiet, and the roar of the Loch Nesss monster not so loud. Imagine the sound squashed… the loud stuff gets softer and the soft stuff gets louder. This becomes more complex when you’re talking about audio in a room because while you may control the audio volume and the speaker’s (as in orator) consistency, you also bring up the background noise (i.e. AC hum, fans, etc) . So then you have to add another piece of equipment, a gate or a notch filter, to notch those particular frequencies out. But then, those frequencies also exist in other content, so your low frequency AC hum may also screw up the music or sound effect in the next scene. Thus, using them as a general “one size fits all” constant is a detriment.
Commercials don’t have long to get people’s attention. And while some commercials make great use of dynamics to make an impression, most of them are just solid 30 to 60 seconds of music, voice over and visual effects. No dynamics… just solid sound, hopefully with a catchy tune.
Each production house generally tries to kick out a solid level that fits with all broadcaster’s preferred format, but again that depends on how well the equipment is calibarated (ie mixing console meters, meters on the recording equipment, etc). If the equipment at that house is not maintained for calibration, and everything is off 2-3dB, it arrives at it’s broadcasting station’s doorstep that much hotter than norm. The playback is slotted in line, along with others, and sent out… but that doesn’t mean each commercial in line, all from different production houses, are exactly equal for the reasons mentioned above.
It behooves all production houses to stay within reasonable guidelines because if the broadcast station applies just enough manipulation of the signal, it destroys the integrity of that commercial. Haven’t you ever seen some that have muffled sound, or totally out of sync between picture and audio? Not only does this make the product look bad, the broadcasting stations usually have to offer free airtime to rerun the screwed up commercial. No one desires that as an end result.
Now the trick is, how do you keep the integrity of a film or symphony concert being broadcast with lots of dynamics, and keep the commercials at the same level or below? What level would that be? What if it’s a solo violinist… just how low should the commercial be compared to that generally quiet content? Even a commercial not loud by any standards will sound loud after that program. So what do they do? Compress the violist to bring it up to a reasonable level?
Just not so clear cut. Many home theatre systems, as well as digital receivers already have this technology built in. It’s better than usual, but not great. Most my audiophile friends from the industry are picky about the ensuing quality and leave it off. It should be a choice, not a mandate.
@MataHarley: #7
“OFF” buttons will be installed on many politicians after the next election.
@MataHarley: #23
I would like to see a device made that goes between the TV and external speakers that lets the viewer remotely set the maximum volume. The programming would still have the ups and downs, it just wouldn’t get any louder than the viewer sets it. Truck drivers would love to have these on their CB radios for the over-powered illegal radios that put out way too much power so that most of us would have to turn our volume down.
This is all I have to say about it. No more comments needed.
Okay, Smorgasbord… you asked for it, you got it Toyota. Try these products.
Genfen TV Auto Volume Stabilizer Also here on HDTV Supply More top of the line stuff
Audiovox’s Terk VR1 Cheap, but mixed performance reviews
Another more Audiovox reviews here
SRS Labs CYP DCT-6S
The stand alone stuff is starting to go by the wayside since they are building them into home theatre systems and TVs these days.
If advertisers have no guarantee they will be able to get your attention for 15 seconds, or thirty seconds I doubt they will be willing to pay as much for ad time as they do now.
Is Obama trying to dry up funding for all but approved Obama-TV?
Or, Nan G… they won’t be sponsoring/booking ad time during any low volume content that gives their own playback volume an unfair advantage. But I’m sure Die Hard movies will keep the ad slots full… action with lots of loud explosions. LOL
@MataHarley: #26
I am moving at the end of January and won’t settle in on any place for several months, so I ain’t taking much with me. I will be buying me one of those new fangled TVs when I do, so the problem should be solved. I will have to keep those devices in mind just in case. Thanks.
How did you know I drive a Toyota? You all know too much about your commenters. Ha Ha.
Smorgasbord, when you shop for your new TV, make sure you tell your A/V sales person whether you are using an external home theatre system, and if you’re going to be using a digital output or analog output as the feed to that system. In other words, while you’re looking for an auto volume stabilizer, you need to take into account everything you are hooking up, how you are wiring your audio (or using the TV’s built in speakers), and what components you are using to do that. No one is unfamiliar with the problem, and everyone gets all up in arms about the inconvenience. The annoyance also exists in England, where they also complain, and ElectraShop makes a stabliser, much like the Genfen. There are products out there that accommodate, but make sure you tell them about your entire system… TV and separate audio components… so that you get the right component and know where to wire it in for the maximum effect.
