Senate Votes To Turn Down Volume On TV Commercials

Hugh Pickens writes "Ever since television caught on in the 1950s, the FCC has been getting complaints about blaring commercials but concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the 'apparent loudness' of commercials. Now the AP reports that the Senate has unanimously passed a bill to require television stations and cable companies to keep commercials at the same volume as the programs they interrupt using industry guidelines on how to process, measure and transmit audio in a uniform way. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a co-sponsor, says it's time to stop the use of loud commercials to startle viewers into paying attention. 'TV viewers should be able to watch their favorite programs without fear of losing their hearing when the show goes to a commercial.' The House has already passed similar legislation, so before the new measure becomes law, minor differences between the two versions have to be worked out when Congress returns to Washington after the November 2 election."

Comments

This is impractical

[jra]

Cause it ties the playback loudness of the commercials to *what program material surrounds them*: the same spot could play louder during Footday Night Monball than during CSI, frex.

FCC wisely ducked this, last time.

What will the Senate do next, vote to reduce gravity, so overweight people can get around more easily?

Re:This is impractical

[jra]

And note: they *are* at the same volume: measured by *peak level*. The peak levels of the commercial never get any louder than the peak level of the program, cause both are about 95% deviation

See also: audio compression.

Re:This is impractical

[nicolas.kassis]

Set the value of Pi? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Re:This is impractical

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, that is the idea

Re:This is impractical

[blueg3]

If only there was some way of taking a single piece of source material and adjusting its loudness at the time of transmission so that different volumes could be selected for different situations.

Alas, apparently the technology to dynamically alter sound data in such a way does not exist.

Re:This is impractical

[MozeeToby]

How is that a problem? If I'm watching violent action movie I will have adjusted the volume to the level that is comfortable to me. If I'm watching a drama with no loud noises whatsoever, I will have... adjusted the volume to the level that is comfortable to me. See, that's the point; I don't want to be pitched Oxyclean at levels that cause permanent hearing damage just because I have the volume turned up hear a quiet show. It isn't that hard to take the average level from the past five minutes, and make the average level of the commercial be the same, you could easily make some software to do it and I refuse to believe TV stations don't have software that manages their commercials already.

Re:This is impractical

[wjousts]

The point is that now it will be the same volume measured by *average level*. So one big explosion in CSI doesn't give the advertisers card blanche to blast their ads at you.

Re:This is impractical

[somersault]

Duh. The commercials must obviously be operating at near to peak levels with little dynamic range, whereas the TV shows are save a little range for swelling dramatic music, explosions etc.

I have the same problem with BBC Radio 1, the presenters are far too loud in comparison with the music. If I ever listen to the radio these days I tend to be fiddle with the volume a lot.

Re:This is impractical

[BobMcD]

THIS!

Re:This is impractical

[commodore64_love]

>>>the same spot could play louder during Footday Night Monball than during CSI,

(1) So what?

(2) I think you might have that backwards. The music in CSI and other dramas is often louder than the sports games. Sure when a crowd cheers football gets loud, but the overall average volume is quieter. (IMHO)
.

>>>What will the Senate do next, vote to reduce gravity, so overweight people can get around more easily?

I thought they were planning to outlaw any car older than 2005, in order to stimulate the purchase of new cars - a kind of Cash for Clunkers Megadrive. Or maybe that was the plan to smash windows to provide job for glaziers? I don't know. I get easily distra..... oooo beach volleyball in TV! So bouncy. And fit. :-D

Re:This is impractical

[tedgyz]

They are purposely increasing the volume in the commercial, which means they have the ability to decrease the volume.

The challenge as stated in TFA is to define the regulation in a practical way that actually results in solving the problem.

Re:This is impractical

[hedwards]

I think that the bigger problem is how to get the commercials adjusted to match the programming. I suspect that it's a lot easier to do now than it was during the 80s. Worst case you just set the volume to something sane and deal with the consequences.

While we're at it, could somebody tell MS that the error sound is way too loud and way too frequent. I can only imagine the amount of hearing damage they've caused with that. Hopefully they've turned down the volume in more recent releases from what it was in XP.

Re:This is impractical

[commodore64_love]

>>>different volumes could be selected for different situations.

Well since nobody's invented what I will call "consumer-variable sound adjustment", I devised a different solution: I just mute everything (except scifi which has cool AFX) and read the subtitles to follow the dialogue, while listening to the commercial-free radio in the background.

Re:This is impractical

[somaTh]

This makes me want to create programming at ridiculously low levels. People will turn up their TV's, and the commercials won't get out of line. Then, when they change channels, THAT'S when they get the blaring. Next step: all channels must have the same average volume.

I got the idea from NPR in Georgia. This happens ALL THE TIME in my car. :/

Re:This is impractical

[cyber-vandal]

The presenters are too loud on Radio 1 because you can hear them.

Re:This is impractical

[JWSmythe]

    You make it sound like it's impractical. Well, I guess because you said so. I've had receivers which do audio normalization (or dynamic range control), which work very well in home theaters. You don't have to screw around with the volume so you can hear someone whispering in one scene, and then turn it down for the next loud scene. I was really spoiled after watching TV and movies exclusively in my home theater for about a year. I pretty much had two settings for the audio. One was for normal TV and general movies. The other was for action movies (about 10% louder). When I added a TV in another room, it really threw me that the volume changed so significantly. I had to sit there with the remote in my hand, so I could turn up quiet scenes, and turn down loud scenes. It was very distracting.

    Really, it's not state of the art technology. It's been around for a while. There isn't really a reason that the broadcast station can't set a normalization threshold, other than the fact that they may need to spend a bit of cash to make it happen. But, it's not in the best interest of the stations. They're being paid to allow the ads through that are over volume, regardless of the comfort (or annoyance) of the viewers.

Re:This is impractical

[zero_out]

It can definitely be done. In fact, about 6 years ago I was tasked with designing and coding an automatic volume control based on ambient room noise. It was not easy, believe me, but using Root Mean Square, I was able to get it to work. This ensured that the device would either be louder than the ambient sound if you wanted to use it as a public announcement system, such as in a school, or provide background music that didn't drown out conversation. The hardest part was determining the sample buffer. Do you adjust the volume based on the last second of ambient sound? The last 10 seconds? The last minute? It took some tweaking, but an optimal sample buffer was found.

Now, for a TV show, that is a bit easier. Simply get an RMS of the show before airing it, as well as the peak volume, do the same for each commercial, and adjust the commercial volume accordingly. It's not a difficult problem at all. In fact, I could probably write an application to do it all automatically within a week or two, but no more than a month. It would take sound stream input, sample the entire stream from beginning to end, then determine a relative volume for each one.

The problem hasn't been a technical one for over a decade. It's been a political one.

Re:This is impractical

[Ironhandx]

Its pretty easy, everything I have in my home theaters run through a Creative x-fi sound card to get "cleaned" before it actually goes to any speakers/stereo head. I can muck with all of the settings to get exactly the sound levels I want and it prevents the commercials from suddenly deafening me.

It actually fixes the MS error sound too.

Re:This is impractical

[jonbryce]

They manage it fine in other countries that have these rules, such as the UK.

Re:This is impractical

[Moryath]

Yes, but if you tie the commercial loudness to the loudness of Monday Night Football, then by its very nature if you turn down the volume knob during MNF, you won't have to worry about the commercials still blasting the shit out of your eardrums, and if you turned the volume up a little during the much-quieter CSI, you won't have to worry about the commercials knocking you over in your chair or scaring the cat into climbing up the walls.

Unlike some legislation, this seems to be rather sensible.

Re:This is impractical

[interval1066]

AVERAGE volume, please, AVERAGE.

Re:This is impractical

[Thud457]

What are commercials?
You mean like when watching teevee at an old person's house?

Re:This is impractical

[nschubach]

Don't worry, they'll earmark something totally unrelated onto it.

Re:This is impractical

[Guignol]

Thank you I thought noone was getting it and was starting to despair :)

Re:This is impractical

[characterZer0]

This also cuts out the laugh track, which might make some shows watchable.

Re:This is impractical

[SuricouRaven]

"Sure when a crowd cheers football gets loud, but the overall average volume is quieter." The recent world cup excluded.

Re:This is impractical

[anss123]

It isn't that hard to take the average level from the past five minutes, and make the average level of the commercial be the same

My TV does this already; just an option in the menu... and it's not an expensive model or anything. Had more or less forgotten how annoying loud commercials can be.

Re:This is impractical

[Jake73]

Surprising people are arguing that it can't be done.

Stations are obviously making commercials louder than the TV program. They could, then, make them the same volume.

The problem you attacked (if I understand correctly) is that of keeping the volume approximately the same without having the a priori knowledge of what separates a program from the commercial. The stations have this information. They're simply turning up the volume when a commercial hits. The solution is as easy as this: "Don't do that!"

Re:This is impractical

[mcgrew]

You seem to really be missing the point. You live na an apartment, or have someone asleep in the next room, and set the TV volume accordingly. It's low, but not so low you can't hear it. Then all of a sudden "HEMMOROID SUFFERERS..."

Tying the playback loudness of the commercials to *what program material surrounds them* keeps you from waking up your wife/SO/neighbor because you don't have to keep turning the volume down and up.

However, I think a technical solution would be better -- just put a dynamics compressor circuit on the TV set that can be turned on when you're watching a movie when someone's sleeping, and off when you want the full dynamic range. The dynamic range in a lot of movies is as problematic as loud commercials, and a dynamics compressor circuit would solve both problems. I can't understand why they haven't been doing this for decades, the tech has been there. Radio stations have used dynamics compresion at least since there was such a thing as FM.

Re:This is impractical

[oldmac31310]

John Peel (RIP) was the exception of course.

Re:This is impractical

[mcvos]

Not to mention the inane commentary on vids with cute animals.

Re:This is impractical

[mcvos]

I don't know. The blaring ads can be useful. It's a good sign I need to go to bed when I'm woken up by the loud phone sex ads. (Other ads never seem to be as loud as those.)

Re:This is impractical

[tjhayes]

Simply get an RMS of the show before airing it

What do you do for live TV?

Re:This is impractical

[Phreakiture]

This can be done by defining standards.

For example, if we define the standard as -20dBFS as the overall RMS for the sum of all audio channels (LFE Included!) of any programming segment, and then define a programming segment as (a) the duration of any given commercial message or (b) the contiguous programming between commercial breaks, then it doesn't matter if you are watching action or drama; all will be normalized to a common volume level.

Some latitude may be granted for live programming, so that it isn't required to use heavy-handed dynamic range compression to get this result. Of course, we then have to define live programming as any programming where a recording of the entire segment isn't available prior to air-time. Just because it was recorded in front of a live audience doesn't make it live programming. The live exception is to make allowance for real-time circumstances. This exception might apply to parades, news coverage, etc.

But my point is this: It isn't technically difficult. Broadcasters just don't want to. It is another example of how allowing industry to regulate itself doesn't work.

Re:This is impractical

[NotBorg]

I think that the bigger problem is how to get the commercials adjusted to match the programming.

Oh come on! They are specifically going out of their way to make ads LOUDER. There's a significant part of the problem that has absolutely nothing to do with the technical details of implementing some sort of auto volume leveler.

Simply put, stop amping your advertizements. Saying you can't match it up because of technology then deliberately amplifying your advertizements to the point of over-modulating equipment... fucking bullshit! That's not a technical problem.

It's like calling those flashing banner ads on web pages a technical problem with monitors that refresh too quickly. "Uh we intended for it to fade more gradually, but monitors updates too fast." Really???

Re:This is impractical

[Bobfrankly1]

The point is that now it will be the same volume measured by *average level*. So one big explosion in CSI doesn't give the advertisers card blanche to blast their ads at you.

That's right, it takes two!

Re:This is impractical

[zero_out]

That can be tackled in a way similar to my solution for adjusting streaming audio to account for ambient noise. Yes, a new piece of "middleware" would need to be used between the live feed, and the broadcast signal, but that's not a problem. You perform a real-time calculation of the RMS on the audio, and that gives you an idea of the relative volume over the course of a broadcast. You would only need to store the last few minutes, or at most the audio since the previous commercial, to calculate an appropriate volume for the commercials, based on recent program volume.

Re:This is impractical

[Cylix]

I know right...

I've never actually deployed a studio without compression even if the settings are set lazy.

There are already limits imposed by the FCC that determine when something is too loud. However, there are some commercials which try to run really close to the edge. I would laugh when my setup clipped them and then wait for the customer to complain. If someone had run into an issue of clipping I gave them two options to get clean audio. You can re-submit your studio copy with correct audio levels (we used -10DB as the cieling) or I can send it to production to get re-mixed (at a cost).

The aural tube on the analog side would most certainly respond to the increased audio levels and I was not keen on it at all. We already had too many issues to let shit go up the pipe unchecked.

Re:This is impractical

[doogledog]

It was not easy

Not wishing to troll, but... Really? I recently had to implement a similar thing for a public transport voice announcement system (certain parts of the world require ambient noise compensation on their passenger announcements (plus sometimes customers want that anyway)).
As you say, running average (or similar) of RMS is a key part of it... but other than some very (very) simple logic and arithmetic (basically scale the volume (up to a limit) based on a scaling of the RMS against a calibrated value), nothing more was needed.
Was it particularly more complex when implementing this for use in a room (as opposed to on a vehicle)? I guess the more dynamic nature of TV/film vs. passenger announcements would probably make it a bit trickier.
Just curious :-)

(Oh and I agree on your last statement. The problem has only existed 'cos advertisers know they can get away with it, nothing technical at all!)

Re:This is impractical

[hack slash]

Damn I wish I had mod points right now, that would've been a definite +1

Re:This is impractical

[CelticWhisper]

I agree. This kind of feature is sorely needed in both TVs and playback software alike. I've tried VLC's normalizer function but can't seem to achieve predictable results (the instructions are written in a somewhat confusing fashion as well) and it's really annoying with some shows and movies that have audio tracks like rollercoasters. I recall Miller's Crossing having a massive police-mafia shootout scene immediately following a quiet conversation between two characters. Like the movie, hate having to scramble for the volume controls. Horror movies in particular are next to impossible to watch at night because of the annoying-as-hell violin screeches when some creature jumps out to chew the hero's eyes out. Okay, I get it, I'm supposed to be startled, but I don't need to go deaf and if I'm watching late at night, the housemates don't need to be woken up just because the face-hugger is feeling horny again.

So yes, dynamic range compressors on playback equipment PLEASE.

Re:This is impractical

[modecx]

It's a problem alright. What if you're channel hopping at any given moment, like 99% of us?

Under this proposal, it's likely one station would be dramatically louder than the next. PBS stations for example often use a sound philosophy that preserves dynamic range. Most other stations crush the shit out of their audio with some sort of compression filter, decreasing dynamic range for the sake of increasing the overall signal gain. Not only does it sound louder, it sounds quite a bit worse.

To me, it wasn't so much of a problem in the old analog days. The audio channels didn't have enough bandwidth for good dynamic range, nor was the average TV's sound system up to the task. Today, the TV's built in speakers still suck (generally less than the old days though), but our audio delivery mechanism is much improved thanks to Dolby Digital (AC-3) being the standard audio codec. Plug in your audio receiver and your fancy speakers and the potential for good sound is there.

But the stations ruin it all in a big-dick-contest: the quest to provide the loudest, most obnoxious sound experience for their customers--advertisers. I admit that it would be more than a little stupid to legislate average sound volume for *every* station, but at the same time it might be helpful for the FCC to help set some "soft" guidelines.

Re:This is impractical

[gstoddart]

Well since nobody's invented what I will call "consumer-variable sound adjustment"

I'm not 100% sure of that.

As I understand it, the Dolby Digital spec actually included a definition for user selectable dynamic range compression. This allows for things like "midnight theatre" mode on DVD players. On my DVD player and Yamaha amp, both allow me to adjust the dynamic range compression to tweak it for my listening needs.

Contrast this with DTS, which AFAIK doesn't support any form of dynamic range compression ... I can't use DTS on my amplifier, because my big-honking Yamaha amp wants to basically run at peak output, and is way too damned loud. (Once tried to watch Gladiator, I think ... the background sounds were hella loud, and the dialog was quiet because it was tuned for movie theater volumes.) Some say DTS is "better" because it's a more "theater sound", but on my amp it is just way too loud since it doesn't support any form of compression to tone it down. I don't want to unleash all 700 watts or whatever it is.

So, either you're talking about the volume control (in which case I apologize for missing the sarcasm ;-) ... or, I will point out that Dolby Digital for DVDs actually did implement your "consumer-variable sound adjustment". Obviously TV and CDs don't seem to have the same setting, but someone did attempt to solve the problem.

However, I am glad that someone is finally enforcing that the car commercial shouldn't be louder than the action film I was watching. That is just plain wrong.

Cheers

Re:This is impractical

[Pinback]

Back before the dolby board died in my (Sony) AV receiver, there was a setting that used a compressed version of the DVD audio stream.

Made the explosions as quiet as the dialog. I have not seen that feature in any of the software based DVD players, or described any place. I do miss the feature.

Re:This is impractical

[BrokenHalo]

The challenge as stated in TFA is to define the regulation in a practical way that actually results in solving the problem.

No challenge. The hand that pushes up the volume button gets amputated with a rusty pair of bolt-cutters. Easy. Next story please...

Re:This is impractical

[Anonymous Coward]

lookup DialNorm or Dialog Normalization this is the problem, the people submitting the commercial set the DialNorm value wrong for the actual loudness the audio is there for it comes out louder. Dolby has gear to detect errors in DialNorm setting (-24db normally ) vs audio loudness measured via rms methods as described. LM1000 i think is the model.

Re:This is impractical

[BrokenHalo]

While we're at it, could somebody tell MS that the error sound is way too loud and way too frequent.

Any number of solutions to this:
(1) Don't make so many errors
(2) If they're not your fault then use an OS that doesn't make so many errors
(3) Turn the sound off
(4) Say no to using Microsoft products (see (2))...

Re:This is impractical

[quacking duck]

Isn't there something like 5-8 seconds of delay on "live" TV these days anyway, to prevent wardrobe malfunctions, f-bombs and other public shenanigans from being broadcast to the viewing public?

Re:This is impractical

[PitaBred]

Not quite. They still put "(laughter)" into the subtitles

Re:This is impractical

[VJ42]

John Peel (RIP) was the exception of course.

Radio one wouldn't have him theses days; he'd be placed on 6Music* for being neither bland nor vulgar and mainstream enough.
Remember, this is the station that employs Chris Moyles who some how manages to be both bland and vulgar at the same time.


*Not a dig at 6Music, quite the opposite - thank god the beeb bowed to public pressure to keep 6Music on air, the last bastion of good music on the radio

Re:This is impractical

[s73v3r]

It took some tweaking, but an optimal sample buffer was found.

Well don't just leave us hanging. What was it?

Re:This is impractical

[treeves]

Don't know him but I sure dug Emma Peel. (TV not radio)

Re:This is impractical

[treeves]

You mean a "volume knob"? I hear they make a special one made of wood that dampens out distortions or something like that. It's a bit expensive though. Maybe it's no longer available - only links I could find were archived. Darn.

Re:This is impractical

[treeves]

Was there cheering during that? I sure didn't hear any. All I could hear was those damn vuvuzelas. Which is why I turned the volume down or off. Which is perhaps why I didn't hear any cheers. Or they were just drowned out by the vuvuzelas. Or they didn't even bother to cheer cuz of all the noise. Or something.

Re:This is impractical

[tool462]

TV producers will just start including a Slashdot style moderation system, and you'll see +5, Funny next to the subtitles when there would have been a laugh track.

Re:This is impractical

[zero_out]

The difference was that it was a capstone project for graduating from university. When you're swamped with work from half a dozen senior level classes, and you have to use a language you're unfamiliar with, along with open source mic drivers that have no documentation (in or out of code), it becomes problematic. The actual design and mathematics were easy, but implementation was a pain.

Re:This is impractical

[skids]

That would be pretty impressive. (Actually I'm pretty impressed as it is that the Senate actually managed to pass a bill, any bill, at all.)

Re:This is impractical

[TheSync]

Now, for a TV show, that is a bit easier. Simply get an RMS of the show before airing it, as well as the peak volume, do the same for each commercial, and adjust the commercial volume accordingly. It's not a difficult problem at all.

Unfortunately if you talk to psychoacoustic experts, they will tell you that science does not have a full grasp of perceived loudness.

The best we can say is that a frequency-weighted short-term power measurement such as ITU-R BS.1770 LKFS does an OK job in general, but it can not do a good job representing the perceived loudness of temporal discrepancies (a show fades to quiet during the credits, than an equal LKFS ad starts up abruptly but sounds much louder), or why when an expected loud sound (like a bomb clock counting down to 0:00 then blowing up) sounds louder than a bomb that blows up without warning, despite equal LKFS.

Moreover, there are probably differences in individual's frequency weighting of loudness (we know this happens with age), so BS.1770 LKFS is an average but may not represent your particular frequency weighting for your personal perception of loudness.

Re:This is impractical

[The_mad_linguist]

Well since nobody's invented what I will call "consumer-variable sound adjustment"

Speaking of which, I'm really surprised that there isn't a mp3 player that lets you select volume for individual songs as well as the overall volume. It seems like an obvious feature.

Re:This is impractical

[nabsltd]

Speaking of which, I'm really surprised that there isn't a mp3 player that lets you select volume for individual songs as well as the overall volume.

