Sound Volume Going Up During Commercials
Buffalo
louder when the local commercials play.
Anyone else have a problem with the volume level increasing a lot when
commercials happen?
Damn, I have to cut the volume down a lot (one click on mute button) just to
bring it down to the level it was before the commercial started.
Any help or suggestions are welcome.
Comcast advertises Customer Satisfaction, what a joke, I think.
Buffalo
Adam H. Kerman
>The camera on the front of the cable box might be messed up,
>incorrectly determining that you've gotten up to go to the bathroom or
>kitchen and raising the volume to compensate. ;-)
Hahahahahahahaha
me again
> I think it is a Comcast problem and they can/do control it.
No, except for NECN, the commercials come with the satellite feed.
> It seems even louder when the local commercials play.
You have a point there! Complain to you-know-who.
> Anyone else have a problem with the volume level increasing a lot when
> commercials happen?
All the time! Whichever one of us is Not listening to the commercial says "turn it
down please."
> Damn, I have to cut the volume down a lot (one click on mute button) just to
> bring it down to the level it was before the commercial started.
> Any help or suggestions are welcome.
This has been a complaint since TV first came to homes!
Buffalo
Bill wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 18:40:03 -0600, "Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> The camera on the front of the cable box might be messed up,
> incorrectly determining that you've gotten up to go to the bathroom or
> kitchen and raising the volume to compensate. ;-)
Now that is an interesting observation. :)
Buffalo
PS: I'm going to cover the camera and that should take care of the problem.
PPS: Now I can't change the channels. :)
Boris
news:ish7l3$kts$1...@dont-email.me:
Up until about three months ago, I had the same issue. Commercial came on,
and the volume really rose, more than the normal rise in volume we all know
about and are used to. I, too, would have to turn the volume down. Very
annoying. Mysteriously, the volume level is now level, and sometimes for
commercials, it's even lower than the TV show itself. Perhaps a complaint
around here was acted upon.
Frank
I'd blame the broadcaster, not Comcast. I think a law may have been
passed to stop this or just the threat was enough to tone them down.
I checked once on FCC laws and it was not illegal then.
daytripper
>On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 18:40:03 -0600, "Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>The camera on the front of the cable box might be messed up,
>incorrectly determining that you've gotten up to go to the bathroom or
>kitchen and raising the volume to compensate. ;-)
Now *that* is funny stuff! Nice! :-)
Top-poster II
"Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message news:ish7l3$kts$1...@dont-email.me...
As I'm sure you've all noticed, the fucking broadcast radio stations do that as well.
Unfortunately for them, they can no longer annoy me. I now use XM in my car and stream Slacker Radio on my portable Wifi radios at
home and work.
I haven't listened to broadcast radio or their god damn obnoxious commercials for years.
I suspect that NetFlix, Amazon and other video ip systems will soon neuter the tv stations.
Wouldn't surprise me if satellite tv started offering commercial free programming as well.
Bob (not my real pseudonym)
wrote:
Don't forget the one in your sock drawer...
>PPS: Now I can't change the channels. :)
Mother Comcast is Not Pleased.
Buffalo
Actually, since yesterday, the commercials' volume is back down to it's
normal loudness. It was driving me crazy the last couple of weeks.
Whew!!!!
Buffalo
Buffalo
All better and back to normal as of yesterday.
Buffalo
PS: So, somebody changed it. Makes my day. It was extremely bad for the last
couple of weeks.
Adam H. Kerman
>I think it is a Comcast problem and they can/do control it. It seems even
>louder when the local commercials play.
>Anyone else have a problem with the volume level increasing a lot when
>commercials happen?
>Damn, I have to cut the volume down a lot (one click on mute button) just to
>bring it down to the level it was before the commercial started.
Play with the audio settings on the set-top box. If you choose Advanced
Audio, you can change audio compression among none, light, and heavy.
Also, some stereos have a "loudness" setting that prevents the volume
from exceeding a certain level.
Buffalo
I had no idea there was and Advanced Audio setting in the comcast cable box.
Thanks,
Buffalo
PS: I will try different settings.
Charles Tomaras
"Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ish7l3$kts$1...@dont-email.me...
I've read through many replies to this post and I still contend that the
maximum volume of a digital broadcast can only be ZERO. Can't be louder than
ZERO on a digital scale. The commercials are not being made louder, the
programming is just not as loud, not as busy, and not as compressed as the
commercials which are at the maximum volume. Your choice would be to limit
the dynamic range of your system by using a compressor to make the quiet
portions louder or use some sort of night time listening mode your amp may
have which accomplishes exactly that.
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:QOAHp.702$x11...@newsfe09.iad...
> The commercials are not being made louder, the programming is just not as loud, not as busy, and not as compressed as the
> commercials which are at the maximum volume.
ROFLMAO!
Adam H. Kerman
>A lot (most?) of stereos do have a Loudness control, but I haven't
>seen one that prevents the volume from exceeding a certain level. All
>of the ones I've seen simply add some bass and low midrange at low
>volumes.
That's the way it works on one of mine. Adding bass? I'd rather turn
up the bass myself, if necessary.
Adam H. Kerman
Note that you may have to tinker with the audio setting by program.
Katelyn
TV viewers, rejoice: You'll no longer get blown out of your seat by the
difference in volume between the television program you're watching and
the commercials that air during it.
On Wednesday President Obama signed into law the "Commercial
Advertisement Loudness Mitigation" or "CALM Act." A press release from
the White House states the law "requires the Federal Communications
Commission to prescribe a regulation limiting the volume of audio on
commercials transmitted by television broadcast stations, cable
operators, and other multichannel video programming distributors."
Ken Whiton
*-* In Article <isn23...@news6.newsguy.com>,
*-* Katelyn wrote
*-* About Re: Sound Volume Going Up During Commercials
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20025823-503544.html
Note the date of that article, ... six months ago. It goes on to
say:
"The House passed the bill by a voice vote on Dec. 2. It was passed
the Senate unanimously in September. The FCC will start enforcing the
new rules within a year."
so it may be as much as another six monthe before it goes into effect.
Ken Whiton
--
FIDO: 1:132/152
InterNet: kenw...@surfglobal.net.INVAL (remove the obvious to reply)
Tom M
> "The House passed the bill by a voice vote on Dec. 2. It was passed
> the Senate unanimously in September. The FCC will start enforcing the
> new rules within a year."
>
> so it may be as much as another six monthe before it goes into effect.
CBS got it wrong. The FCC must adopt regulations by the end of this
year, which will not take effect and be enforceable until a year after
that. So broadcasters must comply by the end of 2012. In some cases
waivers can be granted beyond that for smaller broadcasters pending a
showing that obtaining the necessary equipment would result in a
financial hardship.