Oh yes… the auto volume is not necessarily going to work from station to station, as the signal strength from each is also a factor. But if you want constantly “squashed” sound, it’s entirely possible today, without government mandates. Too bad that those of us who actually enjoy maximum dynamics in TV programming will lose that option of choice. Still waiting to see what kind of “health hazards” this can be that empowers Congress to dictate living room TV volume. If you look at Wikipedia’s definition of “health hazards”, “annoyance” is one of the included symptoms. But then, if annoyance becomes a good reason to enact legislation under the guise of the public “health”, where does that end?
Weird thing is I surf all over with my DirectTV programming. But I also don’t watch the local stations’ programming much. There might be an issue with built in volume stabilizers and whether it is a feature that works on both digital and analog signals. If that’s the case, you need something further downline in the audio chain to do the job.
The “loud commercial” syndrome seems confined to just a few stations, and not that often an event at that. Nor does it provide any moment of hysteria, and I don’t watch programming with a death grip on the remote mute button. My set up is always run thru a basic (no big bells and whistles) home theater 5.1 sound system, and there is no auto volume stabilizer that can be used for the dish feed. There is a Dynamic Range Control setting, but it is only for Dolby Digital or DTS sources. I’m using an analog audio feed. Either the majority of the broadcast stations are relatively successful at keeping the dB peaks at a constant (which is not the same as the programming content having constant levels vs soft/loud levels), or my very old, pre-digital HD TV era decoder box has magically sprung some signal decoding or compression capabilities.
I guess you could say I find listening to people being annoyed about this is far more annoying than the actual rare occurrences of *perceived* volume differences between programming and commercial content. LOL Ever wonder how such a discussion looks to people who have government restricted programming in comparison? Makes you wonder where our priorities have gone, and whether such control over what and how info is delivered to your living room can extend into other things people may find “annoying”…. like Fox News as an example.
Now if the feds could do something about the liberal moonbats that seem to like to roost at FA… 😛
@anticsrocks: I look at it a little differently. You target only the people and things that bother you. The more they bother you, the more you want them to disappear. Curt and his loyal troops have made FA the target of a lot of libs. The more they attack, the more we are sure Curt’s Conservative Crew is doing their job. Keep it up CCC!
its about time…im tired for years hitting the mute button or lowering the channel….volume…its one of the few things congress did well….i lean to the right….now congress needs to pass a law to let me choose my cable channels…cables a rip off…..sometime freedom has to have common sense..so stop whinnnings…
Interesting, martin… for it was “whining” by those who share your opinion that Congress uses as their authority for legislating this. Not health hazard by dangerous, long term volume levels that are broadcast, unwanted, in your living room… but merely that the nation was “whining” and “annoyed”.
If you lean “right”, as you say, does this mean that when the nation “whines” or is “annoyed” about something, Congress is empowered to act based on that alone?
Or should that provide an opportunity for the private sector to respond with a product you can put in your home, by choice, as they’ve been doing?
I’m not sure I understand what this has to do with broadcasters. Most if not all broadcasters already have this equipment in place. Loud commercials are generally caused by the people that make the commercials over modulating the audio signal.
Been there, done that Aqua. Try reading this August 2010 article, as it explains some of the problems and solutions that have been in the works prior to legislation passage (as a result of consumer demand). This is in addition to other links in my previous comments that may be more industry intensive jargon than you may want to read… could put you to sleep. LOL
As I said above, most commercial productions are generally a solid blast of audio mix… dialogue, music, sound effects… with little dynamic range. Are they outside of the normal high decibel measurement? Or are they perceived to be louder because of the nature of the content, lacking the dynamics you find in normal programming? As I said above, there is no way a commercial, well within the normal dB output, will not sound loud if it follows a talk show (where the participants aren’t screaming) or a solo violinist. That would be “perceptive” volume, but not really out of the norm volume.
Most production houses like to run at the max limit, but that “limit” may be flawed with improper calibration of various equipment. And some like to push the envelope. Even dropping what they max output is allowed to be still doesn’t cure the perception volume levels that exist naturally.
The broadcast companies receive material from all over… and it’s their task to transmit it all in one stream. As an example of this task, let’s discuss old vinyl records, or even new CD music. Often these songs are recorded in different studios all over, and at different times. Each studio, and engineer, ends up with a slightly distinct sound and mix. When the mastering engineers, who put all of these on the same album format, receives them, it’s his job to equalize/level/blend all the different studio productions so they flow smoothly, and aren’t jarring from one cut to the next. This is not only a volume adjustment, but may include inherent mixing alterations (which drives the original mixing engineers nuts, BTW). Like one cut being extremely low frequency heavy (boomy), and another with very little low frequency. What they have to do is then find a happy medium between the two so it sounds like it’s a flowing concert, all done at one time, and hopefully not sequence the conflicting songs back to back on the CD (or record) and draw attention to it.