There are many MP3 players that do, but you need the right data in the MP3 file.

You can also use software to non-destructively modify the MP3 file for players that do not support replay gain directly.

Re:This is impractical

[anUnhandledException]

Exactly that is the key point that makes it "difficult" to do smart normalization by the consumer.

when your TV or receiver plays sound it has no concept of content vs commercials. it is simply one giant block on sound. Now you can normalize it however the commercials are mixed hotter thus commercials will still be louder and you will crush all the intentionally loudER parts of the content.

The networks have access to the discrete components
content
commercial 1
commercial 2
commercial 3 ....
commercial n

they can determine the average loudness of the content and each commercial SEPARATELY. Then apply a gain to each commercial to normalize it to the content. something like commercial 1 -20db, commercial 2 -13db, commercial 3 +2db.

By the time it gets to the consumers it is "all mixed up" and attempting any normalizing isn't going to work well.

Re:This is impractical

[anUnhandledException]

No it doesn't. It normalizes across the entire content. Your TV has no way to know the difference between a commercial and content.

Thus you can apply normalization however it crushes the dynamic range of the content and ends up reducing the INTENTIONAL peaks (chase scenes, explosions, etc) in that content to clip the commercials.

If the commercials are mixed hotter than the content they will STILL be louder just the relative difference is smaller.

The networks can normalize the content and EACH commercial seperately. By the time it gets to you it is all mixed up and anything your TV can attempt is going to be half assed and with significant side effects.

Re:This is impractical

[sjames]

Exactly. They know very well how to do it. It's rather easy when you are airing pre-recorded material.

Re:This is impractical

[Anonymous Coward]

> The hardest part was determining the sample buffer. Do you adjust the volume based on the last second of ambient sound? The last 10 seconds? The last minute?
Don't keep us in suspense! What was the answer?

Re:This is impractical

[doogledog]

Thanks for the reply!

That makes more sense. Luckily for me the RMS stuff was done in hardware and I just had to sample an ADC... and I was writing this all in C.
Given the situation you outlined, I imagine it would've taken me a while longer as well. :-)

Re:This is impractical

[brentrad]

MS went one better in Vista and 7. Audio volume can be adjusted individually per application, so for example you can set system sounds to a very low volume, but still have your media player app or web browser as loud as you want them. One of the nicest features of Vista, IMO, and especially nice on a living room media center PC. Of course, because of this and many other changes to audio, it broke a lot of audio drivers so you couldn't use the XP versions in Vista, but small price to pay IMO.

Re:This is impractical

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole issue was solved by the MPAA years ago. I met a guy a couple years back (like 10) who had worked on a system to keep movie trailers in theaters from shattering people's eardrums as they were prone to do.

See, the #1 complaint theater owners used to get was that the trailers were so damn loud. Some of you might remember those explosions in trailers that would vibrate the fillings in your teeth. Basically, when digital sound came along they would crank those trialers WAAAAY past eleven and little children would start crying.

So the MPAA came out with-- and enforced-- an audio standard for trailers (I think THX engineers may have been involved with this). The guy explained how it worked to me-- it was so long ago but basically I remember it had to do with some sort of averaging of sounds, and the "peak" volume not being allowed to go for more than a certain amount of time per trailer.

In any event, people stopped complaining after these measures were put in place.

If they can do this 10 years ago for film trailers, I bet they could set some standards for TV.

Re:This is impractical

[commodore64_love]

"How can this make a difference??? ..... Here is a test for all you Silver Rock owners. Try removing the bakelite knobs and listen. You will be shocked by this! The signature wooden knobs will have an even greater effect...really amazing! The point here is the micro vibrations created by the volume pots and knobs find their way into the delicate signal path and cause degradation (Bad vibrations equal bad sound). With the signature knobs micro vibrations from the C37 concept of wood, bronze and the lacquer itself compensate for the volume pots and provide (Good Vibrations) our ear/brain combination like to hear...way better sound!!"

$485!
    Un-freaking-believable. Are audiphiles people of low IQ that they are so easily suckered? Maybe I ought to put some of these knobs on ebay

Re:This is impractical

[anss123]

I know what audio "dynamic range" compression is. Not unfamiliar with the term as my PC's soundcard has that feature, and the decency to explain that dynamic range takes a hit.

However, only audiophiles notice stuff like that. I've done enough blind tests to know that I don't. Of course, my speakers are built into the telly so they likely introduce bigger distortions than the digital signal processing. I was able to pick out a slight difference when using headphones on my PC, but even then wasn't able to say which was the original uncrushed signal on 128k mp3s - and though high quality MP3s did sound a tad worse they still sounded better than 128k MP3s (and 128k MP3s are good enough for us non-audiophiles).

Re:This is impractical

[robot_love]

Simply get an RMS of the show before airing it

Can't you leave Stallman out of this? Hasn't he done enough?

Re:This is impractical

[draconx]

Audiophile, noun: A person who listens to the equipment rather than the music.

Re:This is impractical

[The New Andy]

It actually is non-trivial to do it correctly.

Have a look at the Fletcher-Munson curves and think what happens to sound when you apply a uniform gain/attenuation to it. If sounds at all frequencies move by the same amount, then adjusting the volume will change the character of what you are hearing. Try turning down the volume on your music and see how you lose the bass and treble, and all that remains is the stuff in the vocal region.

Re:This is impractical

[The_mad_linguist]

Well, replay gain is pretty much what I wanted, though it would be nice if you could easily manually set it.

Re:This is impractical

[AmiMoJo]

Some Samsung TVs used to have that built in. The idea was that the user sets a volume level they want to listen at, not a level the want to attenuate whatever sound is currently being broadcast. It worked pretty well.

They also did a compressor for late night viewing that made it easier to hear DVDs with a lot of dynamic range at low volume levels.

Re:This is impractical

[nabsltd]

Well, replay gain is pretty much what I wanted, though it would be nice if you could easily manually set it.

Although there are no MP3 players that "remember custom volume settings for individual files" (which is what you seem to want), it's trivial to use replay gain metadata on individual files to set whatever volume you want, even though that wasn't the original intent of the system.

Basically, after you analyze the file, you can use the tools and manually set the volume 3dB higher, etc., to your heart's content. MP3Gain even lets you set the volume level differently on each channel of the MP3 (although I don't know why you'd want to).

It's almost as if

[tekrat]

Congress was working for the people... Is this some kind of sick joke meant to lull us into thinking that every congressman isn't in the pockets of big business? Hrrrmm. It's getting near election time, that must be it...

Re:It's almost as if

[elrous0]

It's a wildly popular bill with broad bi-partisan support, a true no-brainner. With that said, don't worry, the Democrats will still find some way to fuck it up.

Re:It's almost as if

[AnonymousClown]

They throw us a bone every once in a while. This time it's a non-partisan one.

Re:It's almost as if

[wjousts]

You mean the Republicans will filibuster it unless it includes tax breaks and gold plated blow jobs for their rich buddies.

Re:It's almost as if

[davegravy]

If the government and powerful corporate higher-ups weren't impacted by the volume issue the same as the rest of us, we wouldn't be seeing this bill. I'm surprised they didn't conceive some way to fix the problem only for themselves.

Re:It's almost as if

[parkrrrr]

You mean "Also, the Republicans will...." Fish gotta swim, Republicans gotta screw us, Democrats gotta screw up.

Re:It's almost as if

[hedwards]

Indeed, kind of interesting how the don't call list was engineered to mysteriously not apply to them, same goes for the ban on robocalls. Oddly enough, politicians were among the worst offenders during election season.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "Also, the Republicans will...." Fish gotta swim, Republicans gotta screw us, Democrats gotta screw up.

"Everyone in Congress is on the same side, and it's not the one you're on"

Re:It's almost as if

[macbeth66]

You mean, just like the Democrats?

They are two sides of the same coin, dude.

Scum, the whole sorry lot of them. Schumer, while not evil, is wholly corrupted by vote-whoring.

Re:It's almost as if

[commodore64_love]

>>>the #STRING will still find some way to fuck it up.

where #STRING alternates between "Democrats" and "Republicans". Stop wasting your vote on the same D or R screwage. Vote third party. Even if you lose you can brag, "Well I didn't vote for either asshole. Can't blame me."

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't get a chance. The Democrats will never bring it to a vote unless it includes massive handouts to unions, media companies, China, and the rest of their pay masters.

Re:It's almost as if

[Palshife]

It's a wildly popular bill with broad bi-partisan support, a true no-brainner. With that said, don't worry, the party in power will still find some way to fuck it up.

There. FTFY.

Re:It's almost as if

[elrous0]

Schumer, while not evil, is wholly corrupted by vote-whoring.

It's funny you should mention him. I was watching Casino Jack and The United States of Money (a documentary about the Abramoff scandal) just last night and Schumer was one of the Democrats cited on the DVD as being a complete Wall Street whore. Most of the scumbags in that documentary are Republicans (let's face it, that's just in their nature), but a few are Demo's too (most notably Harry Reid, Schumer, and Patrick Kennedy).

Re:It's almost as if

[jmerlin]

It's the Republicans too. Both parties are horrible. All we see from them is finger pointing at the other party to distract our attention while they both secretly do shit that's promoting fascism and systematically destroying freedom. This bill is just a "hey, we're all good people, trust us!" You can't pass so many consecutively horrible bills followed up with "derp de derp" level common sense bill and think it undoes all the retardation that proceeded it.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing dumber than a Democrat or a Republican is when those pricks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this. A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, "I've got a really bad idea." And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, "And I can make it shittier." - Lewis Black

Re:It's almost as if

[operagost]

I'm glad they were working on this instead of extending the tax cuts!

Re:It's almost as if

[idontgno]

This is good. I'm tired of partisan boning, anyway.

Re:It's almost as if

[elrous0]

There was an episode of "The Simpsons" (from back when that show did real satire) that summed it up nicely. We see a Republican convention, and the conventioneers are holding up signs that read "We're evil" and "We only care about the rich!" Then it cuts to the Democratic convention and they're holding up signs that read "We can't govern!" and "Incompetence Now!"

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

... lull us into thinking that every congressman isn't in the pockets of big business?

They are looking after the business (although it's hard to say if they realize it). Think about it. Everybody automatically hits mute when the commercials come on. It really depreciates your advertizing dollars spent. They've been screwing their own business model for a long time.

It's the same with any [your ad here] based business. Annoy the fuck out of your listeners/viewers... they'll leave, filter, mute, and block. Hell, I won't use a collect calling service. Ever.

How much damage was done to internet advertizing with high contrast flashing ads alone? Now, throw in a few "Your infected" ads to make sure no one trusts internet advertizing. Popups, mouse overs, trackers, and on and so on. Is it any wonder why you can't make ends meat as a content provider with internet advertizing? Go ahead, blame Ad blockers.

The sad thing is that even if this legislation becomes law and it eventually gets implemented (in 2035) the damage will persist for some time afterwords. Mute is an intrenched habit reinforced by years of discomforting "shock therapy" that says "hit the mute button or else."

Re:It's almost as if

[Shompol]

This is at the time when TV is replaced by internet, they are throwing us a bone

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

To make this easier; the only group of people in the government that would not screw this up has not been though up and assembled yet nor shall it ever.

Re:It's almost as if

[MoonBuggy]

Or the more succinct 'Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos'.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you such a dumbshit? What the heck is a gold-plated blow job, anyway? Does it involve the dead chick from Goldfinger?

Re:It's almost as if

[Shagg]

Does the commercial volume bill apply to campaign commercials? I'd bet there's an exception in there somewhere too.

Re:It's almost as if

[dj245]

The congress will screw it up.

Because it is a popular bill with broad bi-partisan support, its a good place to stick riders and amendments that a small minority wants passed. The bill then becomes nastier and nastier as the congress attaches more and more crap. Finally it becomes a big problem for people who want to vote for it due to all the other BS that has gotten shoehorned in. Do they vote for it and vote for all the unread amendments, or do they vote no and face commercials about how they voted against volume controls for commercials?

Re:It's almost as if

[oldmac31310]

Schumer is a whore. No need to say more on the subject.

Re:It's almost as if

[mcvos]

I keep hearing this more and more lately. Democrats are terrible at implementing their good ideas, Republicans are good at implementing their terrible ideas. You're screwed either way.

Re:It's almost as if

[Myopic]

I agree with the second half of what you said: I have little doubt that the Democrats will find some way to pull the fail rabbit out of the black hat of overwhelming win.

But I disagree with the first half: it is NOT a no-brainer. Any conservative "free market" type of person ought to be against this law. That, or they are a hypocrite.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

Abortions for some, miniature american flags for others!

lol @ captcha : twofold

Re:It's almost as if

[Zero__Kelvin]

It's a wildly popular bill with broad bi-partisan support, a true no-brainner. With that said, don't worry, the Democrats will still find some way to fuck it up.

So you're saying they are going to let the republicans handle this one?

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>the #STRING will still find some way to fuck it up.

where #STRING alternates between "Democrats" and "Republicans". Stop wasting your vote on the same D or R screwage. Vote third party. Even if you lose you can brag, "Well I didn't vote for either asshole. Can't blame me."

Because being a smug, self-important asshole yourself is better and more productive way to solve problems. Gotcha. Asshole.

Re:It's almost as if

[andymadigan]

The networks should have started doing this a decade ago before people got DVRs. Commercials are so loud you *have* to turn down the volume, so why not just fast forward past it instead? Marketing jerks preferred to annoy customers and claim they got more attention out of it, now DVRs are killing them. So much for self-regulation. This bill is a bit late, but it will still be nice to have if it happens.

Re:It's almost as if

[Shotgun]

Yes. Because the Dems keep the blowjobs for themselves.

Re:It's almost as if

[Shotgun]

Schumer, while not evil, is wholly corrupted by vote-whoring.

Could you explain how that is NOT evil?

Re:It's almost as if

[andymadigan]

Schumer is an NY senator, guess where Wall Street is? Schumer loves the media though, has them follow him wherever he goes. I guess when you're a senator in a big state the best way to get votes is just to keep yourself in the news. Not that I mind though, I'll vote for him next month and I'm sure he'll win by a landslide again. Not sure why he needs campaign contributions, I don't think he has to run ads anymore.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

For the people?

What in the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to do this?

Re:It's almost as if

[dkleinsc]

Alternately, vote Cthulhu. Why support the lesser evil?

Re:It's almost as if

[DreadPiratePizz]

I voted for Nader in 2000, and people blame me all the time!

Re:It's almost as if

[Abstrackt]

>>>the #STRING will still find some way to fuck it up.

where #STRING alternates between "Democrats" and "Republicans". Stop wasting your vote on the same D or R screwage. Vote third party. Even if you lose you can brag, "Well I didn't vote for either asshole. Can't blame me."

I wholeheartedly support this position. Problem is, a lot of people who complain about politics only say "Well I didn't vote".

Re:It's almost as if

[DriedClexler]

Congress isn't working for "the people"; this measure only shows that they're working for "the mouthbreathers" whose lives still revolve around watching the drivel they put on TV and for whom it would actually make a difference if commercials were quieter.

I don't identify with those people -- I have an IQ to protect.

Re:It's almost as if

[commodore64_love]

I voted for Harry Browne (L) but of course it made no difference.

Maryland cast its votes for Gore. So people can't blame me for Gore losing (my state supported him 100%), and neither can people blame me for Bush's eight years (I never voted for him).

Re:It's almost as if

[bell.colin]

And then will be the Commercial saying that the guy who did the commercial about the guy who voted against it had twice the volume, then there will be the commercial about the guy had did the commercial about the guy who did the commercial also used twice the volume, then ........./ LOOP DETECETED

Re:It's almost as if

[alexo]

Stop wasting your vote on the same D or R screwage. Vote third party. Even if you lose you can brag, "Well I didn't vote for either asshole. Can't blame me."

Because being a smug, self-important asshole yourself is better and more productive way to solve problems. Gotcha. Asshole.

I don't usually feed anonymous trolls but this fallacy deserves to be exposed for what it is.

This is how it works:
1. Vote 3rd party (or independent).
2. Act smug, impressing the idea that both Rs and Ds are equally assholes onto friends and showing them that there is an alternative, even if only to feel morally superior.
3. Friends fork() the process.
4. Profit!

In short: In this case being smug *is* a productive way to solve the problem, and the ACPP is a harmful idiot.

Re:It's almost as if

[geminidomino]

No, shooting the corrupt fuckers in the face is better and more productive, but we still generally frown on that sort of thing.

Re:It's almost as if

[wjousts]

Why don't you have a sense of humor so you can tell a fucking joke when you see one.

Look up metaphor in a dictionary some time.

Re:It's almost as if

[interkin3tic]

Fish gotta swim, Republicans gotta screw us, Democrats gotta screw up.

Democrats doing something which they could screw up at, rather than doing nothing, would be at least a refreshing change of pace.

One wonders why republicans don't threaten to filibuster congressional democrats' orders at restaurants. Within days, most of the democrats would have starved to death.

Re:It's almost as if

[Lumbre]

You can make your voter information private (including your phone number) by going to your local voting registration place, refilling out the registration form, and checking the box saying to make your information private.

Then again, that might not be the only list they get ...

Re:It's almost as if

[interkin3tic]

Vote third party. Even if you lose you can brag, "Well I didn't vote for either asshole. Can't blame me."

1. If???

2. Who the hell cares about being able to say "I didn't do it?" That's kind of like burning to death in a house while gleefully announcing that it wasn't your cigarette that started the fire, you don't smoke.

3. Why do some people always assume third party candidates are worth voting for? If a politician can't get endorsed by one of the two parties (which most of them wish they were since empirically it helps their chances of winning), what does that say about his ability to do anything ON the job? It's not as if being elected is the biggest hurdle.

If it's between a candidate who I agree with on 100% of the issues but can't do anything about them, and a canidate who agrees with me on 50% of the issues but is effective at getting legislation passed, then I'm probably going to have to vote for the guy I only half agree with.

4. Those of us who are realists, who realize politics are always a compromise, and who realize that in order to elect someone you don't totally hate you have to make some coalitions, do in fact still blame you for the outcome to a degree.

Re:It's almost as if

[david_thornley]

Vote Cthulhu! When you're tired of the lesser of two evils.

Re:It's almost as if

[Omestes]

I doubt it. Imagine if someone went and did this to whichever congress critter that they despised for whatever reason. Now imagine the public hysteria, now imagine all the "protecting us from terrorist" laws that will be passed to "protect" against this sort thing ever happening again. The public would be worse off.

And for every corrupt idiot in national office, their is 6,000 in local offices that will scamper over each other to replace him. Look at current events, every time someone level of blatant corruption or moral depravity finally reaches the level where they become unelectable, the public replaces them with someone equally depraved and corrupt.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Libertarians were against meddling by the government in private business affairs.

Re:It's almost as if

[Unequivocal]

George Carlin says this best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

Re:It's almost as if

[Omestes]

I'm guessing it isn't.

My mom has been a registered Democrat since she could vote, she has voted in every election since the late 60s, and generally only for folks with a big (D) after their name (the exception is Joe Arpaio). She has volunteered for largely liberal causes, and is a member of largely liberal organizations (PETA, the Sierra Club, etc...), and yet the last two cycles she has gotten mostly robocalls from ultra-conservatives. During the last presidential election it seemed the only call she got was from Sarah Palin, and always during dinner time.

I think they just call random numbers.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to nitpick, but that episode aired in '08. Seems like they still have some insightful observations from time to time.

Re:It's almost as if

[iluvcapra]

In a first-past-the-pole winner take all contest, your best strategy is to vote for the viable candidate most closely aligned to your interests. Voting for a third party candidate, who cannot win because he simply lacks support, when someone who shares most of your positions loses due to the lack of your vote, is just a waste.

This is just how this sort of system works -- if you want every vote to "count" you should be agitating for a more proportional allocation of votes to issues.

Re:It's almost as if

[careysub]

There was an episode of "The Simpsons" (from back when that show did real satire) that summed it up nicely. We see a Republican convention, and the conventioneers are holding up signs that read "We're evil" and "We only care about the rich!" Then it cuts to the Democratic convention and they're holding up signs that read "We can't govern!" and "Incompetence Now!"

Close, but no cigar. It is Episode 1F15, "Bart Gets an Elephant", the seventeenth episode of The Simpsons' fifth season. It originally aired on the Fox network in the United States on March 31, 1994.

The attendees of the Republican Convention hold signs declaring: "We want what's worst for everyone" and "We're just plain evil."

The Democratic Convention signs say: "We can't govern" and "We hate ourselves."

As the Sage of Springfield says: "It's funny because its true!"

Re:It's almost as if

[oatworm]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - democracy simply doesn't work.

Now, over the years, a newsman learns a number of things that for one reason or another, he just cannot report. It doesn't seem to matter now, so...the following people are gay:

Re:It's almost as if

[Chakra5]

Instant runoff voting. Nuff said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, and don't think you will lose also, last election cycle 26% of all votes went to the 3rd party. That is an astounding number. It's time to kick out the tea bagger, republicans, and dems. A new party for the people

Re:It's almost as if

[Adustust]

I agree with you here. I recall seeing something like this about a year ago, I told my wife the wonderful news. To this very day, I'm still jumping to mute the T.V. as soon as the next infomercial pops on. These proposed bills are just as bad as vaporware.

Re:It's almost as if

[AK Marc]

Nader lied to congress in order to get regulations passed that he knew would kill babies. I'd blame you too for voting for a murderer.