Given the volume of complaints pouring into the FCC, large broadcasters
may start to roll out and test solutions using the prescribed standard
before that date.
Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness
Mitigation (CALM) Act
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-03/html/2011-13822.htm
Adam H. Kerman
>CBS got it wrong. The FCC must adopt regulations by the end of this
>year, which will not take effect and be enforceable until a year after
>that. So broadcasters must comply by the end of 2012. . . .
Does it also apply to cable/satellite?
The Other Katelyn
"Tom M" <nos...@example.com> wrote in message news:959on0...@mid.individual.net...
> CBS got it wrong. The FCC must adopt regulations by the end of this year, which will not take effect and be enforceable until a
> year after that. So broadcasters must comply by the end of 2012.
Well thank God the gooberment gave 'em another year or two to torment us.
> In some cases waivers can be granted beyond that for smaller broadcasters pending a showing that obtaining the necessary equipment
> would result in a financial hardship.
>
Yah, like the end of 2012 ain't enough time to turn the volume down.
Give 'em a waiver, we wouldn't the poor broadcasters to suffer any type of discomfort.
Absofuckinglutely unfuckingbelievable!
Tom M
"As mandated by the statute, the proposed rules will apply to TV
broadcasters, cable operators and other multichannel video programming
distributors (``MVPDs'')."
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
news:ismnh...@news3.newsguy.com...
You can laugh as much as you want but you can't change the laws of physics.
ZERO is the maximum level a digital signal can be and commercial advertisers
work real hard to achieve loud dynamics that approach the limits. The only
thing you can do to combat that is to bring up the volume of everything
else. If you believe that the broadcasters are "turning up the sound" during
commercial breaks you are nuts. Any adherence to regulations coming soon
about "volume" for lack of a better term will result in broadcasters running
everything through circuitry designed to minimize dynamic range. If you
really want to sit at home and have every whisper be just as loud as every
shout....you are going get your wish someday soon. Personally...I'd rather
have the control of dynamics and not the "smart circuitry" at the station or
cable company.
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:ZuNIp.4508$_I7....@newsfe08.iad...
Nice mix of fear, uncertainty and doubt. I'm realllly scared.....Not
Bwahahahhhahahah hahhahahahhaha ha hahah ahah hahhahhahahahahha
<catch breath>
hahhahhhahaaaaaaahhahahah hahhahahahha hhahhahahahahahhahhahaha
<catch breath>
hhheeeehhehehehehheh hahahahahhahahah heeeeeeehhehehe haw haaaa haaa
chuckle snort ROFLMAO!
Buffalo
So you're actually telling us that the broadcasting companies cannot control
the volume of the ads and do it easily and cheaply?
PS: I can turn it down, why can't they? Just like an amplifier can make
sound louder, it can also make sound quieter. This has to be done before it
is broadcast.
Buffalo
PS: You seem to be stuck on ZERO.
Parker Farnsworthy
flipped between programming on ABC, CBS and NBComcast and noticed that
all three had the same volume levels....until a commercial popped up at
which time the volume was noticeably louder.
So the 64K question is this: If all 3 networks can make their programs
the same loudness, why can't the advertisers make their commercials the
same volume as well?
teabag
> So the 64K question is this: If all 3 networks can make their programs
> the same loudness, why can't the advertisers make their commercials the
> same volume as well?
Simple, cause they don't want to. The advertisers do their best to get the
most "signal" out there as they possibly can.
daytripper
ding ding ding!
"Johnny, tell us what he's won!"
Charles Tomaras
"Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
That's not what I'm telling you at all. What I'm telling you is that a
transmission can only be up to maximum volume (ZERO on a digital scale) and
no louder. The loudest sounds in the episode of CSI: Violence you are
watching will be just as loud as the loudest commercial. What jars all of
you lump heads is the fact that commercials are as loud as they can be and
they have a much higher RMS average loudness compared to a typical program
which has quiet parts and loud parts. If you are watching rock videos on MTV
the commercials don't seem to be louder because the music videos have a very
high average volume. Now I suppose one could legislate that a commercial
cannot be XX db louder on average than the 10 seconds or whatever number of
seconds immediately preceding the break but I just think it's gonna be a
computer circuit figuring it all out and it will be prone to plenty of other
possible issues.The local broadcaster or cable company with local
advertising avails has to somehow sense the national spots that the network
might have attenuated or might not and then the locals step on it again or
don't step on it when they should have etc etc. Only going to take a few
national advertisers complaining they got ripped off because their spot
played 20 db down from what they paid for etc etc. The whole thing is prone
to errors. I think you'll just find that the easiest way to solve the
problem for local broadcasters is going to be to limit the dynamic range of
everything somewhat. What that means is that the quiet portions will be
louder because you can't get the louder portions louder. Everything else is
relative.
If there's an actual TV station engineer lurking out there please chime in
with your knowledge about the potential pitfalls and difficulties that lay
ahead.
What's next to complain about...the commercials are too bright? Are the
advertisers going to have to use flashing strobes to get your attention? Do
you really think that with DVR's, commercial skipping and mute buttons that
advertisers are going to continue to pay for the programming you watch if
they can't even try to get your attention with sound?
Charles Tomaras
"Parker Farnsworthy" <par...@farnsworthy.not> wrote in message
news:ZIedncYjD9kWdG7Q...@giganews.com...
What is your definition of volume? Peak volume? Average volume? They are
different things and they are perceived differently. I can clap my hands
together in front of a mic and peak the meters to zero and it won't sound as
loud to you as if I run a leaf blower in front of the same mic and the
meters never go past -10. So now you really have to compare average volume
of a broadcast. Are you going to tell an advertiser they can't pack a high
average volume into their expensive 30 seconds of time?
As for the networks...they all have technical specs for programming that
specify maximum peak levels that are acceptable. I do not believe they
mention or spec average levels at all...nor should they as that is an
editorial decision and has nothing to do with properly operating broadcast
equipment and transmitters.
microsys
louder than program material whether by viewer perception, enhanced dynamic
range or the soup of the day. You act as though the outcome for the viewer is
inevitable. Your assertion the producers of commercials go to great pains to
maximize the loudness perceived by the user thus it's the users fault for not
realizing *ZERO* is louder than less than *ZERO* is irrelevant. You further
claim the technology to right this viewer perceived anomaly will produce cries
rather than whispers and I suppose given the opportunity of suspended
rationality 'mushroom clouds', lacks credibility. The solution is simple enough
and requires no extraordinary technology nor massive outlays of cash. The
producers must simply stop screwing around with *ZERO* and keep their dynamics
within the acceptable range of normal program material. The excuse you provide
has been used for 50 years and it's old and tired. People are sick of having
commercials blasted at them because the advertisers are not creative enough to
get our attention any other way than to piss us off. If the advertisers cannot
produce material which falls within the spirit of the law then they should not
be allowed to have their advertising aired. It's not the viewers fault nor does
the viewer have any choice in the frequency, length, or timing of ads. The only
control the viewer has is the mute button or to turn off the television.