The broadcasting stations have the same task… taking programming with all different dynamics, and from vast sources, and trying to make it all flow smoothly. It just is not as simplistic as many wish to believe, and if all the stations had the necessary equipment to do so (since they all have some AVLs, as Jeff pointed out above, already) the Calm Act would not have been necessary…. not that I think it’s necessary now.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s a cheaper, easier fix to do in the individual home reception system than overall transmission stations. It’s also allows a choice for those of us who don’t want to receive squashed audio.
ADDED: If you want a more technical discussion of problems and solutions, both on the transmission end, and the consumer receiving end, read this Dolby 2003 publication on Loudness and Dynamic Range in Broadcast Audio.
@Smorgs – I’m on board, but was just trying to inject a bit of humor. 🙂
Well I appreciate the humor, anticsrocks. 😆 If “annoyance” is the new guidelines for Congressional authority, it should be turned on the most annoying of all… the scum we call elected officials.
Of course the problem is, they have to be willing to shoot themselves in the foot.
@martin: #31
One way to complain about the high cable bills and the unwanted programs is to go back to the old fashioned antenna. I get over 30 stations in my area. You can also get TV over the Internet now. There are also devices to take it from your computer to your TV set.
@MataHarley: #32
Thanks for the info.
@MataHarley: #37
They have shot themselves in both feet several times. I just hope they don’t run out of bullets. They are like “The Ballad of Irving.” He wasn’t too smart either.
He was the hundred and forty-second fastest gun in the West and was looking for 143.
Well, finally Irving got three slugs in the belly.
It was right outside the Frontier Deli.
He was sittin’ there twirlin’ his six gun around,
And butterfingers Irving gunned himself down!
We’ll have to start calling the liberals “Irving” and hope they keep twirlin’ their six guns around. The bigger the gun, the bigger the holes.
Though Mata certainly has more info on the actual technology of this, my understanding of the volume difference has always been more simplistic. It’s not about advertisers pumping up the sound to get our attention, it’s simply that they record in mono while the actual programs are in stereo. Now, instead of having separate tracks going through each speaker, now you have the same track going through both speakers = louder. If commercial producers were to upgrade to stereo, it would not be cost effective for them. Certainly, you can compress audio files… but you do lose sound quality in doing so. And we’ve all seen youtube videos that don’t sync with the picture. Perhaps it’s a better solution for television manufactures to provide a setting that senses when sound goes from stereo to mono and is programmed to adjust the volume when it switches. Could be a great selling point, and could pump money into the economy.
@Cary: #41
The Smothers Brothers advertised for Magnavox and said it was the “smart” TV because it did just that.
MATA, 37, HI, I would think that when our conservatives arrives along with the teapartyers,
they could teach those DEMOCRATS how to , and I ‘m just guessing that yes they will shoot themsel in the feets after that.
bye 😛
@Cary, first of all, the mix of elements in any production is a combination of “mono” (sorta) signals along with stereo. i.e, the voice is (not quite) mono (i.e. slightly left or right of center), and the music and sound effects are stereo.
No one has mixed a mono commercial for TV since the audio stone ages. I assure you, they have been “stereo” for close to as long as TV could broadcast stereo. In fact, most commercials are now created in 5.1 surround sound, tho you may not know it. Depends upon your dish/cable decoder box and the station broadcast capabilities. There is also an alternative Dolby stereo track broadcast in the subfrequencies for those that do not receive/decode 5.1.
Commercial production most often supercedes consumer playback capabilities, and is likely to be the first group in state of the art product after films. Why do you think they were producing 3D commercials for Superbowl, when only a handful of consumers can actually receive and appreciate 3D? Because, being state of the art, they can accommodate for both the low end viewer, and the high end viewer. But they never produce low end, unless you’re a small budget. Even small budgets have long been stereo. Where have you been??
Secondly, no mixer worth their salt would not check their final mix for an inadvertent “mono” broadcast. Because unlike what you believe, a mono playback of a stereo mix is likely to phase/cancel out elements. In other words, when it appears equally in both L-R channels, it phases out and literally can disappear from the mix. It does not get “louder”.