Re:It's almost as if

[AK Marc]

Whenever 10% have voted 3rd party, the real ones step up and change. It takes a real 10%. And I know there are at least that many smug, self-important assholes out there. We just need them all to vote independent and we'd actually get real change.

Re:It's almost as if

[shutdown -p now]

We're still waiting on his birth certificate.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

You write about the two parties as if their funding sources weren't identical. Doesn't it bother you that BOTH parties use the same line about 3rd party candidates? Isn't it strange that the Republicans split themselves into the nutty Tea Party and the 'normal' GOP? Isn't it odd that the Dems do all they can to make it seem like they actually represent the same ideas as the Green party, the Independent party and a host of other parties? The Dems and the GOP are the SAME PARTY you fool. The same rich people control both organizations through donations and direct control. They invest in both parties so that no matter who wins they get their laws and their tax breaks and everything they want. meanwhile use poor slobs in the underclass fight each other to the death about stupid issues like gun control, abortion, health care, immigration and a host of other issues that the rich don't care about.
Don't play their games - vote for a third party, or take the blue pill and believe whatever you want.

Re:It's almost as if

[RocketRabbit]

Bullshit. Schumer is one of the top ten evil elected officials in office.

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until it is actually in effect before even giving congress that much credit. Otherwise you may be disappointed when you find that there are loopholes, and flat out intentionally ignored clauses and inept(colluding?) enforcement agencies. No doubt congress will always vote in favor of public opinion when the result doesn't hurt those who bribe congress, but even then it is only meaningful change when it somehow promotes more budget allocation or government jobs to distribute. The incentive is just not there to act any other way. The few who are motivated by a rational interest in other people cannot hope to compete with the rest of the leviathan, even if they did know best how to direct industries.

Re:It's almost as if

[parkrrrr]

You write about my humorous post as if you'd read someone else's post, or are replying to the voices in your head. Get some help, or at least some perspective.

Re:It's almost as if

[geminidomino]

Well yeah, if you do it piecemeal.

Keep at it though, and who knows. The perpetual ass-grabbers will worry about covering them instead knowing that if they keep fucking around, they might be the next "example."

A nice dream, at least

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote third party.

There are a number of causes that I think are supported by a majority of Americans but are supported by only the Democrats, only the Republicans, or neither party. A third party could clean house if they got behind things like banning warrantless wiretaps again, cracking down on illegal immigration (and H1Bs), legalizing pot, maybe building more nuclear plants, any maybe sanctioning China for their predatory trade practices.

Alas, this doesn't seem to be happening. The third party candidates seem to be a bunch of single-issue nutters. So I guess my only defense is churn: voting for the person other than the incumbent who is most likely to win.

Re:It's almost as if

[Dutch Gun]

When you're a child, it seems like a good idea to eat nothing but candy and stay up as late as you want. No matter how you implement those 'good ideas', they'll end up badly in the long run. I'm also sure that to a child, doing your homework, eating your broccoli, and going to bed on time seem like terrible ideas.

Don't mistake 'popular' for 'good'.

Re:It's almost as if

[lordmetroid]

Of course she gets calls from ultra conservatives, she voted for Joe - Hitler of the south - Arpaio

Re:It's almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you realize that the only one who has the right to complain is the one that doesn't vote. The rules of the game are majority wins: When you vote you implicitly accept the outcome whether your side wins or not.

Complaining after attempting to force other people to do things the way you think they should be done is silly.

Embrace personal responsibility and choose not to tell other people how to live their lives: voting is evil.

Re:It's almost as if

[Omestes]

A) Godwin
and;
B) How is he like Hitler? I think your analogy is flawed.

Re:It's almost as if

[commodore64_love]

>>>If it's between a candidate who I agree with on 100% of the issues but can't do anything about them, and a canidate who agrees with me on 50% of the issues but is effective at getting legislation passed, then I'm probably going to have to vote for the guy I only half agree with.
>>>

So how's that working out for you?

For me, if I had voted for the major candidate, it would have sucked. (We got over-regulation from Clinton, warmonger/spyer Bush, and national socialist Obama.)

Re:It's almost as if

[commodore64_love]

BUT where I live (70% democrat), the second-party can't win either. It might be worthwhile to vote republican at the congress or governor level, but there's no point throwing-away my vote on a Republican presidential candidate who is doomed to lose.

Re:It's almost as if

[commodore64_love]

Wouldn't change the final result

Sorry forgot account details

[Anonymous Coward]

So AC.. I've often wondered if it was worth putting a studio grade audio compressor into the audio chain. Anyone ever try this?

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[jra]

The compression *is the source of the problem*, AC.

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[hedwards]

The compression is the main source of the problem. You only have a certain amount of wiggle room between the quietest discernible noise and the loudest possible ban, and when you hit the try to exceed it, you either get nothing or at the high end you get clipping. In music you most often notice that in the percussion.

But as long as the sound engineering is good as in relatively uniform loudness, you're not going to have too much trouble. As you still have to broadcast on the same medium as what you're trying to match.

Definitely not going to work very well if you're not constantly tweaking it on the consumer side of things. These things are best done at the studio side. Otherwise you may as well just use the mute button.

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[davegravy]

The compression *is the source of the problem*, AC.

Heavily compressed audio can be detected, and a device used to automatically adjust the volume (or mute).

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[insertwackynamehere]

Lol audiophiles are so silly. How long has the GP thought about dropping thousands on a studio grade audio compressor without even understanding what it is? It's not something a consumer would bs using in their playback chain for audio quality purposes, that's for sure. The best part is making the likely correct assumption that the GP complains about the loudness war to anyone who will listen.

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[omnichad]

It's not something a consumer would bs using in their playback chain

Yeah it's not for audiophiles, but a lot of consumers have a feature called "Dynamic Range Compression" on their TV's that do most of that. They compress relatively softer content more than louder audio to attempt to give everything the same relative loudness. The result is wildly varying audio all throughout a show. It's annoying and stupid, and often enabled by default.

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[insertwackynamehere]

Yah but a true "audiophile" would probably remove extra compression (though I don't know if audiophiles care about TV fidelity). Either way, compression is already applied by the station/tv show producers/etc in mastering, I would think, and that is why the ads are so loud.. a tv show probably isn't mastering for the "loudness war" but a commercial can have the same peaks but with the entire commercial hitting those peaks by compressing the audio track properly. That way, the duration of the commercial is as loud as your current volume setting allows, with no dips in noise. This is also why homegrown commercials for local businesses sound so abnormally quiet; the production values aren't very high and they've probably never heard of compression or mastering.

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[omnichad]

An audiophile would care about fidelity on Digital anyway. Most primetime TV is broadcast with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Compression on the show is not a problem - that's the desired effect. DRC tries to over-compress the TV shows until they are as flatly loud and obnoxious as the ads, and then you can turn down your volume.

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[mea37]

LOL slashdot posters are so silly. How long dod P think about flaming GGP about not understanding what a compressor is, without even understanding what it is?

The problem is caused by upward compression. It can, however, be solved with downward compression. If this is done with the correct parameters, the result will be tolerable audio volume, plus advertisers are punished in proportion to how much upward compression was used in the first place because the two rounds of compression dramatically degrade their dynamic range; so now instead of "shouting" at you, the spokesjerk is talking at you in a very flat voice.

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[cynyr]

I hear the good receivers can do this for the digital audio already. I know some of the really really good analog ones could as well. They usually label it something like "nighttime mode" or something similar. I wonder how much processing power is needed to do audio compression...

Re:Sorry forgot account details

[insertwackynamehere]

Well seeing as how studio grade audio compressors are known for upward compression in mastering, I got the feeling the guy was just talking out of his ass. Furthermore, if you think you need a studio grade compressor to solve this problem, you are even more off base. It still reeks of audiophile BS because thousands of dollars being spent on studio equipment to make ads less annoying is pretty misguided.

You are right though, I didn't think about downward compression in reference to his comment.

Bit Mental

[Mike Mentalist]

Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant.

Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?

Re:Bit Mental

[jra]

Certainly, this is grandstanding. Just like 75% of what comes off the hill.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant.

Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?

Well, this is about all we can get the Red Team and the Blue Team in congress to agree on right now.

Substantive issues? Not in an election year!

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant.

Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?

I was going to try to write this preemptively, but slashdot idiocy prevails...

A) This is a problem, and potentially a safety issue as well. As more and more people use (ear|head)(buds|phones), the insane relative loudness will certainly contribute to very premature hearing loss. (Ever watch 24, the commercials were easily 20+ dBa louder than the program; if 75 dBa is comfortable, abruptly switching to 95 dBa is startling at least, and likely damaging, even for the brief period prior to hitting mute or fast-forward).

B) The industry has had decades to regulate itself; the government has so far exercised uncharacteristic restraint (something slashdotters are quick to bemoan) in legislating a fix.

Re:Bit Mental

[BobMcD]

Holy crap, that looks like I wrote it! Am I posting to slashdot in my sleep now??

Re:Bit Mental

[somersault]

A small irritant? Would you like it if your desktop sound effects were far louder than your gaming volume, so every time an alert popped up it scared the hell out of you? That would get old pretty fast. Or how about if the indicators in your car were louder than the radio? Or everyone in the world sounded like Darth Vader when they breathed? Okay that might be cool, but nevertheless.. I can imagine the commercial thing would be very annoying, if I actually watched them.

Re:Bit Mental

[delinear]

I'm not sure - people have been complaining about this pretty much since day one of televised commercials (and perhaps for radio commercials even before that) and still the industry has refused to play fair (even though I'm highly dubious about whether this tactic even works - I always change channel for commercials now, primarily for this reason, I have very sensitive hearing and I have the TV at just the right volume for the programming, rather than risk being blasted I channel surf, if the volume was normalised I'd probably stick with the ads). In a situation such as this, where the market refuses to adjust to meet the desires of the customer, maybe that's the kind of situation where the law should be getting involved to ensure fairness, small irritant or not.

Re:Bit Mental

[hedwards]

I take it you never used Win XP on a laptop. Those alarm noises have to be causing hearing loss. I ended up disabling those sounds because they didn't seem to respect the volume setting.

Re:Bit Mental

[commodore64_love]

It's for the children. Reducing volume on commercials stops corporations from brain-washing our children into buying sexist Barbie dolls and fake cigarettes!

"Well golly. I hadn't thought of that. You got my vote! You really care for the people. And my kids." - Joe or Jill High School Graduate

Re:Bit Mental

[Spad]

Well they don't seem capable of passing laws on anything significant these days so I guess you just have to take what you can get.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider Fedora's inability to disable my touch pad to be a *huge* irritant. Should they legislate that?

Re:Bit Mental

[bit trollent]

In order to blast your ears with advertisements TV stations turn down their programming so much that the only way to hear it is to amplify it with a surround system. It's more than a minor annoyance to people who don't have the extra cash for a proper setup.

The only channel I have found that doesn't play the evil "quite tv, LOUD COMMERCIALS" game is Current. Incidentally, Current is the best channel to appear on the cable lineup in the last 10 years.

I would favor a more market based solution where channels like Current are rewarded while Viacom's Comedy Central is punished, but since just about every TV channel lowers their programs to blast their commercials, I don't think there is really choice in the marketplace.

If you ask me, this is what government is for. The corporations do a fine job of banding together to look out for themselves. It's time the people banded together to look out for our own interests.

Since our government officials are financed by bribes in the form of "campaign contributions", I wouldn't expect this bill to become law, so here is an easy way to fight the commercials that have been atacking your ears:

If you have a DVR, pause live TV, grab a beer and take a leak etc, and when you come back youll find that you can skip the commercials to your heart's content. If you don't have a DVR just keep your finger near the mute button.

Re:Bit Mental

[AhabTheArab]

That's what I thought too. Yeah, it's annoying. I really don't think it's the type of thing that needs to be legislated though. Seems like micromanagement.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap, that looks like I wrote it! Am I posting to slashdot in my sleep now??

Not unless I'm you when you're asleep.

oh crap oh crap my life is a delusion crap...

Re:Bit Mental

[betterunixthanunix]

Except for laws like COICA. They sure are capable of passing those...

Re:Bit Mental

[Archangel Michael]

Yes, because TV Commercials are so much more important than 10% unemployment, huge deficit, and passing a budget. But hey, the politicians have to have something "positive" to bring back to the folks back, for the upcoming elections. / sarcasm

And if you vote for (D) (filibuster proof majority) who are running around saying "(R) are blocking everything" OR the (R) neo socialists saying "we're not as bad as the (D)" you should get your head checked. Vote third Party. REALLY express your discontent. Don't put the same two groups that got us here back into power.

Re:Bit Mental

[paeanblack]

How about instead of legislating the details of the presentation layer, the law simply mandated that commercials (actually, all broadcast television) be sent with appropriate metadata that identifies the content.

After that, let the free market sort things out. If somebody wants to sell a TV that makes commercials even louder, let them. If someone only wants to shop for a TV that flips to the Weather Channel during commercials, that's fine too.

Laws that restrict options -> bad
Laws that enforce honesty -> good

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, Donny.

Re:Bit Mental

[alta]

Are you kidding, this is what Politicians think they are PAID TO DO. THIS IS THEIR JOB. /sarcasm

Look at it this way, say the US was suddenly PERFECT and everyone was COMPLETELY HAPPY with it. We've even mitigated Acts of God, disease, cancer and HIV. Absolutely perfect for everyone, but we still had a bunch of reps, a prez, etc...

Seeing that our country is PERFECT, then they should have nothing to do. Right? They should just sit around and not create any bills, not put any restrictions on people, life would just go on remaining perfect, save acts of God.

Well they can't do that. It's not what their JOB is. They THINK their job is to CREATE LEGISLATION. Needed or not. Do you know how many more important things there are to vote on other than the volume of TV commercials? This is bullshit fluf just so they can do something FOR US. While the other 98.7% of the time they're increasing the size of the government, therefore increasing the amount of taxes they need to take out.

Seeing that they wasted their time on this BS just pisses me off. I have a remote. I can turn it down. Shit, I have a DVR and I rarely watch ANYTHING except the 5pm local news at the time it actually airs. I just SKIP the commercials all together.

Re:Bit Mental

[somersault]

Not for a few years now no, and you are kind of bringing back memories of rather loud Counter-Strike crashes, but usually I try to set my volume levels appropriately where possible.

Re:Bit Mental

[Bobfrankly1]

Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant. Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?

When you are watching a action packed movie, and have the surround sound turned up as high as you can comfortably stand without pissing off the neighbors, and a *BLARING* commercial pops on that doesn't retreat on the volume, and you're scrambling to find the remote while you can't even hear the voice in your head, it needs to stop.

If the complaints of the people go ignored, then since the government is supposed to be "for the people, by the people", why wouldn't the law get involved? Deflection? Probably. Appreciated by the masses? You betcha.

Re:Bit Mental

[somersault]

Probably not, since you have the ability to fix that yourself (either by writing the code yourself, or switching OS). With TV ads there is no option. You either watch TV or you don't. I'm happy with the latter, but I know there are plenty of people who have nothing better to do with their lives than watch ads.

PS have you tried this?

syndaemon -i 0.5 -d

Change 0.5 to the number of seconds that you want the touchpad disabled after typing.

Re:Bit Mental

[Myopic]

No, it doesn't need a law right now, in 2010. It needed a law fifty years ago. I'm happy enough to have it right now.

Also, you seem to imply that Congress should only tackle one issue, or a small number of issues, at a time. I think with hundreds of congressmen and thousands of aids, we can address many many issues all at the same time.

Re:Bit Mental

[Lehk228]

it's a revival of old regulations, volume levels were regulated and broadcasters has someone to monitor them, it was lobbied to be removed as a cost saving measure for the broadcast networks. returning the requirement now, especially now that we have the capability to automate such monitoring is common sense seeing how *well* removing volume level regulations worked

Re:Bit Mental

[Duradin]

Are you saying that unemployment is more important than genocides? We shouldn't be worried about unemployment when there are genocides.

And why do cops care about burglaries when there are homicides? Isn't solving homicides more important than property crimes?

Why does X do Y when Z is more important?

Re:Bit Mental

[maxume]

I HATE IT WHEN AUDIO FILES DISRESPECT MY SPEAKERS.

Oh, was I yelling? Sorry. No, I really am sorry, I didn't realize that I was doing so.

Re:Bit Mental

[Cro Magnon]

When you are watching a action packed movie, and have the surround sound turned up as high as you can comfortably stand without pissing off the neighbors, and a *BLARING* commercial pops on that doesn't retreat on the volume, and you're scrambling to find the remote while you can't even hear the voice in your head, it needs to stop

The flip side is, you have the sound down low enough that the commercials don't blow out your eardrums. The show returns, and until you turn the volume way up, you can't hear a word anyone says.

Re:Bit Mental

[digitalaudiorock]

Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant. Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?

And if they REALLY gave a crap about TV as it relates to consumers, they'd be blocking the Comcast/NBC merger, but it appears that Al Franken is one of the only two who've even questioned it.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

Small or not, it's a real issue and should have been dealt with decades ago.

Re:Bit Mental

[Culture20]

Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant. Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?

When you're living in an apartment and the late night shows need to be at volume level 30 to hear properly (and never get too loud to wake the neighbors), then suddenly the commercials come on, and you have to reduce volume to 10 or just mute, it can be the difference between being a good neighbor and that ^(@*& who won't keep the noise down (which sometimes escalates into "disturbing the peace" and wasting officers' time while they explain to your neighbors that occasional, unintentional, loud noises are not against the law). Sure, it's still an irritant, but it's one that the FCC should have fixed a while back, and one that constituents have been clamoring for.

As deflections go, it's like your wife trying to get you in bed quickly so you won't notice the ding on her car. Sure, you won't be happy about the ding, but as long as she's deflecting why not acquiesce?

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, actually, the popup/under ads that periodically afflict the webuser do precisely that already,and it's been getting steadily worse. FYI, this is affecting not just Windows systems, but it seems they've learned to do this to Linux systems as well.

They've gotten so pernicious, that I've actually had to SHUT DOWN Ubuntu, and pull the freaking plug, just to close the damn popup, as it locks up the system. Yes, yes, I know, my system is probably not properly locked down, I'm still learning how to do that, too many years spent paying the Microsoft tax, obviously.

I hope this proposed law addresses this phenomenon on computers as well as other broadcast media (like tv/ radio), if not, it needs to.

Re:Bit Mental

[BoberFett]

I thought there were already TVs on the market that had audio leveling.

Re:Bit Mental

[BoberFett]

Cops already don't care about burglaries. They're too busy busting speeders and pot smokers.

Re:Bit Mental

[dbet]

It's not small. I have the TV at a level I can barely hear, then a commercial comes on and my roommate at the other end of the hall with her door closed is woken up. It's ridiculous.

Re:Bit Mental

[Archangel Michael]

But they can't even do what you're suggesting. And Genocide happens in every age, and hardly a thing is ever done while it is happening because it is "internal affair" or "regional conflict". See Sadaam and the Kurds for example. Or Turkey and the Kurds. Or Turkey and the Armenians. Or Darfur. Or Germany and the Jews and Roma, or ....

You get the point. Nobody cares enough to actually do anything.

And all the people protesting the genocides going on, how many of them would support a unilateral war to stop it? Should we, the US, just go in alone to Darfur? Or would that be called "Imperialism" by those that hate us?

So, passing a law limiting volume of commercials is minor compared to genocide, I would think, and would hope that genocide would be more important to more people than stupid commercial volume.

So, really, you just made my point. It is easier to take big credit for small things than actually do anything meaningful.

And comparing cops to legislators is just stupid. The congress has on its list of official duties ... the budget. It failed again to pass one, again. How would you like if a cop didn't do his duty, because he was too busy escorting old lady across the street? Which is, IMHO, the rough equivalent of what happened this week in congress.

Re:Bit Mental

[DavidTC]

Sound levels still are regulated.

It's just that TV networks have hit upon the idea of not actually having the TV program at the 'highest volume', so you turn it up to hear it. Then the commercials come on at the max volume.

Whoever made the original law forgot, or chose to ignore, that volume is relative because it's adjustable. The problem isn't 'loud' stuff, because there's no magical absolute volume of TVs...it's 'sudden jump in volume' stuff.

Re:Bit Mental

[oh_my_080980980]

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!

Can you hear me now. It's not a small irritant. It's a HUGE problem that should have never been there to begin with. It's about fucking time something was done about.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

"With TV ads there is no option."

Compander. And designing one is probably about as easy as fixing Linux.

Re:Bit Mental

[aztracker1]

Actually, when I'm listening to music, I often miss the alert notifications for the internal IM program in the company I'm working at... and since MS fixed the focus stealing, the IM program can't come up over the top of whatever I'm working on... if I don't notice the glowing taskbar icon on the other monitor, I will miss it... The same goes for calendar notifications for meetings.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's unfortunate that it's had to come down to this because the broadcast companies refused to listen to over five decades of complaints from their customers. Instead, they wanted to satisfy the advertisers that think that jolting viewers with blaring volumes is a good way to get their attention. I know it didn't work for me. It just pissed me off and made me not want to buy their product. Now I don't have any kind of broadcast television.

Re:Bit Mental

[somersault]

Just get an adblocker plugin for your browser.. ooor stop looking at so much porn? Heh.

Re:Bit Mental

[somersault]

Turn down the volume on your media player. I'm trying very hard not to be sarcastic here.