There was a time when the viewer could switch channels and maybe not get a
commercial. A number of years back the advertisers all agreed with the
broadcasters to time the commercials so the viewer would get advertising no
matter what channel they switched to. It didn't seem to be a problem for them to
manage that and it sure should not be a problem for them to comply with the law
now. This is a law which benefits consumers not advertisers and corporate
interests and been a damned long time in getting here.
Charles Tomaras
"microsys" <micr...@spamsucks.void> wrote in message
news:it20i7$l6v$1...@dont-email.me...
The VIEWER has the master volume control. You guys are just asking for
television to have no dynamic range. You may very well get your wish because
there isn't a person sitting at the station with a volume control...only a
machine set to reign in the dynamic range.
Parker Farnsworthy
>
> The VIEWER has the master volume control. You guys are just asking for
> television to have no dynamic range. You may very well get your wish because
> there isn't a person sitting at the station with a volume control...only a
> machine set to reign in the dynamic range.
>
>
You sound like Slick Willy and his legal team back when they were trying
to convince everyone that getting a blowjob was not having sex.
Buffalo
Charles Tomaras wrote:
> The VIEWER has the master volume control. You guys are just asking for
> television to have no dynamic range. You may very well get your wish
> because there isn't a person sitting at the station with a volume
> control...only a machine set to reign in the dynamic range.
So the 'guy sitting there' is so unique that a computer couldn't do that?
Is that what you are saying?
Buffalo
PS: No, you are the one talking about dynamic range limiting, no one else
is,
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:Qp_Ip.10511$SG4...@newsfe03.iad...
> Do you really think that with DVR's, commercial skipping and mute buttons that advertisers are going to continue to pay for the
> programming you watch if they can't even try to get your attention with sound?
So, you'd have us all believe we are welfare recipients watching our free advertiser supported TV.
We better be good little boys and girls and watch the commercials so as not to anger the advertisers.
Do you know where the fucking advertisers get the money to pay for the programming?
Hint: Go to Walmart and look in the 50 checkout lanes.
Get it yet?
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
Here's what I get...not a one of you responding here appears to know much of
anything about audio or broadcast engineering. You folks are probably the
people who set your transcoding software to rip your CD's with the
normalization ON making all the ballads are just as loud as the up beat
tunes so you can hear everything when you drive with the window down. What's
worse...you probably think the Normalization mode is a brilliant feature.
I've been a professional audio engineer for 25 years now and counting. You
guys really don't know what you are talking about both in concept or in the
reality of a television broadcast chain from content producer to network to
local broadcaster to transmission to you.
Charles Tomaras
"Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
>
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>> The VIEWER has the master volume control. You guys are just asking for
>> television to have no dynamic range. You may very well get your wish
>> because there isn't a person sitting at the station with a volume
>> control...only a machine set to reign in the dynamic range.
>
> So the 'guy sitting there' is so unique that a computer couldn't do that?
> Is that what you are saying?
No, I'm saying a computer will most likely do it arbitrarily and will make
mistakes....regularly. The computer won't know that the first two spots are
part of the national feed and then the 15 sec station promo is local and
then the next spot is back to the national feed and then followed by a spot
from your local chicken shack. The end result is that to appease you guys
and not break the volume regulations, the local station is just gonna crunch
the dynamics of everything somewhat so nothing gets perceived as being
louder. You wanna make things even worse....Comcast is also dropping in a
few commercials every now and again on some of the channels. Way too many
cooks in the kitchen and most of them aren't humans.
I suppose you also want to say that commercials can't make use of 5.1
systems either. "Commercials can't come from the surrounds!"
Guess we will all have to wait and see what happens. Too bad none of you
want to have a conversation about the technical aspects of broadcasting
without resorting to name calling and berating me. If you want to talk about
it then please draw upon your technical knowledge and tell me why you
believe I'm mistaken. I'm happy to hear ANYTHING based on technical
knowledge about how this stuff works. You guys it seems are the end using TV
owners who have ZERO technical background. It's like listening to a hospital
cafeteria worker discuss surgical techniques.
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:2chJp.3699$xh5...@newsfe02.iad...
>
> I've been a professional audio engineer for 25 years now and counting.
And yet you still can't make the commercials the same volume level as the rest of the program content.
Bwahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahaaaahahahahhahah!
Steve Baker
wrote:
Charles knows what he's talking about. You are speaking from
ignorance.
--
Steve Baker
Buffalo
Charles Tomaras wrote:
>> I've been a professional audio engineer for 25 years now and
> counting.
You may well be a paid audio engineer, but you sure are not a professional
one.
Buffalo
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
I find it amazing that you believe program content is some predictable known
entity days weeks or months before it airs. The same commercial may air at
6am during a news program or at 8pm during a break in a war movie etc etc.
No way of knowing beforehand just how "loud" the rest of the program content
might be perceived to be at that moment. You just fundamentally don't
understand the process. What exactly do you do in this business that makes
you qualified to anonymously post your jeering rubbish?
Charles Tomaras
"Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
Actually I'm a well paid professional audio engineer. Feel free to do a
little web search for my credentials as I don't hide behind anonymity on the
internet like you do.
Buffalo
Like I said, you may be a 'paid' audioengineer, but I don't think you are a
'Professional'.
Buffalo
me again
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:21:35 -0400, "Top-poster II"<n...@work.now>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Charles Tomaras"<tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:2chJp.3699$xh5...@newsfe02.iad...
>>>
>>> I've been a professional audio engineer for 25 years now and counting.
>>
>
> Charles knows what he's talking about.
Literally you are correct; however, he does not know what WE are talking about,
namely "decibels".
Use a decibel meter and you will plainly see the loudness increase during commercials.
me again
I agree, because a true professional would be able to explain things in layman's
terms, not in arcane jargon.
Top-poster II
"Steve Baker" <bak...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:vcpbv6l9jh3p2k3al...@4ax.com...
First and foremost, in my opinion, Chucky is most likely a paid lobbyist/shill for the broadcast or advertising industry.
He seems quite gifted at spreading FUD.
If you have enough money, you can find someone to testify to anything.
But back to the point, in case you haven't noticed, NBC, CBS and ABC all broadcast their program content at the same volume level.