Do you ever wonder how they manage to get karaoke tracks, sans the vocal? You don’t think they email the powers that be and ask for a new mix, without the vocal, do you? It’s a careful experimentation (with rights, of course) of phase cancellation. And yes, some of the musical elements with the same frequencies as vocals (very limited in frequency range) suffer in quality as well because of that cancellation. But in a karaoke bar, who cares?
No mixer puts an element total center in the mix without knowing the risks of that element disappearing. And mono vs stereo has nothing to do with the “volume” issue.
@Ms. Bees: the first shot in the foot I’d like to see out of Congress is not only a salary cut for themselves, but a salary cut for public service employes that bring it into reasonable ratios of the same jobs in the private sector.
Won’t happen in my lifetime.
My two cents:
I also think there already is a law, or a regulation more likely, by the FCC which says that the commercials cannot be louder than the programming. But if your programming has a high point of, say a lady screaming or an explosion that is the exception. In other words, the loudest few seconds of auido. Now the commercials cannot be louder than the highest point of the programming, so take that explosion and voila, your commercial seems louder because it is continuously at that high point.
This is my understanding, but I could be wrong. (Hey, it happens…)
@MataHarley:
Thanks for clarifying this, Mata… I guess my understanding is extremely antiquated! As for Karaoke (which I HATE!), I always assumed that the vocals were on a separate track, which was then turned off for the bad bar singer! The most I know about sound is how to properly speak into a microphone, including not blowing my “p” sounds!
What congress is trying to do here is not easy or trivial. The reason adverts and programs used to be closer in level is because someone used to be listening to them and adjusting. Now if the program just happened to be in a quiet suspenseful moment before the ad from the local car dealer, you are quite likely to be disturbed even if the average VU level of the Ad and the program are the same.
Then we get into the reason for a “loudness” button on old stereos — if the frequency content between the ad and the program are quite different the subjective loudness will vary depending upon how loud your TV is turned up. So what sounds perfectly fine to me sounds disturbing to you.
It is the same on mastered CD’s vs your iPod. How many times have you had to adjust for uneven volume between tracks on a CD album? How many times have you had to adjust the volume when your ipod started a new track? I assure you that the Berlioz and the remastered Beatles on your iPod both peak at digital full scale — the maximum instantaneous peak on both is the same.
Someone has listened to all the track on an album and adjusted the levels to match. but between artists and albums each will have different dynamic range, and thus a different optimum playback level.
Trying to fix the bolds.
jeremy, hi, I couldn’t get your link, a page open saying not found
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: That’s because he is a spammer, beezy. Spammers have bogus websites that either want to sell you something or steal your personal information. They spam blogs with the hopes that a few people will click on their links.
That’s why Curt removed his post.
anticsrocks, thank you, I would not see the difference.
Bees #51
That is one reason you need to keep your virus protection constantly updated. I recently received an email from a relative who didn’t send it. He has a virus in his computer that is sending emails without him knowing it. I am guessing he opened an attachment that had it, or he went to a Web sight that downloaded it without him knowing it. Since I have an Apple computer, and since viruses are written for PCs, I don’t have to worry about that kind of stuff.
SMORGASBORD, HI, thank you for the advice, My new laptop is equipt with NORTON and
hp, and another one spyware that make me jump everytime it comes, with a terrible noise,
I already paid 75 dollard for NORTON, IT look like they all check it all. I rely on them because I’m ignorant on it. bye
are still crusing up north west?
MATA, you mention about a button on the side of speaker to lower the sound of commercial, wel I was thinking that if you had the same but made like a small gun, so yo shoot at the commercial on tv
and it lower the sound and you have fun in the same time, I bet a gadget like that would sell fast and It would keep people cool instead of angry. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: #53
I am visiting my brother in Onalaska WI, then my brother in Hibbing MN, then my son in Winnipeg, then to the northwest.
SMORGASBORDS, wow, that is a trip of a lifetime, you relay must enjoy all of it,
take care bye
Unfortunately, the Broadcasters are ignoring this. I phoned in a complaint to the FCC and they sent me a letter telling me that I didn’t provide all the needed information(my state being among the information they say was missing.) If this were the case, how did their letter get to me. Additionally, the information for the complaint was taken by a FCC employee. If any infomation was missing it was due to the employee not asking the question or not writing down the info. Now the commercial volumes are back to prelaw levels, if not louder. Just another example of how companies now run this country.
ummmm…..Mute button is rather moot after waking up/disturbing other houshold members when the Volume of a commercial shoots up so high. Volume buttons on controllers are used to CONTROL the volume. If companies are just allowed to remotely control my volume…what good is my remote?