Re:Bit Mental

[put_the_cat_out]

The government relies on TV programming to keep the people happy and satisfied, so that the people don't spend too much time scrutinizing the government's actions. If they did, they would realize that their rights are slowly being eroded, no matter which party is in office (warrantless wiretaps, anyone?). This makes it critical that the government address issues that might possibly cause people to turn away from their TV's.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like it if your desktop sound effects were far louder than your gaming volume, so every time an alert popped up it scared the hell out of you?

If it were really that big of a problem, I would vote with my wallet and refuse to do business with companies like that. Of course, it's far easier for sheeple to vote for new laws than to take any kind of personal responsibility or just admit that it's irritating but not really worth taking their business elsewhere.

If you refuse to stop doing business with a company that does X then stop bitching about them doing X since you've already shown that you're unwilling to do anything about it (aside from bitching or running to the nanny state).

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

I think with hundreds of congressmen and thousands of aids, we can address many many issues all at the same time.

While some of the congressmen may have AIDS, it's aides that would help with this sort of thing.

Re:Bit Mental

[mcgrew]

To me it's a slight irritant -- I live by myslef in a house. But if I lived in an apartment, or with someone else, you can bet your ass it would be a HUGE irritant.

Re:Bit Mental

[somersault]

When that company has a monopoly on the thing that you want, it's very hard to just walk away. If there were no such things as consoles, I'd still be stuck with Windows if I wanted to play the latest games.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or how about if the indicators in your car were louder than the radio?"

Surely that's how it should be? It'd be a good safety feature to let you know if you've accidentally left your indicators on.

Re:Bit Mental

[iluvcapra]

How about instead of legislating the details of the presentation layer, the law simply mandated that commercials (actually, all broadcast television) be sent with appropriate metadata that identifies the content.

They do, it's called DIALNORM, and the advertisers simply game the setting in order to pump their stuff.

Re:Bit Mental

[iluvcapra]

These work but they use simple gain compression to crunch loud program down -- the tradeoff is that it makes legitimate loud content sound terrible. The channel is capable of a certain dynamic range and the people who make the television programs, the actual shows, want to be able to make things as loud or as quiet as the medium will tolerate. The problem with audio automatic gain correction is that it doesn't know when the audio is from a commercial (loud is a nuisance) or from the programming (loud is desirable), without elaborate and brittle hacks.

Re:Bit Mental

[doesnothingwell]

Would you like it if your desktop sound effects were far louder than your gaming volume, so every time an alert popped up it scared the hell out of you?

It did until I found the media folder and edited all windows sound file's volumes down by %80. The R2D2 like squawks from windows are now tolerable and I can still hear everything else just fine.

Re:Bit Mental

[Myopic]

Bah! You got me, I'm embarrassed. Thank you for the correction.

But, "AIDS" is an acronym for a disease, but "aids" means "things that help". Of course, aides also are things that help (thus my inexcusable confusion) while AIDS is not helpful.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just like 75% of what comes off the hill."

An optimist I see.

Re:Bit Mental

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody else pointed it out before me, so...

First aids!

Re:Bit Mental

[somersault]

I think I just used to use the console to bump up Half-Life's volume gain past 1..

Re:Bit Mental

[sdguero]

The advent and wide spread use of surround sound systems has made the issue a bigger problem as well. Try watching travel channel on DirectTV using the optical out. It's really pretty insane, like orders of magnitude in difference between commercials and the show you are trying to watch/hear...

Re:Bit Mental

[KingAlanI]

I have sometimes been annoyed by the loudness of normal system beeps when I'm playing music loud, but my solution there is to turn the speaker volume down and turn the media program's own volume setting up.

Re:Bit Mental

[awfar]

Sound pollution is very, very real.

Lots of your "small irritants" create a hugely toxic environment. Documented, proven, already legislated against.

If you view it as a small irritant, you should seriously look at your own existing environment, for long-term sake. It is already probably too loud.

And, don't complain when you get a little older and wish to have some simple quiet, become ill, have small children, or a home, try to read a book, and you cannot even enjoy any peace.

And, why should it even take an act of Congress to keep sociopaths out and quiet in?

Re:Bit Mental

[hazydave]

Commercials aren't actually louder -- you set your peaks with the volume knob, the commercial can't exceed whatever they are. But you're expecting some dynamics on a show, particularly an action drama show like 24 was... quiet whispering, then a loud explosion. And then on comes your add, compressed to the point where it's "all explosion", no whisper. They may both have 95dBa limits, but the TV show may run between 20dBa and 95dBa, while the ad runs from 90 to 95dBa.

How about a rule that...

[howlatthemoon]

I would like a rule that requires political ads to be played a significantly lower level than programming. A person can dream, can't they?

Re:How about a rule that...

[GarryFre]

I like this rule!

Tivo?

[obijuanvaldez]

Isn't the increase in volume how Tivo know what are commercials to skip them? If so, isn't this what advertisers would want to do anyways?

Re:Tivo?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is the case, what's stopping advertisers from doing that now? It's not like there is an act of congress stating a minimum level of loudness.

Re:Tivo?

[Anarki2004]

I believe the newer TiVo sets lack the commercial skipping functionality. I may be wrong about this, I don't own a TiVo.

Re:Tivo?

[DIplomatic]

I thought that a similar law giving a maximum volume limit on commercials was already in place - the problem being that commercials generally always play at maximum volume while regular tv programs fluctuate between high and low volume.

Re:Tivo?

[tedgyz]

No. I believe there are signature codes embedded in the audio and/or video signal that help local stations detect commercial blocks.

Re:Tivo?

[geminidomino]

I don't know about Tivo specifically, but MythTV has a couple of methods that, AFAIK, don't have anything to do with volume.

From http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Commercial_Detection

# Blank Frame Detection - Is used to determine when a programme fades to black (this invariably happens between show segments)
# Blank Frame & scene change detection - As above but tries to determine that a large amount of the picture has changed
# Scene change detection - Tries to determine that a large amount of the picture has changed
# Logo detection - Looks for a part of the picture that does not change during a recorded show - i.e. an onscreen logo. Logos are usually removed for the duration of commercial breaks, making them 'easier' to spot.

Re:Tivo?

[russotto]

I thought that a similar law giving a maximum volume limit on commercials was already in place - the problem being that commercials generally always play at maximum volume while regular tv programs fluctuate between high and low volume.

I believe there were and are FCC regulations to this effect, and you're exactly right about the method commercials use to get around it. It's possible that with digital, the old regulations didn't apply and the actual commercial volume is louder than the shows (though part of that is that apparently the affiliates are having trouble getting volume levels set right at all -- See Dialnorm)

Re:Tivo?

[nedwidek]

MythTV + Comercial Detection = What Commercials?

Well except for those occasions where it skips into a commercial or skips part of the show before you hit a commercial or where it skips beyond the commercials by 45 seconds. This all does happen and I've found certain shows are much more likely to have this happen. Plenty of shows it works perfectly. I might have started off sounding harsh, but I really like it. It works well enough that the times where it screws up is just inconvenient and annoying. And not overly annoying when compaired to seeing the dumb commercials. Even if I'm going to watch the show when it airs, I'll wait about 15 minutes into it and start watching the recording.

Re:Tivo?

[SuricouRaven]

And if commercial-blocking ever became commonplace, you can be sure those signature codes would be stripped from the broadcast.

Re:Tivo?

[Myopic]

TV has commercials? Huh, now that you mention that I can remember commercials, but I'd nearly forgotten because of how many years it's been since I've seen one. The only commercials I see now are the single ones that come on before the stream of The Daily Show over the internet (and I mute that one commercial). All the other TV shows I watch come from DVD or streamed on Netflix.

Once a year I see commercials on the Superbowl, and then I rather enjoy them. It's like a five-hour chance to catch up on all the crap I missed over the previous year (..."I wouldn't say I'm missing it, Bob").

Re:Tivo?

[geminidomino]

Ditto. Most of the time it works a treat, and it's gotten to the point where I don't bother watching a show until its flagged. :)

It does seem to mess up the flagging particularly often on the two FOX shows I watch (House and Bones). I wonder what they do differently.

Re:Tivo?

[Cro Magnon]

I don't think Tivo ever automatically skipped commercials. If you're watching recorded or time-delayed you can FF past the ads, or use the undocumented 30 second skip (don't know if the newest models have that), but you still have to manually hit the button, and might go deaf from sound before you can.

Re:Tivo?

[Culture20]

TV has commercials? Huh, now that you mention that I can remember commercials, but I'd nearly forgotten because of how many years it's been since I've seen one. The only commercials I see now are the single ones that come on before the stream of The Daily Show over the internet (and I mute that one commercial). All the other TV shows I watch come from DVD or streamed on Netflix.

Radio was fine, same with broadcast TV. Both of those were essentially paid by commercials. Then they started "show notification segments" on cable channels in between movies/shows, and those quickly morphed into standard commercials that the viewers paid to watch. Then non-preview ads crept into the movie theater. And they're on DVDs now too. You'll see them soon, and they'll be as unskippable as the FBI warning.

Re:Tivo?

[Myopic]

Great point. I should be more clear: I receive TV shows and movies on DVD, then rip them with handbrake specifically to avoid the FBI warning and other commercials, then watch the files.

If they ever start putting ads into the content of the DVDs, I will not watch those shows.

I hate having to take commercial avoidance into my own hands. I wish we could just legislate 95% of ads out of existence.

Re:Tivo?

[Culture20]

If they ever start putting ads into the content of the DVDs, I will not watch those shows.

American Dad has a great example of that in their episode "Black Mystery Month":
Steve: But why did we have to come to a Burger King to read the map?
Stan: Because the economics of television have changed, Steve.
*Stan lifts a cup and repositions the burger king label to be more "camera"-facing, and gets a sad look on his face*
Stan: Have it... your way!

Re:Tivo?

[hazydave]

Local stations get the "big blank " block from the satellite feed. That's where they put their commercials. There may of course be other indicators, but none of the behind-the-scenes stuff is broadcast. If you have a C-band satellite dish, you may find network to local downlinks still available. That's where you can see this stuff. And of course, they're not sending it out live anyway... even for a "live" show, there's enough delay for the locals to add whatever they need to add intermixed with the national feeds.

Re:Tivo?

[Tacvek]

There are several things going on here.

Commercials obviously have the audio waveform's amplitude at maximum. Furthermore, the waveform might be a clipped waveform, which results is a greater apparent volume. Then commercials tend to be highly compressed, so both the quiet sounds and loud sounds have pretty much maximum amplitude.

On the other hand, TV shows like to be able to use dynamic range, meaning that during most of the program the audio waveform never reaches the maximum, doing so only on occasion, for dramatic effect.

Furthermore, TV shows often use relatively little compression, so if there are quiet sounds that are important to understanding the show, and there is any background noise in the room, one needs to turn up the volume [1] until those sounds are audible.

[1] For some reason, I've never seen a TV with the ability to add compression, which is what would be best for TV shows and movie, if there is background noise, or one wants to keep the volume low but not miss any quieter sounds. You set the volume so the loudest part is no louder than you want, and then you increase the compression until the quieter sounds (often voices) are loud enough to be heard.

And the worst offender ...

[oneiros27]

At least in the DC area ... are the local PBS stations. I'm not sure which one it is, but there's one that makes me almost jump out of my skin when the show ends, and they go to commercial.

Hopefully the legislation doesn't actually include the term 'interrupting' in the volume limits, or the commercials in between shows (like all of the ones on PBS) will be exempt.

Re:And the worst offender ...

[wjousts]

PBS might be except anyway because they are not technically commercials.

Re:And the worst offender ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're not technically commercials, why do the executives for PBS and NPR call them "unerwriting, advertising, commercials... whatever you want to call them" when testifying before congress for budget adjustments? Just because they spend five minutes at the beginning of a show advertising for Monsanto, Siemens, Chevron, etc -- doesn't mean they're any less commercials than if they were spread throughout the show.

Re:And the worst offender ...

[wjousts]

I know. But PBS and NPR are commercial free. At least, that's what they always say during their pledge drives.

Re:And the worst offender ...

[robot256]

Have you heard mainstream radio commercials? There's a big difference between a 15-second slogan/inspirational piece played every hour, and a 30-second clip of dumb radio acting played every 5 minutes. That's why I listen to NPR--their "sponsor messages" aren't meant to convince you to buy anything, just to show that "company X is great because we support NPR." I find that a lot less offensive.

Re:And the worst offender ...

[Culture20]

That's why I listen to NPR--their "sponsor messages" aren't meant to convince you to buy anything, just to show that "company X is great because we support NPR." I find that a lot less offensive.

I find it intellectually offensive. It assumes I will be influenced about a product just because its sellers like one thing that I like. As much as I despise regular commercials, at least they tell me something about the product instead of the people behind the product.

Hulu

[Anonymous Coward]

The place where I've most experienced this is Hulu commercials. I doubt this will apply to them, though. There's nothing like falling asleep with a show on to be awakened by a commercial at 2-3x the volume.

It's about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally!

Takes the edge of death of TV before they do something about commercial volume. Go figure.

Can't pass a budget...

[Anonymous Coward]

No budget passed for this year, first time ever since budget rules hit in the 70s. But they have time for this?

Huge debts, multiple wars, high unemployment. But we gotta get those commercials!

Maybe they can take on college football playoffs too?

Awesome. USA! USA! USA!

ID0TS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't these meddling fools mind their own business? Evidently not, judging from the current debilitating deficit.

Re:ID0TS!

[jdgeorge]

I'm guessing that the anonymous submitter meant for the subject to be "IDIOTS!" Irony for the win.

Smart Sound

[snspdaarf]

I have an old Magnavox TV with smart sound. Loud commercials are not a problem for me.

Re:Smart Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

I torrent everything I watch. Commercials are not a problem for me.

Re:Smart Sound

[Rogerborg]

Uh, yes, my super-cheap-ass no-name LCD has Automatic Volume Levelling. It's hardly rocket science.

The other thing is: who the fsck listens to adverts anyway? I've been reflexively muting them for as long as TVs have had remotes (HEY YOU KIDS, etc). Now that I'm DVR'd up, I don't even have to do that, since I'm just going to skip straight from content-to-content anyway.

So yay to Congress for finally legislating a solution to a problem that we've already solved ourselves.

Re:Smart Sound

[Seumas]

The problem with auto sound-leveling that they used to have in televisions is that it doesn't know the difference between a commercial and a heavy action sequence in a movie that you're watching -- "normalizing" both. Blech.

Seriously though, who even sees commercials anymore? I can't remember the last time I watched television _live_. It hasn't been in the 21st century -- I can tell you that much.

Re:Smart Sound

[6ULDV8]

When I was growing up, our old Sears console had smart sound too. If you didn't want a spanking, you kept the volume down. We were smart that way.

Re:Smart Sound

[elrous0]

Most TV's with smart sound don't support it when you're using a cable box or satellite receiver, only when you're using the TV's built in tuner. It pisses me off because I have smart sound on my TV too, but it's useless to me (who the fuck still watches over-the-air broadcasts only?).

Re:Smart Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

Two other tools available for controlling commercial volume:
* The skip forward feature of the DVR for shows that are recorded and played back after the fact (most of what I watch)
* The 'mute' button for those rare times when I'm watching a live event.

Re:Smart Sound

[need4mospd]

I don't watch TV. Commercials are not a problem for me.

Re:Smart Sound

[naasking]

I'm truly surprised that every TV doesn't do this by now.

Re:Smart Sound

[Arthur Grumbine]

I have an old Magnavox TV with smart sound. Loud commercials are not a problem for me.

Anyone else find it ironic that the first major TV manufacturer who offered this has a company name that means "Great/Large Voice" in Latin?

Re:Smart Sound

[Duradin]

And if everyone torrents everything they watch having new things to torrent wouldn't be a problem either, since there wouldn't be any.

It's like the people who won't get their kids vaccinated because they know about herd immunity. Get enough freeloaders and it stops working.

So for the remaining people who do watch TV they need to make the commercials even more attention grabbing to compensate, making them even more annoying. So hats off to you, freeloading AC, for making commercials even more annoying.

Re:Smart Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? Well I'm deaf. Commercials are not a problem for me.

Re:Smart Sound

[LanMan04]

And if everyone torrents everything they watch having new things to torrent wouldn't be a problem either, since there wouldn't be any.

[Citation Needed]

Re:Smart Sound

[TheGratefulNet]

any old pro audio compressor (analog old school ones) will do the same. what the consumers call AGC (auto gain control) the pros call a compressor (fancier and more stages with control over time constants, but same idea).

there was a box years ago (maybe still around) called RNC (really nice compressor). was almost in the consumer price range and would do what the 'smart sound' does, but its a separate box that you can put into your 'tape loop' (god, I'm old...) and just leave in your audio chain and enable/disable (on the device) at will. any pro audio store (music store) will have compressor boxes that have line-in and line-out.

Re:Smart Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

I download everything I watch from hotfile.com or netload.in. Commercials are not a problem for me.

Re:Smart Sound

[Nerdfest]

I watch only the commercials. They're all at the same volume, so no problem for me either.

Re:Smart Sound

[Myopic]

You don't watch TV, or you don't watch TV shows? I don't watch TV (like, literally I'm down to maybe less than an hour a month on average, mostly because of the half-day-long Superbowl) but I love to watch TV shows which I enjoy sans commercials on Netflix, torrent, DVD, or however else.

Almost everything on TV is crap, but there is so much total, that there is more good stuff than I have time for. So I pick my favs and enjoy.

Re:Smart Sound

[omnichad]

It causes a hit to audio quality. Most new TV's have it, and it's usually called something like Dynamic Range Compression. It runs all the audio through a compressor with the compressor ratio set dynamically by the last couple seconds of waveform. During a show, it causes audible dips and rises in volume at times (can make voices sound muffled at times). It makes the commercials relatively quiet, but at the expense of quality on the main program.

Re:Smart Sound

[DavidTC]

OTOH, you do read a hundred comments into a discussion about TV, so you can find somewhere to mention that you don't watch it.

Interesting. Very interesting.

Re:Smart Sound

[discojohnson]

No, it means that the business model of having interruptions (and harsh at that) to this kind of media will change. The content producers will make more use of product placement (even as part of the storyline? shudder) or do things that more engage the consumers with the product, like forums for LOST (complete with advertisements). Business models in a more and more pure digital age will either adapt or die.

Re:Smart Sound

[gangien]

your point is completely valid. If everyone watches commercial free TV, with no other source of revenue for the content(as bit torrent currently is), it will still be made because people will just make content out of the goodness of their heart.

Re:Smart Sound

[sjames]

You must be hearing different commercials or have a speaker out. I had that and it worked well for a time, then they actually started messing around with the stereo sound to partially defeat the gain control to get the apparent volume back up.

Re:Smart Sound

[snspdaarf]

There is some impact on stereo separation, and at times the apparent loudness will jump up, then drop. Usually on sports events. I don't care about stereo separation on broadcast TV. If I am watching a DVD, then the audio is piped through the stereo, and other than the bullshit at the beginning of the disk there are no commercials. When this TV dies, or the cable co. stops doing D/A conversion, I have an old Alesis dual channel compressor I will use to do what TheGratefulNet suggested, and clamp what I want. If it works, great. If not, well, my tinnitus will probably take care of it before too long anyway!

Re:Smart Sound

[theaceoffire]

And if everyone torrents everything they watch having new things to torrent wouldn't be a problem either, since there wouldn't be any.

[Citation Needed]

I know people Probably think you are being silly or whatever, but I feel you have a good point.

Some of the things I watch most often are made by regular joes (Four Player Podcast, minecraft videos, speed runs, "let's play") or I can stream to my console with few or no commercials (Netflix, Machinima, Youtube Movies, Hulu).

And now that I have a choice between faster internet or TV, I realize that the stuff I like to watch is being streamed online for free. Movies that I might have torrented are easier to access on Netflix, and can show me related films. TV shows are organized with extra information about them, and can be easily moved between without using up lots of hard drive storage.

//And just fyi, if more channels would either join netflix or form something similar, I think torrenting would slow significantly. High availability, no commercials, easy navigation and such for a low monthly cost? Dang straight I love it.)

Re:Smart Sound

[TheGothicGuardian]

I only watch commercials. The relative quietness of television programs are not a problem for me.

Re:Smart Sound

[sznupi]

So, you're under the impression that blocks of commercialls interrupting the shows are the only source of revenue even right now?

Re:Smart Sound

[gangien]

with no other source of revenue for the content(as bit torrent currently is)

is what i said.

So unless there is a source of revenue those shows will stop being made if everyone switches to using bit torrent.

Re:Smart Sound

[Ifni]

Let me get this straight: I pay a cable bill sufficient to provide me access to every show I enjoy, and I have not been offered the opportunity to be a Nielson household, yet somehow my watching or not watching a TV show that I have paid for in a format of my choosing is both freeloading and magically detectable to the great and glorious content providers? It seems to me that if I'm not a Nielson household, my vote doesn't count to save the TV shows I like, but likewise I am not bound to watch the commercials I don't like, since my eyes aren't counted there either. In fact, by torrenting my favorite shows, my viewing habits can at least be counted

I will grant that if EVERYONE did it, or even just the Nielson households, then yes, we could end up in the Stygian world you imply. Or maybe, just maybe, the content distributors would wake up to the fact that we dislike loud commercials and like time-shifting. They might also be forced to place heavier consideration on online viewing numbers, and then start providing TV shows in the way the customer desires, while still generating revenue either by charging per episode, or by providing less obtrusive (or at least less numerous/obnoxiously loud) ads, perhaps by using TASTEFUL product placement rather than stand-alone ads.