I can switch between the 3 competing networks and never have to adjust the volume.
For example, NCIS, Castle and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno ALL broadcast at the SAME level.
But the instant a commercial comes on, BAM! (as Emeril would say), I gotta turn the volume down.
Understand?
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:5IpJp.8748$5v5....@newsfe11.iad...
Credentials don't mean squat to me.
The world is full of experts that can't tie their own shoe laces.
However, my ears can and do detect the change in volume when a commercial comes on.
HAVE A NICE DAY, CHUCKY! <= commercial level shout
Charles Tomaras
"me again" <rick0....@gmail.spamless> wrote in message
news:it5kv3$mh0$1...@dont-email.me...
No louder than the loud portions of the programming. So you seem to want
quiet advertisements. That I don't think you will get. Like asking a
signmaker to make a billboard "not" standout.
Charles Tomaras
"me again" <rick0....@gmail.spamless> wrote in message
Sound volume going up during commercials is the subject. The layman's answer
is that the average volume of a commercial IS indeed louder than the average
level of much of the programming that immediately precedes and follows the
commercial. The layman's answer to what I believe broadcasters will do is to
compress all of the programming to limit the dynamic range (the difference
between the quietest and loudest portions of a program) so that the
commercials no longer "appear" louder than the loudest portions of the
programming. What that means is that the quietest portions of the
programming will be louder. People will whisper loudly. I'll be very curious
to see what the final technical wording of any regulations state.
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
No...you don't get it at all. The volume of Jay Leno's band on the
introduction is about as loud as the transmission signal can accommodate.
The goal of proper gain structure is to make sure you use all your bits on
the loudest portions of your programming. If you were to cut from the band
playing a "rollicking" selection directly to a commercial you would find the
levels are generally pretty darn close.
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
Actually credentials and experience do account for something and I know a
lot more about sound than you do.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0866384/
And I never told you the apparent change in average volume wasn't
real...what I told you is that its a commercial. Imagine you are walking
around the fair grounds and every so often you pass the carnival barker
selling knives. He's not much louder than the general din of the carnival
but he packs in a bunch of words with an insistent tone and he's all you can
hear.
Adam H. Kerman
>First and foremost, in my opinion, Chucky is most likely a paid
>lobbyist/shill for the broadcast or advertising industry.
>He seems quite gifted at spreading FUD.
>If you have enough money, you can find someone to testify to anything.
Jesus fucking christ. Do we need Congress to pass a law so you'll turn
down the paranoia? Nobody would pay anybody to post to a newsgroup with
six readers and twelve sockpuppets.
Bob (not my real pseudonym)
"Rose Red"... the sound was well done, but the plot writing could
have been bottled and sold as a coma-inducing drug...
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:ztzJp.8086$xh5...@newsfe02.iad...
> commercial. The layman's answer to what I believe broadcasters will do is to compress all of the programming to limit the dynamic
> range (the difference between the quietest and loudest portions of a program) so that the commercials no longer "appear" louder
> than the loudest portions of the programming. What that means is that the quietest portions of the programming will be louder.
> People will whisper loudly. I'll be very curious to see what the final technical wording of any regulations state.
>
Or you could just do what millions of viewers want you to do:
1. leave the volume of the program content alone
2. lower the volume of the commercials.
Get it yet?
me again
;-) Maybe we should ask for the commercials to be inserted only during those "lound
portions" ;-)
Once upon a time there was a gizmo that would detect the SUDDEN increase in volume,
and deduce from that that there was a "commercial" on, and then suppress the sound
altogether until another SUDDEN drop was seen.
me again
"Best Paranoid Debunking" award of the year!
me again
> "Buffalo"<Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:it3hj9$q7c$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>> The VIEWER has the master volume control. You guys are just asking for
>>> television to have no dynamic range. You may very well get your wish
>>> because there isn't a person sitting at the station with a volume
>>> control...only a machine set to reign in the dynamic range.
>>
>> So the 'guy sitting there' is so unique that a computer couldn't do that?
>> Is that what you are saying?
>
> No, I'm saying a computer will most likely do it arbitrarily and will make
> mistakes....regularly. The computer won't know that the first two spots are
> part of the national feed and then the 15 sec station promo is local and
> then the next spot is back to the national feed and then followed by a spot
> from your local chicken shack. The end result is that to appease you guys
> and not break the volume regulations, the local station is just gonna crunch
> the dynamics of everything somewhat so nothing gets perceived as being
> louder. You wanna make things even worse....Comcast is also dropping in a
> few commercials every now and again on some of the channels. Way too many
> cooks in the kitchen and most of them aren't humans.
>
> I suppose you also want to say that commercials can't make use of 5.1
> systems either. "Commercials can't come from the surrounds!"
Well, some shows DO work the ads into the show!-)
> Guess we will all have to wait and see what happens. Too bad none of you
> want to have a conversation about the technical aspects of broadcasting
> without resorting to name calling and berating me. If you want to talk about
> it then please draw upon your technical knowledge and tell me why you
> believe I'm mistaken. I'm happy to hear ANYTHING based on technical
> knowledge about how this stuff works. You guys it seems are the end using TV
> owners who have ZERO technical background. It's like listening to a hospital
> cafeteria worker discuss surgical techniques.
I use a Leaming Industries MTS-4(?), that I call a "compander", to keep the sound at
a steady level. This is a fast-attack, slow-release device.
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
Some of the commercials come as part of national programming feed, some of
the commercials are local, some of the commercials are drop ins from the
cable company or sat company. The national spots don't always appear as
spots at the local station. No human sitting at the volume knob. Volume is
relative to "what part" of the mostly inconsistent and ever changing average
level of the program content?
Get it yet?
Post production sound mixer for the program content properly mixes the
program so the peaks are all hitting the highest levels allowed by the
transmission.
Post production sound mixer for commercials mixes it so the peaks are all
hitting the highest levels allowed by the transmission.
Get it yet?
The program content has some soft parts and some loud parts and then some
soft parts and then some loud parts.
The commercial is all loud parts.
Get it yet?
If a loud commercial follows a loud section of programming it doesn't sound
louder.
If a loud commercial follows a quiet section of programming it sounds
louder.
Get it yet?
To comply with rulings that the sound must be even, the stations will most
likely just make the quiet stuff louder by compressing everything so they
can continue to maximize the gain structure of the transmission.
Get it yet?
Charles Tomaras
"me again" <rick0....@gmail.spamless> wrote in message
So how is that gizmo gonna know it wasn't the SUDDEN gunshots in a war
movie?
Charles Tomaras
"me again" <rick0....@gmail.spamless> wrote in message
Good...now we can talk about what companding is and how it works because
that's exactly the type of device a station uses to limit dynamic range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding
>>The use of companding allows signals with a large dynamic range to be
>>transmitted over facilities that have a smaller dynamic range
>>capability.The use of companding allows signals with a large dynamic range
>>to be transmitted over facilities that have a smaller dynamic range
>>capability.<<
Think real hard about that sentence and now go back and re-read everything
I've been telling you.
Broadcast stations use more sophisticated multi-band devices which
compand/expand/limit/compress a signal in different bandwidth. Meaning one
might effect only low frequencies, another just mids and another the highs.
Back in my radio days we had one made by a company called Texair I believe
the model name was Audio Prism. We joked and called it the Audio PRISON for
the way it sucked he dynamics out of everything. Today Orban is one of the
big names in broadcast signal processing. Here's a link to one of their
current models:
http://www.orban.com/products/television/standard/6300/
So once again I will conclude by saying I believe the end result of volume
legislation will be LESS DYNAMIC RANGE on the broadcast.
Buffalo
Charles Tomaras wrote:
Are you stationed in India??
Get it yet??
Buffalo
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:SXQJp.6404$lW4....@newsfe07.iad...
>
[blah blah blah snip]
Annoy your customers, they'll go away.
microsys
Nobody gives a rats ass whether you know anything about engineering or not. By
now you should have discovered you are not going to gain any kudos, respect or
anything positive with your attempts to browbeat people with your alleged
prowess. The simple fact remains, the law states the level of commercials shall
be kept in line with the level of normal program material. Program content has
had no problem doing this since the advent of broadcast television. The only
ones who have had a problem are the advertisers. They are the exception and not
the rule. Now it is time for them to ( as so aptly put by another poster ) stop
blasting people out of their seats.
The idiotic contention that because advertisers pay so much for their spots they
should get some extra privilege or value out of the time allotted is
unacceptable to the public and to lawmakers. You can argue til the cows come
home and in your case they don't want to come home because they know you are
there, it won't win you the war. All the technical crap you are spewing while
correct technically or not has nothing to do with the law nor the level of
commercials. You are just jerking off to the sound of your own voice and that
adds up to a big fat *ZERO*
Jack Hammer
http://www.dolby.com/consumer/understand/volume/dolby-volume.html
Steve Baker
wrote:
>The idiotic contention that because advertisers pay so much for their spots they
>should get some extra privilege or value out of the time allotted is
>unacceptable to the public and to lawmakers.
The advertisers pay for the content. Watch out, you might get what
you wish for.
--
Steve Baker
Charles Tomaras
"microsys" <micr...@spamsucks.void> wrote in message
news:it8vvr$rt3$1...@dont-email.me...
Actually you and your ill-informed gang are the one's attempting to brow
beat me. A group of people who know very little about sound yet dig in to
their unqualified opinions when faced with a little bit of actual knowledge.
?The simple fact remains, the law states the level of commercials shall
> be kept in line with the level of normal program material.
You still refuse to address what LEVEL means or NORMAL. I'm watching the THE
VOICE right now on NBC and there are no commercials which are louder than
this program. It's a loud program. Some programs are loud, some are
relatively quiet and most have a bit of both. So are commercials for Ford
Trucks supposed to be quiet and sensitive if they play during a quiet
tearjerker? Are the local advertisers who purchase commercial time weeks and
months in advance supposed to know how loud some program will be immediately
before and immeadiately after their spot? You guys all think its just some
cut and dried thing. They are commercials on commercial television. Watch
non-commercial television or pay tv...or rent some movies. Get over it.
Oh and while we are at it....see if the commercials you think are so fricken
loud seem so loud over built in tiny TV speakers or mid size sattelite
speakers or full blown home theater set ups. They are all going to sound
"drastically" different. The post production people have to try to make the
spot sound rich, full and balanced on all of them...not an easy task.
Anyway....like I've been saying all along. The stations are going to abide
by reducing the dynamic range of the station. You will get exactly what you
are seeking... a broadcast with nothing that jars you.
>Program content has had no problem doing this since the advent of broadcast
>television. The only ones who have had a problem are the advertisers. They
>are the exception and not the rule. Now it is time for them to ( as so
>aptly put by another poster ) stop blasting people out of their seats.
>
> The idiotic contention that because advertisers pay so much for their
> spots they should get some extra privilege or value out of the time
> allotted is unacceptable to the public and to lawmakers. You can argue til
> the cows come home and in your case they don't want to come home because
> they know you are there, it won't win you the war. All the technical crap
> you are spewing while correct technically or not has nothing to do with
> the law nor the level of commercials.
You are so knowledgeable about this law....could you please direct me to a
link with the exact wording of the legislation?
Here's what is currently on the FCC site.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/program-background-noise-and-loud-commercials
Charles Tomaras
"Bill" <no...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:7r1gv6dqn0lfstua0...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:19:45 -0700, "Charles Tomaras"
> <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>>Broadcast stations use more sophisticated multi-band devices which
>>compand/expand/limit/compress a signal in different bandwidth. Meaning one
>>might effect only low frequencies, another just mids and another the
>>highs.
>>Back in my radio days we had one made by a company called Texair I believe
>>the model name was Audio Prism. We joked and called it the Audio PRISON
>>for
>>the way it sucked he dynamics out of everything. Today Orban is one of the
>>big names in broadcast signal processing. Here's a link to one of their
>>current models:
>>http://www.orban.com/products/television/standard/6300/
>
> dynamic range expander. Before that I used a dbx 3BX, which also
> worked well. I see 'less dynamic range' as a bad thing, generally,
> with the possible exception of late night viewing when I don't want to
> wake anyone.
>
I fully agree with you. Loud things should be loud and quiet things should
be quiet.
Charles Tomaras
"Jack Hammer" <ja...@hammer.nul> wrote in message
news:JNWdnbZaG5ZpjWXQ...@giganews.com...
> Maybe Dolby has some REAL audio engineers?
>
> http://www.dolby.com/consumer/understand/volume/dolby-volume.html
"Maintains the same volume level across all content, programs, and
audio/video sources"
Oh yeah....that's what I'm looking for....no dynamic range!
Dolby makes some great professional equipment and encoders..the stuff you
have linked to are consumer solutions for consumer electronics devices.
Right up there with those great reverb choices built into your amp like
"cathedral, stadium and rock club."
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:ipWJp.1325$Q35...@newsfe13.iad...
> They are commercials on commercial television. Watch non-commercial television or pay tv...or rent some movies. Get over it.
>
Yah, I had the same problem with broadcast radio. They'd play a song and then blast you with 10 minutes of commercials.