Right now, we can be ignored, because we can't vote with our wallets. No one knows if we are watching their ads because we aren't in the magical .02% of US households that are measured. If EVERYBODY did it, then the industry would actually have to consider their customer's desires for once, and then we would have a voice. So you'll excuse me if I'm not exactly crying over your ideals.

Re:Smart Sound

[sznupi]

It seems you are indeed under the impression that product placement or logo & "overlay" commercials don't exist already...certainly influencing also bittorent watchers; in many cases probably more than is typical, for example when the show is simply not available at their place and they still try to see it (sure, harder to quantify by ad agencies, but why should that stop them?) Heck, I expect quite a bit of "meta" commercial watching in the shows at some point.

Re:Smart Sound

[hazydave]

Well, not so much. Yes, AGC is a form of dynamic compression. No so much intentionally, since it's uncontrollable. It's really chaining an average volume input level as negative feeback to your whole volume output control, which isn't exactly what a compressor does. Same basic idea though.

But in pro audio, you rarely chain your compressor's trigger to an average of input audio over time... maybe if you're setting it up as a limiter for ducking (eg, automatically drop background music when the voiceover kicks in). Usually, you set the compression start and amount at fixed points: 6:1 compression from -10dB, etc. And you want the compression to be based on instant (or near-instant, in the case of soft-knees and soft limiters) response to the input levels, not an average thereof.

And that would make it work reasonably well for television... better still if you made a softer knee. You'd still get peaks for the explosions on your action shows, but sustained loudness would be cut.

Another thing that's pretty easy with pro-class gear (or pretty much any freeware compression plug-in) is setting a limiter. If you KNOW that your television station is really dropping the volume of the program versus the ads, hook up a level meter and find the actual peaks they're permitting during the program. Set that as your limit, and nothing louder gets past the limiter.

Re:Smart Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

Well not from the TV Studios anyway. There used to be people called amateur film-makers - I'm sure there still are.

Billy Mays here for another exciting product....

[DirtyCanuck]

Hi Billy Mays here for the Commercial Kill.
Sick of commercials blaring and waking up your hooker in the middle of the night?
Using the power of the internet we can eliminate loud obnoxious commercials for your viewing pleasure.

Note: Commercials only removed from pirated material. Non Pirated material will be subject to EVEN LOUDER commercials that conveniently have the volume control disabled during duration.

I hyperbolically hope this spreads

[Scrameustache]

Of all the things that started out in the good ol' US of A, this is second only to the lightning rod in "things that need to reach global acceptance".

Re:I hyperbolically hope this spreads

[SuricouRaven]

Franklin didn't invent the lightning conductor - he only figured out how it worked. People before him figured out that a big metal spike stuck in the ground will attract lightning, and could be used to protect a building. They just didn't know why. There are ancient buddhist temples with lightning rods on. The modern design was invented in Russia, a bit before Franklin made his contribution to the theory side.

Re:I hyperbolically hope this spreads

[binkzz]

It already has. Here in Holland loud commercials have been illegal for many years.

Re:I hyperbolically hope this spreads

[Scrameustache]

Franklin didn't invent the lightning conductor - he only figured out how it worked. People before him figured out that a big metal spike stuck in the ground will attract lightning, and could be used to protect a building. They just didn't know why. There are ancient buddhist temples with lightning rods on. The modern design was invented in Russia, a bit before Franklin made his contribution to the theory side.

He invented it too .

Re:I hyperbolically hope this spreads

[Scrameustache]

It already has.

Here in Holland loud commercials have been illegal for many years.

Here, whenever someones complains, they state the technical means by which they achieve the desired loudness (compression), and then act as if that was a fact of life they had no control over. I gotta say, Holland has a lot of laws I envy.

replaygain or something similar

[Kobun]

As for the technical side of this, it seems to me something like Replaygain would work well. Especially since commercials are known before hand (no live broadcasting) - the program establishes a baseline sound level that audio is measured against. Depending on track or album gain settings, I think that this would be made to work.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Replaygain

As far as congress goes? I'm so glad they can get this bill passed, when everything else is punted down the road until the lame duck session or beyond. Lord knows we don't pay them nearly enough to think about anything harder than freakin' TVs being too loud ...

Congress has it's priorities

[hsmith]

They can't pass a fucking budget, the ONE THING we need them to do, but they can legislate tv volume. Awesome.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[nedlohs]

Surprise surprise, things that don't really matter are easier to come to agreement on than things that are considered important and on which very different opinions are held.

Amazing!

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[inKubus]

Yeah, thank god. I'm glad I can spend the time I would have spent clicking the mute button on my remote.........sitting in front of the TV anyway. It's a great day for freedom people. We need to mark this with a special 4chan-style holiday, National Commercial Volume Law Day, where teenagers traditionally secretly turn up the volume of every television and stereo they can find and then mute it causing the next user to be reminded of the glorious freedom of America.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[hedwards]

You can blame the Republicans and blue dogs for that. They want to cut taxes, but are unwilling to cut any of the services which their constituents want. Sure people like tax cuts and don't mind somebody elses services getting cut, but the fact is that as long as they refuse to contribute to a solution we're not going to have one.

If you pay really close attention to campaign ads for conservatives they rarely if ever mention what precisely it is that they intend to cut in order to reduce the deficit nor do they typically point out that unless you cut spending by more than you cut taxes you end up with either no change in debt levels or an increased debt load.

Democrats and liberals aren't exactly saints, but at least they understand that it's tax and spend, not charge and spend. It's easy to be the party of thrift when you can make the other party actually find the money.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[wvmarle]

And before you know it they legislate that a "mute" button is illegal and no TV with "mute" function may be sold any more.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[hsmith]

Oh god please, take your partisan bullshit elsewhere. They have the majorities and can do whatever they please. "oh it is the republicans fault" - bullshit. The fact is neither of them want to pass an actual budget for a lot of reasons.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[qoncept]

"Congress can't pass a budget. Therefore they should do absolutely nothing."

Yeah, mods. That's incredibly insightful.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[ftobin]

I should point out that majorities are insufficient to pass a bill. While a majority is all that is required in the House, the Senate require a super-majority of 60 votes for all practical purposes.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[operagost]

You can blame the Republicans and blue dogs for that. They want to cut taxes, but are unwilling to cut any of the services which their constituents want.

The Republicans introduced a bill to extend the tax cuts.

The Democrats have introduced no bill at all.

The Democrats have a majority in both houses, a supermajority in the House.

These tax levels are already in effect. We aren't cutting taxes for anyone, but if we don't do anything we'll be raising them. Raising taxes is not something you do in a recession. People can't spend money they don't have. This has nothing to do with only raising taxes on the "wealthy"-- because the Democrats couldn't be bothered with even introducing a bill to support that claimed strategy. Instead, they're fearful of the TEA party, and hitting the campaign trails in the hopes of keeping their jobs, the country be dammed.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[hsmith]

They aren't even bringing it up for vote to be filibustered (which who knows if it would). to blame republicans for failure to pass the budget is absolute insanity.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[chance2105]

Also much easier to legislate when the problem wouldn't be at current levels if not for the DTV transition. Loud commercials are so incredibly obnoxious now due to digital audio compression, not because marketers just figured out loud gets attention.

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[Shotgun]

And the Democrats are sitting there, waiting patiently for anyone that would dare mention cuts to any social program. Why is Sharon Angle "bat-shit crazy"? Because, she would dare to call the Dept of Education worthless and in need of elimination.

Barach Obaman campaigned on the claim that he would take a surgical knife to the budget, and cut any program that has proven itself ineffective. Head Start has been proven to be a complete waste of money. Why is that idiotic program still around?

Republicans know that government is a Hydra. You can't cut off one program, without two more showing up in its place. The only thing you can do is starve it to death. Republicans will cut taxes ("Vote for us! We let you keep your money!"). Democrats create programs ("Vote for us! We'll give you money!"). Neither will campaign on the truth ("Vote for us! We're sane and are going to keep taxes where they're at and cut programs until we reach a sustainable situation. None of you are going to get anything.")

Re:Congress has it's priorities

[ArcherB]

You can blame the Republicans and blue dogs for that. They want to cut taxes, but are unwilling to cut any of the services which their constituents want. Sure people like tax cuts and don't mind somebody elses services getting cut, but the fact is that as long as they refuse to contribute to a solution we're not going to have one.

If you pay really close attention to campaign ads for conservatives they rarely if ever mention what precisely it is that they intend to cut in order to reduce the deficit nor do they typically point out that unless you cut spending by more than you cut taxes you end up with either no change in debt levels or an increased debt load.

Democrats and liberals aren't exactly saints, but at least they understand that it's tax and spend, not charge and spend. It's easy to be the party of thrift when you can make the other party actually find the money.

Of course Republicans don't want a cut in the services they receive. They just want the FEDERAL government to cut the services it offers. Republicans, actually conservatives, don't mind paying taxes for government services, they just want those taxes and services to be local, where there is more control. The only power the federal government should have are the powers spelled out in the Constitution.

Why should someone in North Dakota pay to fix a bridge in Florida? Why should someone in New Mexico pay for upgrades to the NYC subway system? Why should someone in Oregon pay for bus efficiency upgrades in Houston? Let each state take care of themselves. If your state makes you pay too much in taxes, move to a state with a lower tax rate. If you state doesn't offer the services you want or require, move to a state that does. The federal government should have no say in matters that happen entirely within a single state, unless Constitutional rights of citizens are violated or the Constitution lists that particular function as a federal power. You know, like the 10th Amendment says. Anything that crosses state lines falls under federal jurisdiction.

BTW, this law is OK, because TV usually crosses state lines. Sure, there are local stations, but most of those are owned by an interstate company. Of the truly, independently owned local stations, federal law should not apply and the states should regulate them.

Uncharacteristic:

[boneclinkz]

Normally I'm pretty apathetic about political nonsense, but something about this story enrages me. This is just so unbelievably frivolous, but it sure will play well to the average voter who probably watches 40 hours of television a week and strongly agrees with the statement that "TV viewers should be able to watch their favorite programs without fear of losing their hearing when the show goes to a commercial."

It's not that I'm especially fond of advertisers, it's just that I have trouble acknowledging a world where ANYBODY GIVES A FUCK about this "issue".

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[spiffmastercow]

Obviously you don't have children. When you spend 2 hours trying to get your kid to sleep, and then turn on your favorite show while you finally have some down time, the last thing you want is Billy Mays waking your kid up before you can mute the TV.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[elrous0]

This has always been a problem, but lately it seems to have gotten completely out of hand. To get decent mid-range sound on my HDTV channels (which have a broad dynamic range), I have to turn them up pretty high. When the commercials come on, they're so much louder than the shows that they come damn close to damaging my speakers. Even though I have a DVR and try to avoid them altogether, I still have to put up with these commercials on occasion, and I'm tired of jumping for the mute button before some McDonald's ad blows out my goddamned speakers.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[frizop]

I give a huge fuck about this issue and I only watch a few hours of tv a week.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You're "enraged" about this trivial bullshit, but could give a damn about all the other crap that Congress does, or doesn't do? You've got some fucked up priorities, man. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and pay attention a little more. Cause if you did, you'd be enraged at a lot more shit being perpetrated by the government on its citizens that some feel good "see?-we-care-about-our-constituents" law that incumbents up for re-election can put in their campaign "list of accomplishments".

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[kgwilliam]

I have trouble acknowledging a world where ANYBODY GIVES A FUCK about this "issue".

Perhaps RTFA would help....
"Ever since television caught on in the 1950s, the Federal Communication Commission has been getting complaints about blaring commercials"

Granted, that quote only tells you that yes, people do give a fuck about this issue. If you want better data, a quick 30 second internet search returns several links to .... "The telephone survey of 1,000 TV viewers, conducted for Harris Corporation (NYSE: HRS), showed that 89 percent are bothered by the often dramatic variation between regular TV programming and advertising volumes".

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

so get a tv that automatically adjusts the volume level based on loudness and not just a generic gain value. the government has no need to step in and force a private company to change the volume level.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[creationer]

I have kids and I agree that commercials are annoying BUT this is one example of government trying to legislate EVERYTHING. The government should not try to be the ones who control everything. Some company makes a loud, obnoxious commercial and wakes up my kid, you better believe I'll remember who's commercial it was and will NOT be buying their product. THAT'S how to deal with this kind of thing, not a new law.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Seumas]

Well, you know, the best way to deal with that is clearly to enact the will of the entire fucking government. There are absolutely no other solutions, like not watching television, not watching live television, not watching stations that blare commercials (and letting them know why you're not watching them), etc.

Whatever happened to the idea that the government only gets involved in things that are imperative to us as a people and that we can not do for ourselves, without the organization and support of the government, as a whole? Now we're utilizing them to prevent people from saying naughty words before 10:00PM and controlling the decibel level of commercials?!

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you and everyone else like you should "vote with you wallet" and not watch TV.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Evtim]

And I have trouble acknowledging a world where this happened in the first place!!! Why the advertisers went into this elaborate cheating just to ANNOY us?!?!?!?!?

Really, this is the best piece of legislation I have heard for a loooooong time! For once I hope that Europe will follow the US....

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[FriendlyPrimate]

Really? Loud commercials are a huge pet peeve of me, and I'm sure many others. The media companies do it on purpose (especially any channels from Turner Broadcasting). And their excuse why they wouldn't be able to comply with the law is so laughable that it's insulting. They would have us believe that the technology doesn't exist or is prohibitively expensive/complex to design a circuit to detect and attenuate loud signals. Huh?

Advertisers want to be as annoying as possible to get your attention. If you don't enact laws to restrict them, you'll end up in a world not unlike what you see in the movie Brazil. I suppose you were also against the do-not-call registry?

And it's not like this is a 2000 page heath care law. It's a simple law to get rid of an obvious intentional annoyance. Of course it's not a perfect law....a better law would have included a provision to throw offending TV executives into the middle of the ocean. But it's the best system we've got.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

What about those stinkers in public restrooms who don't know the meaning of a "courtesy flush"?

Toilet users should not be subjected to stench for long of a period hence the amount of time before a flush must be regulated.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[boneclinkz]

Oh, I understand that this is a big issue for a lot of people, else Congress wouldn't be utilizing it for general pandering. What I was trying to say is that its highlighting a disconnect between my perceptions and those of my peers.

I just want to fit in :(

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you don't have children. When you spend 2 hours trying to get your kid to sleep, and then turn on your favorite show while you finally have some down time, the last thing you want is Billy Mays waking your kid up before you can mute the TV.

How loud do you have the TV volume set? When my kids are in bed I already have the volume turned down. When a so-called 'blaring' commercial comes on, it doesn't get a whole lot louder because the TV limits the volume to the my setting. Only if you already have the volume cranked do the commercials get unreasonably loud.

We do not need Congress sticking their fingers into every aspect of our lives. This is an unnecessary intrusion just like telling us how much water we can use when we flush our toilets, what kind of light bulbs we can use, or how much salt we can have in our food. Next thing you know, they'll be x-raying us as we drive down the street to search our cars. Oh, wait... they're already doing that too!

This November tell everyone in Congress that keeps voting for all this crap that enough is enough. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

That survey might be better understood in the context that Harris Corporation sells Loudness Control solutions to broadcasters to automatically control audio levels. And that they stand to make a fortune selling those solutions to TV stations that are mandated by law to buy them.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[knarf]

Why yes, I do have children. And I don't have any problems with the TV waking them up as I don't have one. The computer is your friend... and the 'net of course. TV is so last century, why would you wait to be spoon-fed commercial drivel while you can find just what you want when you want it? It also has the advantage that you don't have kids craving the latest plastic doo-dahs 'as seen on TV'.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words: Nanny State

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

> the last thing you want is Billy Mays waking your kid up before you can mute the TV.

Try not watching TV, then. You'll probably find that your child is less hyperactive and more amenable to sleep, too.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[jlf278]

I'm sick of people claiming that bills like these are preventing congress from enacting more important legislation, because that's obviously not the case. The reason we have such abyssmal progress in our law making is that the law makers are mostly ignorant, incompetent and/or corrupt.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[LateArthurDent]

Obviously you don't have children. When you spend 2 hours trying to get your kid to sleep, and then turn on your favorite show while you finally have some down time, the last thing you want is Billy Mays waking your kid up before you can mute the TV.

It's not the job of government to help you with that.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

the government has no need to step in and force a private company to change the volume level.

The government has no need to step in and force other private entities to not broadcast on the same radio frequencies or to mess with cables left on their private property.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[spiffmastercow]

Yawn. More "teh free market will take care of it!" BS. The fact is, it's in the best interests of the companies to blare their commercials (I'm sure they've done studies and found they get more sales than they lose), and it's in the best interests of the people to have the commercials not be blared.

If people could have "voted with their wallets" to get rid of this BS, they would have. The fact is there are too many idiots who buy things because someone is really, really excited about them on TV, and voting with your wallets results in the lowest common denominator dictating policy.

And for the record, I don't have cable. I watch maybe 3 hours of TV a week, which is about all I have time for when caring for an infant. And I'd really, really like to watch those 3 hours without the constant hassle of blaring commercials.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[robot256]

Why are you getting so worked up over a bill that actually has a purpose (however dubious), has few negative consequences for the average citizen, and actually got passed? You should be more pissed about all the time they waste passing "we acknowledge the tenth anniversary of national book month" resolutions, doing personal campaign fundraising crap, and arguing over whose fault it is that they don't get anything done.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

the last thing you want is Billy Mays waking your kid up

Especially now.

"Zombie Billy Mays here!"

And the kid runs screaming out of the room.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[spiffmastercow]

Ah, but you see, it is. It's the job of the government to do what's in the best interests of its citizens. And it's in our collective best interest to not be annoyed by blaring commercials. Is it a minor issue? Yes. But it's still an issue.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Chrysomite]

It's worse than frivolous.

Smart DVRs skip commercials using a number of different algorithms, but one of them most definitely involves monitoring changes in volume. Advertisers have incentive to lower the volume to begin with and our government is creating a law that essentially benefits or has no effect on advertisers who claim billions of dollars effectively "lost" because of commercial skipping in high-end DVRs.

There's nothing especially bad about this from an advertiser's point of view, but we're led to believe the legislation is intended to protect consumers. Meanwhile, our legislative branch can't pass a budget or figure out what to do about taxes. That's what enrages me most about all this.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[TheGratefulNet]

summed up as: we have more dynamic range now (with HD) and so the content we care about can be sitting at, say, 20 or more dB down from normal and then the commercial comes on normalized to peak at 0dB (or clip; probably clip and clip a lot).

when they used a lot of compression for audio (10 or 20 yrs ago) this was less of a problem. now the audio comes thru digitally and that's 90+ dB of range they can fuck with. they can bury content way way down so that we turn our volume controls up to hear the main show and then they slam us with 20dB more level during commercial time.

criminal. and finally we admit it.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that I'm especially fond of advertisers, it's just that I have trouble acknowledging a world where ANYBODY GIVES A FUCK about this "issue".

It couldn't have been that hard to acknowledge. Obviously YOU GIVE A FUCK about the issue, otherwise you wouln't have bothered to come in here a leave a comment.

That kind of hypocrisy always amazes me.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[LateArthurDent]

Ah, but you see, it is. It's the job of the government to do what's in the best interests of its citizens. And it's in our collective best interest to not be annoyed by blaring commercials. Is it a minor issue? Yes. But it's still an issue.

The problem is that there are a lot of citizens and we don't all agree on what's best for us. So when the government "helps" you with this issue, they get in the way of everybody else who doesn't agree with you. So generally speaking, the government should stay out of minor issues. They introduce enough problems with the big ones.

A technological solution to this problem is much preferred. As many others have posted there are tv's which do this automatically. Also, MythTV uses several algorithms to determine when there are ads, so they may be automatically skipped. I wonder if audio volume is one of them. If it is, that just got worse.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Nimey]

Yes. Even the TV shows can be damned annoying with the higher dynamic range. For example, I'll turn the volume up a little because I can't quite hear the spoken dialog, but moments later there's a loud sound effect, or background music, and I have to turn it back down because it's suddenly too loud.

Automatic dynamic-range compression at the TV level would be a good selling point for me.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[oh_my_080980980]

I care about it and I would be willing to bet the TV viewing population cares about it.

And you don't have to watch 40+ hours of TV to care about this.

You just have to be giant douche bag to tell others how they should feel.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Anonymous Coward]

This world also has trouble acknowledging you. I'm not going to lose my hearing, but my wife insists on leaving the TV on all friggin night, which I can sleep through, but it's always some damn commercial that wakes me up. With all the other useless crap they do in the senate, at least this one has an actual positive effect, however small, on my life.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[RealGrouchy]

the last thing you want is Billy Mays waking your kid up

What? The plane left Purgatory. Mays' ghost shouldn't be bothering kids any more.

- RG>

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[mea37]

People have said for decades that they won't buy products with such-and-such tactic that they find annoying. Many such tactics are still in use. What does that tell us about your solution?

I mostly agree that a new law isn't the best solution, but I don't share any sense of outrage about it. It's not like this is "new" regulatory territory; it's just a new regulation in a field already federally regulated (e.g. by the FCC). The "fear of going deaf" statement so overstates the problem that it highlights how minor it really is, and if we were talking months of debate and a 2000-page bill I'd be outraged at the waste of time and effort; but as it is, this just doesn't stand out among exercises in government time-wasting.