Well thank God for iPods, satellite radio and streaming radio services so i no longer have to be tortured by that nonsense.
Tom M
> Anyway....like I've been saying all along. The stations are going to abide
> by reducing the dynamic range of the station. You will get exactly what you
> are seeking... a broadcast with nothing that jars you.
[snip]
> You are so knowledgeable about this law....could you please direct me to a
> link with the exact wording of the legislation?
>
> Here's what is currently on the FCC site.
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/program-background-noise-and-loud-commercials
You really need to pay attention. The day after you joined this thread,
I posted the link to the FCC Proposed Rules published in the Federal
Register on 6/3/11. Here it is again:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-03/html/2011-13822.htm
As mandated by Congress, the FCC will require program-to-interstitial
loudness for commercial advertisements to be controlled through the
implementation of ATSC A/85 RP as updated on 5/25/11 and any future
updates. A/85 proscribes the use of the new ITU-R BS.1770 loudness
measurement algorithm to determine the normalized loudness parameter to
be sent along with other metadata in the the AC-3 audio bit stream. It
measures K weighted loudness relative to full scale in LKFS units
equilvalent to a db. Since the encoded program content stream is sent
unchanged, dynamic range is preserved.
AC-3 encoding was previously mandated for broadcasters but not for cable
operators, who are still required to comply in using A/85 for loudness
control for commercials. For non AC-3 operators, this might be through
contracts with upstream providers to deliver content with target value
metadata or to provide the metadata along with the content for
correction to target values locally. Local insertions would have to be
corrected in the same fashion.
Read the proposed rules at the above link or in the that section of the
FCC site and A/85 at atsc.org. If you care to provide public comment,
you have 30 days from the day they were published.
Full text of the statute is published here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ311/pdf/PLAW-111publ311.pdf
me again
Usually the creepy music warns it that a surprize is coming :-)
Right, it works the same, and lets the baby stay asleep.
me again
> On 6/15/2011 12:19 AM, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
>> Anyway....like I've been saying all along. The stations are going to
>> abide by reducing the dynamic range of the station. You will get
>> exactly what you are seeking... a broadcast with nothing that jars you.
>
> [snip]
>
>> You are so knowledgeable about this law....could you please direct me
>> to a link with the exact wording of the legislation?
>>
>> Here's what is currently on the FCC site.
>>
>> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/program-background-noise-and-loud-commercials
>
> You really need to pay attention. The day after you joined this thread,
> I posted the link to the FCC Proposed Rules published in the Federal
> Register on 6/3/11. Here it is again:
>
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-03/html/2011-13822.htm
>
> As mandated by Congress, the FCC will require program-to-interstitial
> loudness for commercial advertisements to be controlled through the
> implementation of ATSC A/85 RP as updated on 5/25/11 and any future
> updates. A/85 proscribes the use of the new ITU-R BS.1770 loudness
I think it IS a typo to use the word "proscribes"! The word "proscribes" means to
forbid or denounce, while the word "prescribes" means to endorse or require.
> measurement algorithm to determine the normalized loudness parameter to
> be sent along with other metadata in the the AC-3 audio bit stream. It
> measures K weighted loudness relative to full scale in LKFS units
> equilvalent to a db. Since the encoded program content stream is sent
> unchanged, dynamic range is preserved.
>
> AC-3 encoding was previously mandated for broadcasters but not for cable
> operators,
Ah ha!
Tom M
> Tom M wrote:
>> As mandated by Congress, the FCC will require program-to-interstitial
>> loudness for commercial advertisements to be controlled through the
>> implementation of ATSC A/85 RP as updated on 5/25/11 and any future
>> updates. A/85 proscribes the use of the new ITU-R BS.1770 loudness
>
>
> I think it IS a typo to use the word "proscribes"! The word "proscribes" means to
> forbid or denounce, while the word "prescribes" means to endorse or require.
Yup! You got me. :)
Charles Tomaras
"Tom M" <nos...@example.com> wrote in message
news:95rpql...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks. That's quite a lot of material to digest. I just spent about 20
minutes reading through a portion of it and it does indeed mention many of
the compliance issues which I have been speaking about. Local broadcasters
receiving blocks of programming that are not under their control. Difference
of perceived loudness v/s interstitial inserts etc etc. All the berating you
have done towards me aside, we will just have to see what the end result is
when enforcement begins. As I've continued to state...I believe the stations
are going to play it safe and really minimize the dynamic range of
everything.
And for what it's worth...I watched a few hours of late night programming
last night including The Voice and David Letterman and found no commercials
which really stuck out as being louder than the mood of the programming. I
will note that I was jarred when one particularly tame commercial ended and
The Voice came back in as loud as can be. Should the broadcasters have made
the tame commercial louder or The Voice quieter in that situation? Or should
everything just all be the same? I for one enjoy the fact that my current
digital television and amplification equipment can provide lots of dynamic
range that was unavailable to me before the switch to digital broadcasting.
Charles Tomaras
"me again" <rick0....@gmail.spamless> wrote in message
Please don't have the FCC mandate what works best for your sleeping baby! By
all means...buy your own gizmo and limit the dynamic range at your house to
your heart's content.
Charles Tomaras
"me again" <rick0....@gmail.spamless> wrote in message
Kind of Ah ha. I read that as to mean that the dynamic range is preserved
and the meta data is now present which can be used downstream to limit the
dynamic range in whatever way one wishes. We'll see if the stations try to
be artistic and careful or if the the GM says to the Chief Engineer.... "set
that sucker so we never get a complaint."
I vividly remember my radio station GM at a Jazz Station calling me up one
day (I was the music director of the station) and asking me to program music
without acoustic bass solos in them because he had to turn up the volume in
his car during those sections of the song and then he had to turn it down
again after the bass solo. Broadcast station management puts art and taste
at the bottom of the heap because they are interested in ratings and
dollars.
It may not matter to any of you but as I've said all along....the dynamic
range of our programming is going to be reduced one way or another. I can't
say if that's a good thing but I'm skeptical.
me again
The only way the engineer can find out if anyone is watching is to set it
so they DO get complaints!-)
> I vividly remember my radio station GM at a Jazz Station calling me up one
> day (I was the music director of the station) and asking me to program music
> without acoustic bass solos in them because he had to turn up the volume in
> his car during those sections of the song and then he had to turn it down
> again after the bass solo. Broadcast station management puts art and taste
> at the bottom of the heap because they are interested in ratings and
> dollars.
There is something paradoxical about having to turn UP the sound for something
he is asking to have NONE of!? Could he have ment he couldn't hear the lead
musician because of the a-base - no, he was talking about the Solo! Go figure.
> It may not matter to any of you but as I've said all along....the dynamic
> range of our programming is going to be reduced one way or another. I can't
> say if that's a good thing but I'm skeptical.
Your view may be presented to the FCC and may carry the day - we'll see.
>>> who are still required to comply in using A/85 for loudness
>>> control for commercials. For non AC-3 operators, this might be through
>>> contracts with upstream providers to deliver content with target value
>>> metadata or to provide the metadata along with the content for
>>> correction to target values locally. Local insertions would have to be
>>> corrected in the same fashion.
The presence of metadata makes it more interesting... and that reminds me
of an off-topic topic: why is there no closed-caption (CC) during commercials?
me again
> "Tom M"<nos...@example.com> wrote in message
> news:95rpql...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 6/15/2011 12:19 AM, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway....like I've been saying all along. The stations are going to
>>> abide by reducing the dynamic range of the station. You will get exactly
>>> what you are seeking... a broadcast with nothing that jars you.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Full text of the statute is published here:
>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ311/pdf/PLAW-111publ311.pdf
>
> Thanks. That's quite a lot of material to digest. I just spent about 20
> minutes reading through a portion of it and it does indeed mention many of
> the compliance issues which I have been speaking about. Local broadcasters
> receiving blocks of programming that are not under their control. Difference
> of perceived loudness v/s interstitial inserts etc etc. All the berating you
> have done towards me aside,
Nothing personal, really, it's just what is given to anyone who "pumps their own tires."
> we will just have to see what the end result is
> when enforcement begins.
And that's another sticky wicket: I do not think there IS ANY enforcement, is there?
Who is going to complain to whom and who is going to observe, test and penalize??
> As I've continued to state...I believe the stations
> are going to play it safe and really minimize the dynamic range of
> everything.
And do any changes as slowly as humanly possible ;-)
> And for what it's worth...I watched a few hours of late night programming
> last night including The Voice and David Letterman and found no commercials
> which really stuck out as being louder than the mood of the programming. I
> will note that I was jarred when one particularly tame commercial ended and
> The Voice came back in as loud as can be. Should the broadcasters have made
> the tame commercial louder or The Voice quieter in that situation? Or should
> everything just all be the same? I for one enjoy the fact that my current
> digital television and amplification equipment can provide lots of dynamic
> range that was unavailable to me before the switch to digital broadcasting.
Were you using AGC et cetera? Stereo? How many combinations could there be?
Charles Tomaras
"me again" <rick0....@gmail.spamless> wrote in message
>
>> And for what it's worth...I watched a few hours of late night programming
>> last night including The Voice and David Letterman and found no
>> commercials
>> which really stuck out as being louder than the mood of the programming.
>> I
>> will note that I was jarred when one particularly tame commercial ended
>> and
>> The Voice came back in as loud as can be. Should the broadcasters have
>> made
>> the tame commercial louder or The Voice quieter in that situation? Or
>> should
>> everything just all be the same? I for one enjoy the fact that my current
>> digital television and amplification equipment can provide lots of
>> dynamic
>> range that was unavailable to me before the switch to digital
>> broadcasting.
>
> Were you using AGC et cetera? Stereo? How many combinations could there
> be?
>
Comcast DVR box set to stereo with no loudness management feeding an old
Yamaha amp via AC3 and again no management. Bedroom setup feeding a pair of
6" driver in wall speakers. Comcast Seattle channel 105 which is the KING TV
HD feed. Just me and no one else home....fairly cranked.
Charles Tomaras
This is a pretty concise read from an EBU tech group about standards,
solutions and implementation.
Tom M
Are you sure you have the right attribution? While I included your
comments to another poster to refer to when posting the links and
summary rules info your were looking for, I wasn't involved in that
exchange. Perhaps I snipped too much in haste. :) I did, however, find
it odd that this thread grew rather heated because no one seemed to have
read pertinent I info posted early on.
> we will just have to see what the end result is
> when enforcement begins. As I've continued to state...I believe the stations
> are going to play it safe and really minimize the dynamic range of
> everything.
Those operators that already use or will deploy AC-3 equipment with A/85
are protected by a safe harbor provision. So they only need to show
that they properly maintained the system. For others, you may be right
if they have a high mix of rich content and find it difficult to
maintain both normalized target loudness levels and adequate head room
in whatever audio distribution scheme they use. But for most large
providers with modern equipment this shouldn't be a big issue. MCO
responsibility for upstream compliance is a bigger worry.
> And for what it's worth...I watched a few hours of late night programming
> last night including The Voice and David Letterman and found no commercials
> which really stuck out as being louder than the mood of the programming. I
> will note that I was jarred when one particularly tame commercial ended and
> The Voice came back in as loud as can be. Should the broadcasters have made
> the tame commercial louder or The Voice quieter in that situation? Or should
> everything just all be the same? I for one enjoy the fact that my current
> digital television and amplification equipment can provide lots of dynamic
> range that was unavailable to me before the switch to digital broadcasting.
In this case, the dynamic boundry transition in the new system may have
helped. Was it a local insertion?. Sounds like someone asleep at the
switch. :) Or bad metadata. :)
Tom M
That is rather interesting. Seems to be a standards battle going on.
EBU proposes the adoption of a set of standards based on ITU-R BS.1770
with certain modifications. ITU who had been working on an update to
its loudness algorithm which was adopted as a standard in 2007 to
incorporate a short term gated mode, adopts the same 400ms window as EBU
but uses two overlapping 400ms blocks with a two step threshold.
ITU-R BS.1770-2 was published in March 2011, just before the latest A/85
update in May 2011, which suggests a 3 to 10 sec sliding window for
short term measurements to lieu of a gated mode in the 2007 version.
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:Hl7Kp.353$lv6...@newsfe12.iad...
>
>
> It may not matter to any of you but as I've said all along....the dynamic range of our programming is going to be reduced one way
> or another.
No! No! No! You still ain't got it!
Leave the fucking programming alone. No one is complaining about the program volume level. You dont need to fuck with the program
volume!
It's the commercials everyone wants lowered. Turn the fucking volume down on the fucking commercials. Get it yet?
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
news:itcin...@news3.newsguy.com...
No...turn up the programming to match the commercials! Think about it...what
difference does it make? You still don't fundamentally want to understand
the issue at hand, instead opting for your simplistic statements. It's a far
more complex issue than merely "turn the f---ing volume down."
So why don't you rest assured many millions of dollars are being spent on
equipment and people to make you happy and stop all of your cussing and high
blood pressure moments. This is supposed to be a conversation about an issue
where each person tries to listen a bit and learn from others. I certainly
have listened to and heard your subjective opinions and I've also learned
some new technical things that improve my understanding of the issue and
possible solutions.