My preference would be a technical solution. Building downward compression controls into the receiving set and selling that as a feature seems workable to me.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[cynyr]

or that surprise gunshot after minutes of dialog... like the scene where Mel is talking to the operative in the tea house and the operative says "I'm completely unarmed" then "BLAM!!" yea, that will wake kids up.. fucking blu-ray disk comes with 90 different languages, but not one low dynamic range English track.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[sjames]

It will be nice to that they will be legally required to at least pretend that they have the tiniest shred of respect for other people for a change.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[0111 1110]

While I am not aware of a particular DVR that uses the louder volume of a commercial in their detection algorithm, it is certainly a useful thing to have. The more differences between the commercials and the program the easier it is to get to a near 100% detection rate. Currently we can still use blank frame detection, but what if advertisers smarten up and request that the blank frame be overwritten?

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[euroq]

Well where's the damn solution? I hate having to change the volume every 7-12 minutes, then 2-5 minutes after that, in an endless cycle. I can't go to sleep at night. I, no lie, TRIED BUYING a TV one month ago with this feature, and the guy at the store had no idea what I was talking about.

I've been waiting for the free market to solve the problem. It hasn't yet. So if a regulation comes along, that (importantly!), doesn't restrict our freedoms, then I'm all for it.

P.S. Technically this law does restrict the freedom of the TV/cable/advertisers, but in the same way that a dairy farmer is restricted in his or her freedom from selling you milk that has been left out in the sun for a week.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[mcgrew]

When the commercials come on, they're so much louder than the shows that they come damn close to damaging my speakers.

If your speakers are rated at a higher wattage than your amp's peak (not RMS) power, you don't have to worry about damaging them from loud sounds. If your amp is 100 watts RMS, 150 watts peak, get speakers rated at 200 watts and you can rattle the neighbor's windows without worrying about damaging your speakers.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[fiannaFailMan]

Normally I'm pretty apathetic about political nonsense, but something about this story enrages me. This is just so unbelievably frivolous, but it sure will play well to the average voter who probably watches 40 hours of television a week and strongly agrees with the statement that "TV viewers should be able to watch their favorite programs without fear of losing their hearing when the show goes to a commercial."

It's not that I'm especially fond of advertisers, it's just that I have trouble acknowledging a world where ANYBODY GIVES A FUCK about this "issue".

Translation: "This doesn't bother me, so I don't see why it should bother anyone else."

Typical slashdot "I am the only human being in the world" nonsense.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[LateArthurDent]

Well where's the damn solution? I hate having to change the volume every 7-12 minutes, then 2-5 minutes after that, in an endless cycle. I can't go to sleep at night. I, no lie, TRIED BUYING a TV one month ago with this feature, and the guy at the store had no idea what I was talking about.

I've been waiting for the free market to solve the problem. It hasn't yet.

Why would you ask a TV salesman? Just google for it. Here's a $30 solution that doesn't involve buying a new TV. As for TV's with the feature built-in, just about every manufacturer offers it. Magnavox calls it "Smart Sound", other manufacturers call it different things.

P.S. Technically this law does restrict the freedom of the TV/cable/advertisers, but in the same way that a dairy farmer is restricted in his or her freedom from selling you milk that has been left out in the sun for a week.

Really? The same way? The advertisers are taking money from you with the promise to sell you ads at correct volumes, but giving you loud ads instead, which could put you in the hospital if you listen to it?

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[snspdaarf]

Or, they master the whole show like a hip-hop CD. Fall asleep watching TNT, and when that show "Angel" comes on, you feel like the dude in the old Memorex ads. Uh, should I add a "get off my lawn" here?

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[Late Adopter]

It's an issue that clearly falls under Federal aegis (broadcasting over public airwaves). It's a mostly unanimously agreed upon problem (among those who have any opinion at all) with a simple regulatory solution. This is the kind of thing that should happen quickly, often, and without much fanfare or expenditure of government resources, in the same way that wiping down a dining table at a restaurant should be able to happen without distracting from cooking the meals.

Re:Uncharacteristic:

[prikkebeen]

I have a bit of a hearing problem at certain frequencies. So, when i watch a movie i have to turn up the volume to understand what the actors say against a background of all sorts of sounds or background music etc. you have in a movie or tv show. When the commercial starts the (already high) volume goes over the level that is starting the neighbors to complain. For me, personal, this is a good bill.

Bigger fish to fry

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad the congress took time off from wrecking the economy to fix this huge problem!

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[Viewsonic]

Yeah, it's almost like they don't go through dozens and dozens of bills every day or anything.

I'm surprised people are still this ignorant how stuff actually works.

Television?

[Galestar]

You mean that still exists? I thought it was replaced by internet streaming!!

Re:Television?

[at_slashdot]

Netflix killed the TV star.

European Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad I don't use the TV any more. Kinda 20th century stuff like the US mobile infrastructure.

TVs can have this, and have had it.

[Allnighte]

IIRC, our Phillips Magnavox large screen CRT TV had a "Smart Sound" feature that basically just normalized the volume all the time. I have to say it worked pretty well. I'd always notice watching TV at someone elses house that some ads played REALLY loud compared to the program. We had that TV from about the mid 90's I think.

Why don't more TVs have it? (rather, I know "cost" is probably the main reason, but it should be a good enough feature to be fairly standard today, you'd think)

Re:TVs can have this, and have had it.

[hedwards]

Cost is a part of the problem, but the bigger problem is that tv shows, movies and such use a range of sounds from quiet to very loud in order to keep the viewers' attention and to tell a story. Technology like smartsound is really, really bad for that reason. It reduces the efficacy of the story and tends to turn what would be a very interesting program from the auditory standpoint into something completely blah. It's also fatiguing to the viewer to have everything be relatively similar in volume for long stretches.

Resorting to that sort of thing because advertisers are being obnoxious is really not right.

Re:TVs can have this, and have had it.

[Hatta]

I've never found real time normalization to be desirable. There's always the potential for clipping. The only way to do normalization correctly is to know in advance the peak level. And even then, normalization isn't great. Quite often you want some scenes to be quieter or louder than others.

Re:TVs can have this, and have had it.

[delinear]

It's a pretty ridiculous situation where we all have to buy special TVs to filter the content we're watching because the people making it refuse to listen to the wishes of their customers (or potential customers), but you're right, if I had the option to buy this on my next TV purchase I'd definitely take it, even if it cost a little extra, so it's interesting that it's not widely offered. Maybe it's one of those subjects people like to moan about but actually don't really care about (it's more of a problem for me - I have sensitive hearing and occasional migraines, combine those with the ad volume and it equals real physical pain and discomfort, well it would if I didn't just immediately switch channels).

Re:TVs can have this, and have had it.

[prefect42]

It's all very nice, but it'll be doing that to my programs too, and I'd rather let the producers of the program control the volume levels there, rather than have my telly decide which bits are too loud or too quiet. I've got the option on my amp to do this, but I'm never really tempted to enable it.

Re:TVs can have this, and have had it.

[Bobfrankly1]

IIRC, our Phillips Magnavox large screen CRT TV had a "Smart Sound" feature that basically just normalized the volume all the time. I have to say it worked pretty well. I'd always notice watching TV at someone elses house that some ads played REALLY loud compared to the program. We had that TV from about the mid 90's I think. Why don't more TVs have it? (rather, I know "cost" is probably the main reason, but it should be a good enough feature to be fairly standard today, you'd think)

Cost probably IS the main reason. It costs them money to put it in the TV, whereas the ad companies or networks are likely paying TV makers a small amount to keep the normalizers out of the TVs.

Re:TVs can have this, and have had it.

[omnichad]

Even if it's normalized, tv shows usually have occasional peaks with a broad dynamic range. Commercials are within 1-2dB of peak the entire time (by heavy use of compressors). They can even be the same "volume" but the commercial is louder.

While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[tomhudson]

Ban the use of sirens in radio commercials to get attention. I don't know how many times I heard one in a commercial and the natural reaction is to start looking for the ambulance or fire truck or police car.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[snspdaarf]

Amen, brother! Around here, the worst offender of this is the local police department Crimestoppers ads.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

[Ban the use of sirens in radio commercials to get attention]

Oh yeah. And car horns in radio commercials, too. Morons.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[jmerlin]

Especially in radio ads. And in music. And a low-level background noise at the exact frequency as a siren (such as a tornado warning) or a train. This kind of shit makes me instantly turn off the radio, because it invokes an illusory perception that's incredibly distracting and dangerous. I get more distracted looking around for the source of such noises than I do while texting. But texting while driving is evil, yes.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

..and car horns.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[britneys 9th husband]

My natural reaction is to turn the radio off so it's easier to find the emergency vehicle.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[Cro Magnon]

Yeah, I HATE radio sirens. My finger is still sore from poking the radio button to turn the damn thing off!

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[anUnhandledException]

So right you are. I hate that. I would throw in cellphone rings, honking horns, and car crash sounds.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

In an interesting twist, if I'm listening to the radio and hear a siren, my reaction is to turn off the radio to focus on finding the source of the siren. Didn't intend on that, did they!

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Please add car horns and any other road noise to that list. Especially car horns... there's a commercial for some traffic alert service that plays in my area. It start out with one long, loud blast from a car horn, followed by a cacophony of car horns in the background of some voice-over saying "Hate getting stuck in traffic? Get up to the minute traffic alerts on..." It's like they engineered a commercial most likely to make you AVOID the product it's advertising. All involved with that commercial should be lined up against the wall and shot... and send a bill for the bullet and the wall repair to the next of kin.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[StormReaver]

I don't know how many times I heard [a siren] in a commercial and the natural reaction is to start looking for the ambulance or fire truck or police car.

Those of us who live in Tornado Alley have a completely different natural reaction to the sound of a siren.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[cynyr]

Agree with that to, it's not safe.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[greed]

I've got a good one for distraction.

I'm driving a car with a new-to-me radio/cd-player that I had never used for radio. I see the big sign on the side of this messy junction among I-81, I-380, "to I-80" and "to I-84" and some local roads with the "EMERGENCY WHEN FLASHING TUNE TO AM xxxx" lights flashing. So I try and juggle the interchange and the radio and get it tuned to hear:

"Pennsylvania D-O-T welcomes travellers on this holiday weekend. Please drive with extra care. Traffic enforcement will be heightened for your safety. Enjoy the holiday."

Some emergency.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been waiting for this for years. These should all be banned on radio:

Car horns, sirens, ringing phones....

Too high a risk of injury to warrant any "benefit" to free speech.

Re:While they're at it ... a safety suggestion

[snspdaarf]

Those of us who live in Tornado Alley have a completely different natural reaction to the sound of a siren.

Yeah! We run outside with the video camera!

What?

[tedgyz]

I can't hear you over the commercial.

Seriously - this should be easy for sound engineers.

Finally

[zombieChan51]

I hate it when a commercial comes on very loud making my dogs bark.

Not possible

[cheekyjohnson]

A decision that politicians made that didn't completely suck? Impossible. Surely there's some sort of catch. Even if there's not, I'm sure they'll screw it up soon enough, anyway.

No, it is practical

[drumcat]

Umm... how about Root Mean Square calculation? I use it all the time. I have to master audio and the funny thing is unlike Creed & Nickelback, I care about not just peaks, but overall sound. It can be done.

Re:No, it is practical

[delinear]

I believe GP was employing this.

Re:No, it is practical

[blueg3]

It was sarcasm. :-)

The summary, of all things, even points out that this proposed legislation is *after* an industry organization published guidelines for exactly how to do this sort of thing.

Re:No, it is practical

[commodore64_love]

>>>I have to master audio

Please tell your colleagues that the best music uses all or most of a CD's 80 dB volume range, not just the top 5 dB (i.e. avoids volume compression). If your bosses are wondering why CD sales are dropping, it's because there's little point buying a CD that sounds like it was mastered from a 128k MP3 file. Make the CD sound better than an MP3, and we'll buy it. IMHO. A Fan.

Re:No, it is practical

[mrjatsun]

Disagree.. It's because most CDs have one or two good songs and the rest are crap. Studios know this. Why do you think studios moved from singles to records in the first place? To make more money...

Re:No, it is practical

[Anonymous Coward]

If your bosses are wondering why CD sales are dropping, it's because there's little point buying a CD that sounds like it was mastered from a 128k MP3 file.

I really don't think this is why.

But I agree with your premise anyway.

Re:No, it is practical

[seanadams.com]

Make the CD sound better than an MP3, and we'll buy it. IMHO.

Level compression != data compression. MP3 does not effect loudness, it's applied in the mastering process. And the reason CDs sound like MP3s is because MP3s are ripped from CDs. Indeed, if they fix CDs, our MP3s will sound better too.

Re:No, it is practical

[toxonix]

Its the producers doing the mixing. Most of them are not engineers in any sense, just knob twiddlers who twiddle around until it sounds 'good' to them. Or they flip through the default settings on the dynamics plugins until they find the one they like. Of course a few more ears have to hear it before it can be determined to be 'good', but thats when you get into the kind of ball-washing that goes on in the music industry where everything Mr. X produces sounds great, even if it doesn't. Bigger labels will use studios with dedicated recording engineers, who should know what they're doing, but I think they are just mixing it the way the labels want. Most pop music/top 40 doesn't require dynamic range of more than 5 dB. Most of it isn't worth listening to though!! iPod earbuds, garbage PC speakers that most people use, etc, don't reproduce very dynamic pieces very well.

Re:No, it is practical

[Anonymous Coward]

Make the CD sound better than an MP3, and we'll buy it.

That'll be hard to do, since digital compression is the only difference between a CD and an MP3. They otherwise have the same acoustic potential. Actually MP3s can be better since they support sample sizes and frequencies larger than CDs.

Re:No, it is practical

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confused. RMS is only useful for simple waves. Or are you claiming you're doing a huge amount of calculations with shitty over compressed, over produced distorted music, performing Fourier analysis just to be able to do RMS in both time and frequency domains?

Re:No, it is practical

[memojuez]

AD-FREE MUSIC FOR $0.00 monthly (HD2) player.radio.com/player/RadioPlayer.php?version=1.1.9780&station=13987

BS! I went to that station (Baltimore's Dance Channel) and was immediately greeted by an AD!!

Re:No, it is practical

[BrokenHalo]

Depends on who you buy your CDs from. Turns out that about 70% of the CDs I've bought in the last few years have come from the ECM label. I have not heard one recording of theirs that is of any quality less than stupendous.

Re:No, it is practical

[BrokenHalo]

And the reason CDs sound like MP3s is because MP3s are ripped from CDs.

That's a bit back to front, but we get the message. But the best way to enjoy a (good quality) recording is still to play a CD of it at home on the best stereo you can afford. That doesn't mean you have to take out a second mortgage on your home - a cheap setup can be a top-notch pair of headphones with an appropriate headphone amplifier and an OK CD player.

MP3s are most useful for any environment where there's lots of background noise, so any loss in quality just isn't noticeable. Having said that, I encode my own MP3s at a fairly high bitrate, since I have a 160GB iPod, so space isn't too much of an issue.

Re:No, it is practical

[theshowmecanuck]

I agree with you. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder or listener. I was taking a drive with my nephew a month ago when he connected his iPhone to the car stereo and started playing rap and club mix stuff. What I noticed was that the more recent stuff not only had a steady rhythm (which is expected) but relied on a heavy bass beat with little or no dynamic range. A heavy bass beat is not unusual, but the fact that there were no dynamics and like you said, it was all within the top 5 dBs made it uninteresting to me. While I enjoy at least some selections of almost all music genres, I prefer music with some dynamic where it is not constantly just loud (e.g. blues/jazz a la Freddie King, Cannonball Aderly, etc... but I am a fan of all eras of rock too). But he, liked like a lot of people it seems, think a heavy undynamic beat is just fine. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or listener; even if it is because of heavy marketing. ;-)

Re:No, it is practical

[Omestes]

A lot of non-pop indie labels do this as well. Most of my increasingly rare CD purchases are usually from The End records, Neurot, Ipecac, or John Zorn's Tzadik, and none of them really have the compression/loudness problem. There is probably dual reasons for this, the main one being that they are labels for artists who have more goals than just being louder than other pop bands on the radio. The second reason is that generally never get on the radio since they have limited audiences.

Compression is really a pop music problem, and not a general problem with all modern music. I actually don't think I've ever bought a CD, since high school, that had compression. And this isn't because I'm a consciously avoiding them, its because after high school my tastes took a plunge into bizzaroland (I'd like to say "matured", but this isn't what most of my friends would say). If you avoid the big labels, and the big pop bands (of any genre), you will completely avoid intentionally bad mixing. Though a lot of albums I bought off fly-by-night small labels have sucked more than any large label, quality wise.

Re:No, it is practical

[Anonymous Coward]

Dynamic Range Compression is completely different from Data Compression. Please don't perpetuate the misconception that MP3-encoding a file does the same thing as the horrible mastering processes do.

Re:No, it is practical

[lmnfrs]

Please tell your colleagues that the best music uses all or most of a CD's 80 dB volume range, not just the top 5 dB (i.e. avoids volume compression).

This has already been attempted. Customers used to the "top 5dB" bought new CD's that had been mastered properly, in the 80dB range, and didn't like their new quiet CD's. The record company received a deluge of "low volume" complaints.

Re:No, it is practical

[cayenne8]

"That's a bit back to front, but we get the message. But the best way to enjoy a (good quality) recording is still to play a CD of it at home on the best stereo you can afford. That doesn't mean you have to take out a second mortgage on your home - a cheap setup can be a top-notch pair of headphones with an appropriate headphone amplifier and an OK CD player.

MP3s are most useful for any environment where there's lots of background noise, so any loss in quality just isn't noticeable. Having said that, I encode my own MP3s at a fairly high bitrate, since I have a 160GB iPod, so space isn't too much of an issue."

Agreed for the most part...but with some things in sound reproduction, you DO get what you pay for. Good headphones can give great sound, but for really the best you can get, I think really good quality loudspeakers are the best...you just can't get the range..especially not bass out of small headphone drivers.

I saved and over the years of building a stereo, I finally got MY definition of great speakers. Hard to beat a good set of Klipschorn's....super efficient, horn loaded...and I had to really save to buy a major subwoofer to just get lower than these loudspeakers do. I prefer them on a tube amp...but I swear with good music that is well recorded, I can close my eyes..and almost get a 3D like soundfield when listening to them.

Not cheap...but I bought and traded up all parts of my stereo since I was a kid.

Re:No, it is practical

[The New Andy]

RMS doesn't tell you how loud something will be perceived though. A sine wave at 1kHz with the same RMS as one at 15kHz will be perceived to be a lot louder.

If this is really the full text of the bill, then it is way too vague. It uses terms like loudness without defining them. If most of the population can't hear above 12kHz because they listened to their iPods too loud when they were younger, then does the definition of "loudness" change? If it doesn't, then expect a lot of treble in the programs and bass in the ads ("When listened to by people without damaged hearing, they are equal loudness").

Re:No, it is practical

[KingAlanI]

I'd say that neither the "many of the deep cuts suck" problem nor the "bad mastering job" are *helping*

Granted, most of the CDs I bought I bought because I determined I like most or all the songs on the album, not because I heard good things about the post-production. Definitely not an audiophile in the stereotypical sense.

Re:No, it is practical

[BrokenHalo]

I wouldn't argue about the experience with speakers - just the opposite. I was just making the point that you can get reference-quality headphones for just a few hundred dollars if you look around and don't get sucked in by snake oil, but to get anything equivalent involving speakers, you have to pay 20 times that to get something half as good. Cans are not always comfortable to wear (Grado for instance, despite being horrendously expensive) but the Sennheiser HD-650s are good. They also have the advantage of being comparatively cheap now that Senn have a new top-of-the-line model.

Re:No, it is practical

[AmiMoJo]

Dolby set out the average level, dynamic range and other parameters for their systems which is why DVDs are usually a lot more dynamic than the original broadcasts. DVD-Audio discs benefit from it too, it's just a shame that more music isn't released in the format because it prevents the mix being a victim of the loudness war.

Re:No, it is practical

[AmiMoJo]

I think the parent was referring to the generally crap sound of 128k MP3 files rather than confusing different meanings of 'compression'. Poor detail and separation are typical symptoms.

I usually buy second hand CDs because the older ones were not as loud as newer re-releases. Fancy that, you turn out a product that costs 3x as much and sounds worse than the one you can get second hand and people don't want it.

Re:No, it is practical

[toddestan]

Have you tried listening to some of these overly compressed CDs? It can be a chore to sit through the whole thing at once as the music is not pleasant to listen to, even if you otherwise like the artist. I can see how that can translate to "there are only one or two good songs" if you turn the CD off halfway through because you're tired of listening to it.

On the other hand, if something is reasonably well produced I can generally listen to it for a while even if I don't particularly care for the music itself.

Rest Easy

[smitty777]

Now I can rest easy, knowing that the folks in charge are focusing on the really important matters. It was just last night, I was jolted out of a nap in front of some program on global warming or something by an ad for American Idol...

Re:Rest Easy

[Ksevio]

Well I'd rather they work on these issues in parallel than argue about immigration for a year first and work the issues in series.

Re:Rest Easy

[fiannaFailMan]

Now I can rest easy, knowing that the folks in charge are focusing on the really important matters. It was just last night, I was jolted out of a nap in front of some program on global warming or something by an ad for American Idol...