Thanks!
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:gLnKp.10789$5v5....@newsfe11.iad...
You are the master of obfuscation! Sheesh!
me again
..
>>> So how is that gizmo gonna know it wasn't the SUDDEN gunshots in a war
>>> movie?
>>
>> Usually the creepy music warns it that a surprize is coming :-)
>>
>> Right, it works the same, and lets the baby stay asleep.
>
> Please don't have the FCC mandate what works best for your sleeping baby! By
> all means...buy your own gizmo and limit the dynamic range at your house to
> your heart's content.
Here's my solution: require that commercials BEGIN at the same "dynamic range" as the
preceding 1 second of the show and END at the same level.
Parker Farnsworthy
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
Do you guys just enjoy being mean and nasty in the obscurity of your fake
names? Sheesh! Go jump on someone else....see ya!
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:DZBKp.1437$2K6...@newsfe05.iad...
>
>
> Do you guys just enjoy being mean and nasty in the obscurity of your fake names? Sheesh! Go jump on someone else....see ya!
>
I don't know anyone that likes loud commercials nor do I know anyone that would defend them.
If I had to guess I'd say that you are either an industry shill or a troll.
me again
Yes, psychologically that is true. Just ignore responses you don't like. Some people
are called "trolls" because they just like word fights.
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
Just a little frustrating to try to have a conversation with someone so
close minded to knowledge that they won't even consider there is something
they don't know anything about. Your attitude of "just turn it down" is so
simplistic and so unknowledgeable as to what the real problem is and what
possible solutions might be is what is troubling. The end user experience
of volume is the product of numerous elements most of which you don't seem
to want to know about nor understand.
For the most part I don't like commercials any more than the next guy but at
least I'm a realist about what commercial television is and I understand the
trade offs between commercial TV and non-commercial or pay television. If
the advertisements don't work then the model is broken and you'll just end
up with even more blatant product placement in every show you watch or the
shows will go away due to lack of financial viability.
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:vKLKp.10991$5v5....@newsfe11.iad...
>
>
> Just a little frustrating to try to have a conversation with someone so close minded to knowledge that they won't even consider
> there is something they don't know anything about. Your attitude of "just turn it down" is so simplistic and so unknowledgeable as
> to what the real problem is and what possible solutions might be is what is troubling. The end user experience of volume is the
> product of numerous elements most of which you don't seem to want to know about nor understand.
>
>
Yes, it really is that simple. A competent sound engineer would know that.
Charles Tomaras
"Top-poster II" <n...@work.now> wrote in message
Just curious what you do in life? What background do you have that would
make you an effective judge of competency in anything? Your words without
context of your knowledge are meaningless. Heck....ever with the fake, made
up name Top poster, you bottom post consistently.
Buffalo
Let's see if I understand you correctly.
Even though most commercials are aired at a predetermined by most stations,
there is not a computer program 'smart' enough that can figure out when a
commercial is aired?
The ONLY way that broadcasters can level out the sound in commercials is to
lower the dynamic range on everything they broadcast, and just doing it for
commercials would be really way expensive and almost impossible?
That's kinda what I get from your apparent condescending attitude: ie:
ignorant knaves want commercials that don't go way up in volume and don't
understand anything about how it happens. :)
Buffalo
Charles Tomaras
"Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:itg7in$m04$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> For the most part I don't like commercials any more than the next guy
>> but at least I'm a realist about what commercial television is and I
>> understand the trade offs between commercial TV and non-commercial or
>> pay television. If the advertisements don't work then the model is
>> broken and you'll just end up with even more blatant product
>> placement in every show you watch or the shows will go away due to
>> lack of financial viability.
>
> Let's see if I understand you correctly.
> Even though most commercials are aired at a predetermined by most
> stations,
> there is not a computer program 'smart' enough that can figure out when a
> commercial is aired?
What I'm saying is there are far fewer people working at the station than
you seem to think. There's no one monitoring much of anything during prime
time, the station engineer on duty is most likely soldering something on his
bench or trying to fix one of the news cameras and he's not listening to
anything more than a tiny speaker in his periphery. Master control is busy
feeding decks, lining up stuff for the 11pm news if there is a newscast.
There's certainly no one there to make sure commercials don't stick out.
Computers have been running stations for a long time and you already know
how well that works.
> The ONLY way that broadcasters can level out the sound in commercials is
> to
> lower the dynamic range on everything they broadcast, and just doing it
> for
> commercials would be really way expensive and almost impossible?
I'm not saying that's the ONLY way...what I have said over and over is that
"I bet" that most stations will elect to preemptively squash stuff "more"
than they have been. What you continue to not understand is that the level
of the programming is really all over the place and it's pretty difficult to
determine what the viewer's perception of volume is going to be right before
the commercial airs. The commercials cannot be louder than the loudest
portions of programming because the loudest portions of the programming are
ideally as loud as a station can broadcast. So if the loudest portions of
the programming occur immediately before a commercial insertion you don't
notice it. If there is a poignant moment with tears leading into the
insertion it appears much louder.
You are NEVER going to get someone to make a 30 second commercial that
doesn't try to stand out and make use of the full 30 seconds of valuable
time. If you have 30 seconds to tell someone something you are going to talk
fast and talk loud. (generalization) So you are rarely going to have
commercials which mimic the wide dynamic range of programming. Commercials
don't usually have a lot of dynamic range.
Now we have seen that there are some solutions being implemented to combat
this in a number of ways. These solutions involve changes in many different
places in the production, transmission and reception of broadcasts. They are
not fully defined and they won't happen quickly. "I believe" that television
stations will compress, expand and limit MORE than they do now to minimize
the differences for the foreseeable future until all of the pieces of the
puzzle are put together. Could be just as long and as painful as the
transition from SD to HD has been and continues to be. It's going to take
large capital expenditures on new equipment and training at post production
houses, networks and local stations before the chain is complete. Don't hold
your breath.
Top-poster II
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:YhNKp.19802$F25....@newsfe04.iad...
>
>
> Just curious what you do in life? What background do you have that would make you an effective judge of competency in anything?
> Your words without context of your knowledge are meaningless. Heck....ever with the fake, made up name Top poster, you bottom post
> consistently.
>
You want the truth? Follow the money.
Lowering the volume level of commercials isn't a technical issue, its all about the money. Big money! Lots and lots of money!
If we had honest politicians and the CALM Act actually had some teeth in it, we'd have quieter commercials today.
Unfortunately, I suspect advertisers and their puppet politicians have included plenty of loopholes that will enable them to
continue broadcasting loud commercials long into the future.