Does it ever cross peoples' minds that politicians sometimes get to take a break from the top-of-the-headline matters and legislate on the less prominent issues too? Somebody's got to regulate the finer details of broadcasting, road safety, food safety and other issues that don't go away just because there's a global financial meltdown brewing.

Re:Rest Easy

[smitty777]

I know, I know. It's just a little discouraging when people's top priorities are adjusting the volume on the inane, vacuous blather on TV when there are so many other pressing issues. I wonder how long and how many resources they wasted on this? Was it really taking a break, or did it take away resources from the stuff that actually matters?

Wow... I would get cable TV now...

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

if only there were also fewer of those commercials :/

Re:Wow... I would get cable TV now...

[delinear]

Next on the hit list should be those incredibly invasive banner ads during shows that advertise other shows on that channel/network. I'm already watching one of your shows damnit, if you want me to stick with your channel stop completely ruining the experience for me!

Re:Wow... I would get cable TV now...

[omnichad]

You must mean SyFy - they are the worst offender that I know of. Literally half the screen - with ANIMATION!

HI

[ghee22]

billy mays here. would you mind turning up the volume?

Whatever happened to

[SuseLover]

AGC? All older TV's & stereos had automatic gain control to keep the volumes level. It doesn't seen like it'd be too hard to implement for commercials.

Re:Whatever happened to

[insertwackynamehere]

Tvs probably still have this stuff built in; commercials don't break above the volume controls limit, they are just mastered using heavy compression so that the whole commercial is as close to peak level as possible. Commercials don't need dynamic range, they want to be loud. That is probably why this wasn't as easy to problem to fix as people thought; you basically have to lay down rules for how a commercial should be mastered.

Re:Whatever happened to

[hedwards]

Hard, no, bitterly opposed by lobbyists, yes. The problem is that as soon as you require them to embed something to allow the TV to know what's a commercial, you enable the viewer to use a devices to completely skip commercials. Which is why you almost certainly won't ever see it implemented.

It's probably not that hard, you could probably just put in a seeming blank frame for a fraction of a second which identified the beginning of the break, but perhaps had some form of code for the player.

Re:Whatever happened to

[tweak13]

The AGC in those devices were for the RF stage, not the audio stage. It was necessary for AM radio because weaker signal meant less volume. AGC remained in FM radios and TV, but because weaker signals in those modulations did not affect volume level, the AGC does not keep volume constant. Instead the AGC is used to control the signal level in the receiver, to keep levels appropriate for the intermediate stages.

Re:Whatever happened to

[anUnhandledException]

AGC doesn't work for commercials.

Say you have a show that ranges from -80db to -40db. It simply reduces the dynamic range so the peaks and valleys in the show get "smoothed out".

The problem with commercials is they simply are on full blast w/ vary little dynamic range.

So either
a) AGC is too conservative and commercials remains significantly louder
b) AGC is aggressive and it dampens commercials but also turns your content into a monotone speech.

Thank God, but it is too late

[gblackwo]

I already dropped cable for dsl, netflix, hulu and hd over the air. I am 22, not only does my generation not need landlines, but we don't need cable either.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[a whoabot]

"I already dropped cable for dsl" ... "my generation [does] not need landlines"

?

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[WillDraven]

s/landlines/POTS

make sense now?

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 30 and I can afford cable TV. So nyah!

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[scuzzlebutt]

Makes no sense. DSL comes into the home on the same copper pair that POTS does.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[WillDraven]

Just because it uses the same cabling doesn't mean it's the same system.

Regardless, you both knew what the OP meant. We use the internet for our media and communications.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Your brain can't.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[chemicaldave]

He's probably referring to phone service commonly referred to as a "landline".

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

I just dropped a cable as well.

You probably shouldn't go in the bathroom for another hour, by the way.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[zero_out]

I haven't owned a TV, nor watched one, for over five years. Well, there were a few times I watched a show with a family member while visiting them during the holidays, but does a few hours a year really count? I've been watching Hulu for about two years, and got by without any form of television shows for three years prior to that.

I grew up in a home with a TV in the living room, which everyone watched while eating dinner, and one in every bedroom since I was 12. I was so addicted to TV that any time there was one on, I became fixated on it. While courting my wife, we never watched TV, but when we visited my family my eyes and attention would glue to it, which made her quite angry and frustrated. We made it a point to not have a TV when we got married, and I don't miss it.

Why should I spend $500-$1k on a TV and recording system, plus cable/satellite when I have four older, yet very capable, computers at home? I can find and watch what I want on my computers with at least as much control as with a TV+TiVo; and since my wife and I have practically no common tastes in entertainment, we wouldn't watch anything together anyway. When we do rent a movie to watch, we just put a laptop on the coffee table, and cuddle up on the couch together.

For me, TV has gone the way of the telegraph. It's outdated, and virtually obsolete for my "needs."

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

And tell the government to keep their hands off my Medicare!!

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you haven't heard of naked DSL then?

I've got a DSL connection but no landline.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[geekoid]

Actually I thought he as just being funny. Now it looks like he is being stupid.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

I already dropped cable for dsl, netflix, hulu and hd over the air. I am 22, not only does my generation not need landlines, but we don't need cable either.

Dude, you have dsl... Landline.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[gblackwo]

I have a dry loop dsl line. Yes, I realize I worded my original statement poorly, and that without landlines we likely wouldn't have dsl in it's present form. The point was dropping cable (TV) for only a data connection/air broadcast for media needs.

I hadn't had my coffee yet, I wasn't trying to be funny.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is DSL a landline?

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[tepples]

I have a dry loop dsl line.

That doesn't help people who live in areas where the surcharge for dry-loop DSL approaches the monthly price of a POTS line.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[tepples]

I already dropped cable for dsl, netflix, hulu and hd over the air.

Netflix and Hulu don't have live streams. This means they don't have live sports (e.g. ESPN, Speed) or live political commentary (e.g. MSNBC, Fox News).

I am 22, not only does my generation not need landlines

If you live in the same household as some other generation, they might need landlines. I live with aging grandparents, one of whom is a staunch MSNBC fan and the other a staunch NASCAR fan. My aunt lives with her school-age children who need a phone on which to dial the emergency number if needed.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

and hd over the air.

Netflix and Hulu don't have live streams. This means they don't have live sports (e.g. ESPN, Speed) or live political commentary (e.g. MSNBC, Fox News).

The farmer five/internet with suffice for much of that. Also, if you really need an "old person phone", I hear there are cradles some phones that will allow you to dock the cellphone at the house, and it will ring through on all the "landline" phones in the house with little hardware. I'm really not sure as to the availability or pricing, but it is perhaps a possible option.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[anUnhandledException]

Wow a whole 15.4" low quality laptop screen.

Your right it is just stupid to spend money on a 50" HDTV displaying a 20-50Mbps stream and surround sound when a the 15" screen and pathetic laptop speakers decoding a 2Mbps internet stream gives you THE EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[DriedClexler]

This means they don't have live sports (e.g. ESPN, Speed)

Oh no! You poor thing! That would mean you can't dabble in the mind-rotting opiate that distracts you from real problems! You can't perpetuate a fat, bloated, money printing franchise that's popular because it's popular!

Poor fucking you!

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[DavidTC]

Or maybe he's referring to lines laying on the ground.

Which we certainly don't need. In fact, that's a bad idea. Around here, we run all our telephone and cable lines through the air or underground. If they just lay on the ground people run over them with lawnmowers.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[oh_my_080980980]

Hey zippy how do you think DSL is getting to your house by fairy dust! It's a freakin piece of copper. FIOS has the same problem.

Moron.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

OP was referring to switching from payed tv programming to a pick what you want type model- despite whatever medium the data travels on- it is still a cheaper option at least until the telcos decide to hike up internet cost to recoup their wallets.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Anonymous Coward]

But why drop the cable connection? Surely cable internet is faster than DSL by a big margin.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[gblackwo]

Faster but more expensive, we were sick of Comcast- now we have frontier. We live in a college town where our cable connection was plagued with saturation- we actually get consistent rates with dsl. Personally, I was surprised that netflix works as well as it does on a 3mb line. Latency was not a tradeoff, so we are pretty happy with our switch. Frontier btw is very pleasant to work with unlike Verizon who used to run the Midwest services.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[gblackwo]

We did what slashdot is always asking us to do, we voted with our pocketbooks.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[Late Adopter]

I already dropped cable for dsl, netflix, hulu and hd over the air.

So what you're saying then is this actually is relevant to you.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[rreyelts]

You're two generations behind me, and my generation doesn't need cable either. Oh, and I dropped my landline eleven years ago when you were still in grade school. Now, get off my lawn.

Re:Thank God, but it is too late

[toddestan]

THE EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE.

Actually, it does. You can either watch crap, or watch crap in HD.

Besides, your 50" HDTV has the same resolution as a 21" computer screen, which really doesn't impress me much.

Whatever happened to Smart Sound?

[BobMcD]

Magnavox TV's used to do this, if I recall correctly. I tried to find something similar for my Myth setup, but never did. Did that idea just fade away?

Re:Whatever happened to Smart Sound?

[nlinecomputers]

Fade away is the wrong term. This was overwhelmed by increasing volume of missing ad revenue for there own TVs. Can't kill the item that markets your own product.

Re:Whatever happened to Smart Sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

uhhh...Myth removes commercials entirely remarkably well. Who the hell watches their favorite TV shows at the time the channels dictate anymore anyway?

Re:Whatever happened to Smart Sound?

[BobMcD]

uhhh...Myth removes commercials entirely remarkably well. Who the hell watches their favorite TV shows at the time the channels dictate anymore anyway?

Uhhh, what does this have to do with Smart Sound? Commercials were but one application of the concept. Channel surfing was another. In the digital realm it would mean changing between recordings and expecting them to play at close to the same volume. And I'm here to tell you, this doesn't really ever happen.

Re:Whatever happened to Smart Sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll either Smart Sound didn't work well (which this thread does not seem to agree with) - OR - consumers didn't see it as enough of a value proposition for them to choose, for the price they would have to pay. Either way, there was a free market solution available that the market refused, but we now want the government to solve the annoyance at a collective price that will most likely be much higher. Baaaaa

Re:Whatever happened to Smart Sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was called smartsound. And yep. it's gone.

Replacing a dead tv that had it.. I couldnt find anything new that still has that feature. Or at least one that worked right. Some tv's have something similiar but it does nothing.

Ended up buying a 10 year old standard def tv from the pawn shop. All i could find with smartsound.

A little hassle. An old tv... But damm. i don't have to hover over the mute button while the tv is on.

The buck stops here.

[a whoabot]

Only $2150.00 to do it yourself.

One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

I had severe insomnia - I even almost died of it - Yes you can! Anyway I would have the TV on so I could have something to focus on and I remember commercials especially from Billy Mays that would startle me so badly it felt like I came near to breaking a bone. Subjecting me to a sudden auditory explosion is enough to get me pissed off enough that I will black list the product. There are so many brands of each product, I don't have to buy theirs. They have been claiming the commercials are not louder than legal for years, yet one time I could NOT hear this show, so I started to reach for the control to turn up the volume. Suddenly a commercial came on so loud that it blew the speakers - smoke poured out. I remember getting into it with trolls here who said the commercials were not any louder it was just a perception caused by the average loudness being higher. Now they are acknowledging that they are louder? Seems news sources have a bit of trouble "Making up their minds". I guess it's a matter of perception. Startle me and you piss me off.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Osgeld]

Christ, the only time I saw smoke pour out of a speaker it was hooked up to a 700 watt amp, your story reminds me of rabbit poop, a few little things start to smell like shit real quick

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Dunbal]

I remember commercials especially from Billy Mays that would startle me so badly

      Obligatory South Park:

      Ike? Is that you?

      No! That's ignorant! I'm not dead...HI! BILLY MAYS HERE FOR CHIPOTLAWAY...

      If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you can watch that episode here.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Anonymous Coward]

And after the first time this happened you learnt your lesson and played recordings from then on? Apparently not.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Spatial]

I remember getting into it with trolls here who said the commercials were not any louder it was just a perception caused by the average loudness being higher.

They were right. The perception of loudness is created by dynamic range compression. Ever heard of the 'loudness wars' in pop music? Same thing.

Ask any audio guy, they'll tell you the very same.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[geekoid]

No it can't. It can lead to poor health that can kill you, or it's cause by sever apnea and THAT can kill you. Not that it matters if you are dead.

They have been louder for ever. I don't know who told you they weren't. Well... technically I guess you could say they aren't 'louder' but the sure as hell crank you the gain. Louder as in, not more volume. Still, it would be a weak argument when you are clearly talking about db gain, not the TV;s volume.

I don't really believe it cause your speakers to smoke.

Also, you are completely wrong about resumes. Mostly because you don't realize it's a game. a significant number of resumes are read by people who KNOW you tailor your resume and expect it as part of the game. If you can't be bothered to take the extra work for that job, you aren't worth a look. If they don't see something that says it a right fit in 8 seconds, you likely to be over looked. If you can't tailer your resume and have a method of error checking the specific changes, I sure as hell can't trust you to modify code.

I talked to dozens of HR people, dozens of hiring managers, while a researched resume writing about 6 years ago.
I know it makes no damn sense. I should just list my jobs and responsibilities, and show some recommendation as evidence I show up to work and do my job. Sadly, people need there expectation fulfilled.

They ONLY time I found that a good job list with description is enough is government work.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[geekoid]

HAHA rabbit poop. I'm so going to use that.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Cro Magnon]

No it can't. It can lead to poor health that can kill you, or it's cause by sever apnea and THAT can kill you. Not that it matters if you are dead.

A bit off-topic, but insomonia CAN kill. Maybe not directly, but if you have to drive to work, operate machinery, or defuse bombs, being awake for 36 hours is deadly.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

The speakers were in an old style tv with just those little internal speakers. Didn't need anything near 700 watts to blow out one of those. You are a troll. your attitude reminds me of cat piss. Things start stinking real now, not later. There are cures for all kinds of things but there is no cure for being an asshole.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

WTF??? I hit reply to your message not mine.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Osgeld]

Its just darn near impossible, kind of like dying from insomnia, yea ok it could happen but the chances are next to none

sorry if you think I am an asshole, hell I will be the first to admit it, but just like there is no cure for that, there is no cure for being an over exaggerating twit

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[omnichad]

The perception of loudness is created by range compression. The feature on TV's that tries to undo that by over-compressing EVERYTHING including the shows is called dynamic range compression.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Spatial]

What. "Range compression" is just a shorter way of saying "dynamic range compression". That's what the range is: the dynamic range.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[omnichad]

Wrong modifier. It's the compression that's dynamic. It constantly adjusts the compression ratio to attempt to produce a constant perceived volume.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

Not over exaggerating, I went through three weeks where I would go to bed and wake 30-45 minutes later, feeling like it was 10am and well past time to get up. After three weeks of this, I ended up catching pneumonia on December 25th 1997 because I was so exhausted from lack of sleep my immune system failed. You can Google about sleep and immune system but I would be genuinely surprised if a troll like you would be interested in enlightening themselves about this recant and admit to even possibly being wrong. I remember, because that Christmas was when I spent the week in intensive care at Feather River Hospital. So you can continue calling truthful people liars all you want but it won't change the facts.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

Interesting. Range compression? I'm curious if this guess is what this means... The range refers to the highest and lowest decibels in the piece and the range compression raises the decibels of the lower range, so that the average loudness is higher?

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

Yep, its the effects that can kill. Like getting pneumonia from having a low immune response brought on by lack of sleep. Its like the flu. People say folks died from the flu when its the secondary infections or choking that kills most of them yet, nobody takes someone to task for saying someone died of the flu (Well the trolls here do apparently) because its a general statement, not meant to be a scientific fact. Sounds like a bunch of readers here have nothing better to do than to nitpick.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Osgeld]

I googled it before I placed my first response,

Fatal familial insomnia (FFI) is a very rare autosomal dominant inherited prion disease of the brain. It is almost always caused by a mutation to the protein PrPC, but it can also develop spontaneously in patients without the inherited mutation in a variant called sporadic fatal insomnia (SFI). The mutated protein, called PrPSc, has been found in just 40 families worldwide, affecting about 100 people;

now yes your health can be affected, it can be affected by many things, but the combination of this, the statement of Billy startling you (really? the guy was on tv every 6 min for years) and the statement of "smoke pouring out of my speaker" adds up to hogwash

sorry, call me a troll all you like, a tv speaker being blown is not going to pour smoke out of your tv, it may put out a TINY puff of smoke if your running full blast, but sorry it adds up to over exagerated "feel for me" hogwash

I dont shed a tear for you, you do not deserve it cause you beg for it

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

Um, I see a conflict has occurred that should not have occurred had you not taken what I said to such an extreme degree. When I said smoke, I meant a little or tiny puff of smoke I didn't think I had to construct my message as some sort of steel horse chute to keep the horse on track so there would be no misunderstanding. I find it entertaining that I can truly describe this as akin to herding cats. The deal about Billy isn't a big deal either. As for saying I was startled almost enough to break a bone I wasn't expecting you to take it literally or to think I wanted some stupid sympathy, I was just being descriptive. Oh there's a reason I tend to startle easily but revealing that will just give you another excuse for your predilection for taking simple statements as some "Begging" bid for sympathy. If I wanted sympathy or even had it entered my mind, I would not have said I HAD (Past Tense) insomnia. The problem is you over-exaggerated what I meant. I don't want your tears, or your feelings of sympathy at all - its disgusting! I didn't say these things to get sympathy and I did not mean anything to the degree you made up, out of thin air. I was getting a bit upset at you and was determined to say two words to you that rhyme with "FU" but after reading this reply of yours proved to me where the error lay when you assume I have feelings I did not. Of course I've dealt with folks who have done as you have, and every one of those continued in their fantasy of mis-conceptions about people around them. Maybe you will be different, but I doubt it. Go back to living in your dark world full of sympathy vampires, I don't want to have anything to do with it. At least I learned one thing - To either stop posting here in slash dot or expect this kind of foolishness.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Spatial]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

"Dynamic range, abbreviated DR or DNR, is the ratio between the smallest and largest possible values of a changeable quantity, such as in sound and light."

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Osgeld]

When I said smoke, I meant a little or tiny puff of smoke

then why the fuck did you state

Suddenly a commercial came on so loud that it blew the speakers - smoke poured out.

exaggerate much? whoops there we are right back at the beginning, horse shit

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

Ok, you got your wish. FUCK YOU!

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

Like I said, I didn't think I had to state the exact size, of things and that I had to mince my words and descriptions to fit your needs created by your knee jerk reactions to something that yes, I admit could be taken to extremes by such as you (You note that nobody else but you is doing this) but I don't consider that enough reason to process my words so as not to offend your eggshell psyche. If you are going to be any kind of successful troll I suggest you learn some self control and stop being such a word puppet. I am finished explaining myself to a nutcase like you. Stay away from me I don't want to catch your disease.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[Osgeld]

say what you mean then and dont over exaggerate your story to win bonus points, it makes you look like your full of crap

knee jerk? I just called you on a lie, which your backpedaling and I am a nutcase?

piss off

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

Here you have spent so many messages about a "Lie" as you claim about a speaker and loud commercials, and you imagine doing this to get points? If my worst problem were people who embellish things I would live happily ever after. What happens when a *real* problem comes along? Better to be pissed off than pissed on.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[GarryFre]

"I just called you on a lie" ... No, you also attributed to me all kinds of traits like "Begging for Sympathy", out of the air. So you omit this fact, and now YOU are guilty of a lie of omission. Lets see, if the smoke was the size of a basket ball or even the tiny size of a marble, "Smoke still poured out and it would be the truth. Just because I don't state things in exacting detail to suit your ridiculous and bizarre needs does not make me a liar. I can omit the details because I don't state them because 99% of humanity uses their brain instead of their asses to communicate. So guess who is lying now when you say "I just called someone on a lie." You sound like either a nut or someone who is in the business of blasting people out of their chairs at night with a commercial. Oh btw, learn the art of simile and hyperbole. Your ignorance is not my problem.

Re:One blew out my speakers.

[omnichad]

I know that dynamic range is a separate term in it's own right, but with dynamic range compression it's the compression ratio that is dynamic.

I sadden myself with how happy this makes me.

[Fibe-Piper]

It is really a sad day when an announcement about this makes people (like me) so happy!

I mean it is just television. I hate that it is such a powerful force and know that annoying commercials are one of the few obvious reasons to get up and walk away from the TV during any hour long period of time.

Ignoring the fact the PVRs and TiVo have all but eliminated commercials in my own home, I have to wonder if this is somehow a bad thing for the 60% of people without a PVR. Does that kind of thinking make me a liberal elite?

Re:I sadden myself with how happy this makes me.

[geekoid]

Just TV?

TV was a game changer. It's a great way to get information, find out about the world, tell epic stories. There are many, many GREAT shows on TV.

Yeah, there is a lot of crap to.

Just like books. I can point at hundreds of crappy books and then just generalize and say books are crap. No one would stand for that for a second, and they shouldn't.

Yeah I went without TV for 4 years before realizing I was being a chump. depriving my kids of a common social ground with their peers, missing out on some great shows, and removing another avenue for discussion topics with my family. I missed years of myth busters, science shows. gah, so stupid.

Liberal elite? who cares. You know it's just wrong for people to start screaming at you and you recognize stopping it as a good thing.

Fuck labels.

Re:Impracticle?

[jack2000]

Why are you even watching TV in the first place.
Go download what fancies your taste, skip the damn adds. Watch things at your convenience. DOWN WITH TELEVISION NETWORKS!

All these little laws

[LiquidLink57]

From the general feel of the comments so far, it looks like my opinion will be pretty unpopular, which makes me a bit scared to post this, but I really don't like this law.

Things can sound like a good idea on paper, and often have positive intentions, but when you make a law out of every good idea it can create problems. Every law we make takes away just a little of our freedom (in many cases, a lot). Make murder against the law, I lose the freedom to murder you, and vice versa. That's well worth the cost. But all the little laws like this stack up.

I mean in this case, sure, having a commercial that's loud could inconvenience people, maybe annoy people. And I'm sure it'll make a lot of people happy to not have to deal with it. But as Americans, we don't have a right to not be inconvenienced, to not be annoyed. Of course quieter commercials isn't a really a big deal to us. Maybe it will be more "pleasant." But having a loud commercial be a crime? Really?

Usually when someone says, "You know, there oughta be a law," there shouldn't be.

Re:All these little laws

[Anonymous Coward]

This law would not apply criminal charges against TV stations (or whoever). It would just be a civil fine.

So technically, no, even this wouldn't make it a crime to have loud commercials.

Otherwise I get your point.

Re:All these little laws

[canajin56]

If you don't want your freedom quashed, you can kindly stop using the public airwaves. That's the tradeoff. If you want to rob me of my right to have a radio device, because you think you deserve that frequency more, you have to agree not to use it in an attempt to deafen me. Some broadcast networks are horrible about it. Normally the Ads aren't that much louder. Sometimes they even quiet the shows down, too. Like, I have to set my TV from 15 to 25+ to hear what people are saying, then it switches to commercials and blows the TV speaker. If you want to assault me on DVD, fine. Get the fuck off the air you evil bastard.

Re:All these little laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Good points.

Also, what gives the government the power to do this? It's not just one-more-law. Congress just gave itself the authority to regulate deeper into our lives. The U.S. Constitution is very clear on what powers the federal government has. Everything else goes to the states and to the people.

I'm disappointed in the Slashdot crowd for cheering this. Just because it's something we happen to like doesn't make it right.

Re:All these little laws

[sjames]

Well, if it was legal for me to sneak up behind the responsible assholes and blow an airhorn in their ear repeatedly, we wouldn't need this law to keep them at least pretending to be civil.

Keep in mind they are using a limited public resource (the radio spectrum) for this and are only allowed to use it AT ALL so long as it is on the balance more good than harm to the public at large.

Re:All these little laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a great point that should be considered when passing any law, but I don't think it applies in this case.

The way I see it, If there is a behaviour that is universally deplored, why shouldn't it be made illegal? This isn't a "freedom of speech" issue where its the majority quieting a minority voice of dissent, its a manipulative business practice that can at best be (as you say) an inconvenience, but at worst can cause real problems (hearing damage is real!). Take the "Do Not Call" lists. Sure, this law hasn't eliminated telemarketing completely, but it certainly has helped decrease annoyance, and made it harder for sinister telemarketers to prey on the elderly. I can't say I recall even a small set of individuals who were upset that they weren't being accosted by random telemarketers during all hours of the day.

I guess I just fail to see the advantage of allowing louder-than-tv commercials in any context.

Re:All these little laws

[snspdaarf]

Well, if it was legal for me to sneak up behind the responsible ears and blow an airhorn in their asshole repeatedly, we wouldn't need this law to keep them at least pretending to be civil.

Keep in mind they are using a limited public resource (the radio spectrum) for this and are only allowed to use it AT ALL so long as it is on the balance more good than harm to the public at large.

Or any other major orifice...

Re:All these little laws

[mcgrew]

From the general feel of the comments so far, it looks like my opinion will be pretty unpopular

If by "unpopular" you mean "illogical", then you're right. Your argument makes no sense at all.

when you make a law out of every good idea it can create problems

Only if the law is badly written or unevenly enforced, or the idea merely seems to be a good one as many bad ideas often are.

Every law we make takes away just a little of our freedom. Make murder against the law, I lose the freedom to murder you

No, it only tales away anarchy. You do NOT have the freedom to murder. Your freedoms end where mine begin, and that's how it should be. You should NOT be "free" to break into my house and deprive me of my freedom of privacy. You should not be free to take my belongings and deprive me of my property rights. My privacy and property are my freedoms. You and nobody else have the right to deprive me of my rights.

But as Americans, we don't have a right to not be inconvenienced, to not be annoyed.

We do to a point. My freedom of speech does not tale away your freedom to ignore me (and BTW, the first amendment IS a law, and it does NOT take away anyone's freedom or rights). I do not have the right and should not have the freeedom to come into your home and wake up your sleeping children. If I wake up your children I'm doing you harm. It's just plain WRONG to do that, and you have no right to do me wrong.

Now, if you want to smoke a joint in your own living room, go for it. You're not harming anyone. There are good laws and bad laws, this is a GOOD law, pot laws are BAD laws. You're getting "bad laws" confused with "all laws".

Re:All these little laws

[Anonymous Coward]

"Every law we make takes away just a little of our freedom".

that is just so wrong, in every sense, from the philosophical, the ethical, the political, the social, the economic and even the colloquial.
laws enhance freedom, in your example my freedom not to be murdered, or you and your family's freedom not to suffer my avenging friends and relatives.

All other problems have been solved?

[sureshot007]

I'm glad to see they are wasting time regulating tv commercial volumes. That must mean that all of our other issues have been solved, right?

Volume Limiter

[TooLazyToLogon]

Just run your TV sound out through a volume limiter. Turn the TV volume up to a higher level that you are comfortable with during regular programing, Then turn the volume limiter to a comfortable level. Commercials won't be able to go above that volume.

Re:Volume Limiter

[tweak13]

Your setup would also reduce dynamic range to almost nothing. You'd find that listening to something like that gets fatiguing very quickly, plus it'll probably sound like crap. Even speech needs some dynamic range.

A much better solution would be a compressor, which would reduce the impact of very loud sounds and leave quieter sections untouched. Yes, the limiter would also have this effect to a degree, but the usage that you describe is much better suited to the more detailed controls of a compressor. Tweaking the compressor curve and combining that with a slow acting AGC can leave you with quite a bit of dynamic range while still keeping perceived volume to a non ear splitting level.

Re:Volume Limiter

[Pinback]

Back when we watched analog TV, I bought a little Sima "Volume Stabilizer".

It was basically about fifty cents worth of opamp in a little metal case, with an on-off switch and a two setting range control. (Two amplification ratios.)

I used this on the line level (fixed volume) outputs from the TV, before sending it to an AV/receiver/amp. Being a cheap device, it was susceptible to "pumping", but otherwise worked well.

The volume stabilizer amplified any quiet material, and then the AV amp was set for low volume. Overall, it worked really well.

When the CRT was replaced with a LCD, all the extra gear was re-purposed. These days we just don't watch much broadcast TV.

Re:Volume Limiter

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we next ban political TV adds since it is pretty much universally accepted that they do nothing but mislead voters and strengthen money as a deciding factor in elections?

Why Congress?

[chemicaldave]

Why did this require the intervention of Congress and not just the FCC?

Re:Why Congress?

[Attila Dimedici]

Because none of the laws that the FCC is set up to enforce apply to this. The FCC cannot just make up a new regulation on anything relating to TV or radio (or other communication methods). There must first be a law which gives them the authority to do so.
Personally, I think that many of the laws authorizing regulatory agencies like the FCC are too broad to begin with.

Re:Why Congress?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the powers Congress is set up to enforce apply to this either.

Doesn't anybody care?

Typical politicians

[Chrisq]

Senate Votes To Turn Down Volume On TV Commercials

Why waste all this time voting. The one with the remote control should have just done it.

don't worry Republicans will kill it

[cats-paw]

doesn't have a chance of passing.

if it passes it won't be enforced.

enjoy our corporatic overlords.

Re:don't worry Republicans will kill it

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress doesn't have the right to pass this. I applaud any politician who stands against this, because they will be following their oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.

Oh, and stop blaming the Republicans. The federal government is now 100% in the hands of the Democratic party.

Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

One way to work around a requirement to play commercials at the "same" sound level as the show is for the broadcaster to slowly turn the volume down on the show just before the commercial. Then the viewer will have to turn the volume waaaaaaay up just before the commercial comes on, and they get acoustically hammered before they can turn the volume down.

I suspect this is already happening: There's lots of shows where I find my volume is turned right up to hear the dialogue just before a commercial.

I know 3 things are true:
1. The mute button is my friend.
2. The fast forward button on my DVR is my best friend.
3. I watch waaaay too much TV.

Give me a hand here,

[HeckRuler]

What are these "commercials" they speak of?
Also, I'm quickly forgetting what "TV" is, as what few shows I watch aren't on a television, don't come over broadcast, don't come from television companies, and in which I don't watch any commercials. That's how others see them I guess, but meh.

So I guess the only aspect of "TV" in the shows I watch are an arbitrary time factor and some highly circumvented decency rules.

Re:Give me a hand here,

[andrewbaldwin]

Also, I'm quickly forgetting what "TV" is, as what few shows I watch aren't on a television, don't come over broadcast, don't come from television companies, and in which I don't watch any commercials.

But you're still paying for them :-(

For me, commercials are a positive disincentive to buy specific products -- Why should I pay a bit extra to cover the costs of the adverts which themselves pay for channels I don't watch?

The budgets for commercial stations are as big as or greater than publicly funded ones (like BBC) and that money has to come from somewhere -- our shopping bills. People moan about the UK licence fee because it's up front and not hidden in the weekly shop but the principle is exactly the same we're being charged for channels we choose not to watch!

And before the "free market rules" crowd start - after the major supermarkets have killed of most local trade, in most cases you only end up with a choice of which set of advertisers to subsidise. It's worse still for big ticket items - given the smaller sales volume, how much of the purchase price of a car goes to the TV companies (divide the total cost of adverts by units sold)?

Re:Give me a hand here,

[Anonymous Coward]

It always makes me laugh (rather than cry) when I hear "ITV Drama is sponsored by "whatever " (-- I think it's Toyota Yaris these days).

NO IT'S NOT! -- It's sponsored by the people who buy Toyota cars / spares / servicing ... [I'm not picking on Toyota particularly - just want to make the point]

Re:Give me a hand here,

[HeckRuler]

Sooooooo when you buy my crap at the garage sale, I shouldn't thank you but rather your employer...
your employer's clients...
your employer's clients' employers...
uh.... I think your economic model needs work

Re:Give me a hand here,

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does the money come from for any activity? -- the final purchaser of goods or services. Where he/she gets it from is not germane to the discussion.

In AC's post, the end customer who buys the Toyota pays for ALL of Toyota's costs (production, costs of sale, tax.... plus profit on sale) for that vehicle. Since Toyota is spending X dollars/pounds/euro/yen... on advertising and sells Y cars, the end purchaser must necessarily be contributing X/Y towards that advertising budget. Thus, according to AC [and I agree], the end purchaser has incurred some expense which is related to the adverts and thus the station cost.

Add that up for all of the products advertised and bought and a large number of small payments soon mounts up -- it must do if the commercial stations are spending [tens/hundreds of] millions each year.

In your specific case, if I bought stuff from you at a garage sale that money would go to you [and some to the tax authorities] -- if you advertised the garage sale then I'd expect that you'd try to recoup the advertising expenditure across all of the items sold and I would indeed be contributing indirectly to the advertising agency.

Re:Billy Mays here for another exciting product...

[commodore64_love]

>>>Non Pirated material will be subject to EVEN LOUDER commercials that conveniently have the volume control disabled

I hate that. I'll be watching Stargate or something, with the volume at 25%, and suddenly a commercial pops-on at 100% volume. What the fej? Do they think I got up and walked away from my computer? I'm pretty fast but even I can't pea in just 30 seconds. Leave the volume at 25% please.

If someone pisses you off, tell 'em to fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say they're working for the people here. The people already had a vastly superior solution to the problem of loud commercials.

There is a great strategy which is already proven: if someone you're paying routinely pisses you off, and you don't need them, then don't do business with them.

COMMERCIALS TOO LOUD? THEN DON'T WATCH THEM. YOU RESPOND TO ANNOYING ADS ON THE WEB BY INSTALLING AD BLOCKERS. YOU RESPOND TO ANNOYING FLASH BY INSTALLING FLASHBLOCK OR NOT INSTALLING FLASH. BUT FOR TV, FILTERING THE CRAP OUT IS SOMEHOW OFF-THE-TABLE?

Sorry I shouted. Did you have the common sense to turn me off? The point is, we didn't need Congress for this.

Re:If someone pisses you off, tell 'em to fuck off

[SuricouRaven]

Automated detection of TV advertising is currently not technologically feasible. The alternative is to get people to haul themselves out of the chair and all the way to the remote control.

Re:If someone pisses you off, tell 'em to fuck off

[tchuladdiass]

It works fairly good with MythTV, but only for recorded content (it looks for blank frames at 30/60 second intervals).

Re:If someone pisses you off, tell 'em to fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always found MythTV to be kind of a PITA to get installed and configured. Expecting folks to go to that length just to avoid overly loud commercials is a bit much.

Re:If someone pisses you off, tell 'em to fuck off

[omnichad]

Well I'm not sure how you'd expect to skip commercials with non-recorded content being broadcast in real-time. What should it do during a commercial? Change to another show and jump back when it thinks the commercials are over? Or warp space-time and get you on with your show?

I have and love MythTV and it works well - until you get a show with dark scenes that are below the threshold to be considered "blank." On all-digital broadcasts, perhaps you can set it to be more specific. Also, MythTV looks for network ident bugs at the corners of the screen.

Re:If someone pisses you off, tell 'em to fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

Automated detection of TV advertising is currently not technologically feasible. The alternative is to get people to haul themselves out of the chair and all the way to the remote control.

I have a 12 year old VCR that has commercial advance. During recording commercials are automatically marked and during playback they are skipped over. I believe many PVRs have similar technology.

Re:If someone pisses you off, tell 'em to fuck off

[geminidomino]

If you're interested in it, you can check out LinHES (Formerly Knoppmyth, name changed when they moved from Knoppix-based to Arch-based). I've been using it for upwards of 4 years now and, other than some optional remote-tweaking, it's pretty straightforward for anyone who can install an OS.

Sure, until they find a new way.

[TravisHein]

When they no longer are able to transform the commercial audio track to be noticeably "louder", won't they then just start having annoying stroke inducing strobelight-like video effects?

Re:Sure, until they find a new way.

[omnichad]

seizure-inducing, perhaps, if you're susceptible to that sort of thing. Not sure how that would cause any interruptions on the flow of blood to the brain.

A bit late

[diakka]

Now that technology has made this largely irrelevant, congress finally passes a law. This would have never happened 20 years ago when commercial interests would have kicked and screamed saying that it's not fair. If we pass laws it should actually count for something. This was a total waste of congress's time and enforcing it will be a waste of money.

It is impossible to make you happy, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

When politicians pass a very popular bill which has been demanded for decades, has a strong bi-partisan support and can't be interpreted as harming the consumers in any way... People complain that the issue isn't important enough so they shouldn't concentrate on it now.

This doesn't really take time away from "the real issues". While the politicians press the button to vote on this, people who have been spending most of the time on preparing this are government officials, etc. whose field of expertise is in communications regulation/technology/etc (=They wouldn't have been working on the other issues in any case). I oppose any line of thought that claims "They should be ignored completely, even in no-brainer issues, while the world peace hasn't been achieved".

Re:Billy Mays here for another exciting product...

[Anonymous Coward]

The funniest part to me is that BILLY MAYS WAS KNOWN FOR HIS BIG VOICE AND HIS LOUD COMMERCIALS.

Rest in peace, oh perfectly bearded one.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who watches tv anymore?

Dynamic Range Compression

[Chowderbags]

Do they account for dynamic range compression (making everything the loudest possible volume)? Simply saying the volume can't be above X dB means that commercials will be at exactly X dB for the entire time. Or they'll start using odd/distorted/alarming sounds (sirens, glass breaking, babies crying, etc). Of course, I haven't watched anything on my TV in ages, though watching things online seems to be getting worse about this than it used to be.

Re:Dynamic Range Compression

[Spatial]

The regulation is about apparent loudness, so yes.

Re:Dynamic Range Compression

[TheSync]

Simply saying the volume can't be above X dB means that commercials will be at exactly X dB for the entire time. Or they'll start using odd/distorted/alarming sounds (sirens, glass breaking, babies crying, etc)

The CALM Act refers to the use of ATSC A/85 'Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television', which is mainly based on the ITU-R BS.1770 LKFS apparent loudness measurement, which is a frequency-weighted power measurement.

The truth is that an expected loud noise (like seeing someone pull the trigger on a gun that then shoots) is less apparently loud than a surprise loud noise (like a bomb going off without notice), but there is no way to effectively measure that with a mechanical device.

There are other known temporal issues with loudness perception that also are unlikely to be fully comprehended by BS.1770 LKFS, but it is the best thing we have right now.

Interesting, but now...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they need to get movie makers to turn up the volume on dial;og and turn down the sound effects/background music.
You almost need to turn on subtitles/Close Captioning just to understand what anyone is saying....

Re:Billy Mays here for another exciting product...

[operagost]

Hi, Zombie Billy Mays here for LazarusWow!

Are you tired of being dead, and long for some fresh, tasty brains? Then try LazarusWow!

Finally, when TV is almost obsolete...

[Shompol]

Free online streaming on demand (like hulu) already killed TV, for now only for 5% of population, but in the next few years majority will convert. The timing of this law is... ludicrous.

Re:Finally, when TV is almost obsolete...

[geekoid]

TV s not dead.

On demand TV is centralized enough. Meaning I can't go to 1 place and see all my shows, and it's also not a good way to introduce new shows, and it doesn't make nearly enough money.

Effect on automatic DVR ad-skipping

[yogidog98]

Many home-brew and commercial DVR packages support ad-skipping. Do their commercial-detection algorithms use the louder commercial volume to help distinguish ads from the show they're interrupting? If so, this bill could actually be a setback for people who have figured out how to eliminate commercials altogether.

Way to go congress

[moeluv]

I sure am glad that congress is working so hard on important legislation like this. I wouldn't want them troubling themselves with anything trivial ....like balancing the budget or net neutrality or revisiting banking and securities fraud rules. Nice work guys and you wonder why people are pissed at government.

Bayesian Filter

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how am I supposed to tell the commercials from the content? If I can't use the fact that the TV is quieter to clue me in that I need to get back into the room and watch, what will I do?

Oh yeah, forgot, I'll just watch it on Netflix.

thanks chuck, that's just fantastic

[pete's-brain]

Really? That's just fantastic chuck. You're about 12 years to late. That's about how long it's been since I've watched a commercial.

To quote, clark griswald however, "It's good, it's good!".

Hey, any chance you can do something about a real problem? Like say a massive media conglomerate that extorts the general public? What? To busy? Oh, I see. Junket with the drug companies this weekend. Right, well, I understand.

Hey,keep up the good work, we're all counting on you.

-------------------
would somebody please save the kittens?!

OuO

[Iburnaga]

This makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Good

[geekoid]

It's about time. I have written advertisers and the FCC about this issue.

In the 80's a made a devise the shut off my TV speaker when the gain radically jumped.

Unintended consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if there is a commercial with someone shouting throughout that would normally clip the high end of the volume? Perhaps a secondary unintended consequence of the legislation is more in your face obnoxious advertising where people shouting, explosions...etc occur more frequently to have a "legitimate" reason to startle you in spite of the intent of the legislation.

You can't well legislate the content itself without feeding the constitution thru a shredder so maybe it is ultimatly better in the long run for this not to pass. The volume difference combined with changes to mpeg stream serve as a great trigger for automatic commercial detection anyway.

Some Commercials are put in at the cable Headend

[Joe The Dragon]

Some Commercials are put in at the local cable Headend and the tv network do not have control of that volume it the cable that have to control the volume of the ad's that are put in and they may use the same ad over more then 1 channel but each channel may not be at the same Volume.

The advertisers did it to themselves

[ISurfTooMuch]

While I think there are more important things that Congress ought to be doing, the advertisers have only themselves to blame. They've known for decades that loud commercials piss people off, they've been told over and over that they should stop this practice, yet they've ignored all of this.

And some of the blame can also be laid at the feet of the local TV stations and cable systems, whose commercials can air at much higher volume than the network feed they're inserted into because someone is too lazy to adjust the fucking levels properly. Is it so damn hard to fix your equipment so that, when I have the volume set to enjoy "Mythbusters" at a moderate sound level, the ad for Billy Bob's Gently Used Washing Machine Emporium doesn't set off car alarms three blocks away?

And, while we're at it, can we do something about businesses that insist on using little kids in their ads, apparently in the belief that cute kids drive up sales? There's a local furniture store here that uses the owner's kids in every single ad. Those kids should sue the guy for child exploitation. And does anyone else find this practice as nausiating as I do? If you're going to show me an ad, just cut to the chase and tell me about how much I can buy a decent couch for and leave your kids at home where they belong.

Re:The advertisers did it to themselves

[hex0D]

And, while we're at it, can we do something about businesses that insist on using little kids in their ads

but then politicians would have to stop using kids in their ads. So that's not going to happen.

Re:The advertisers did it to themselves

[mdielmann]

If you're going to show me an ad, just cut to the chase and tell me about how much I can buy a decent couch for...

You're under the mistaken assumption that advertising is supposed to give you an opportunity to make an informed decision, not appeal to you (and/or other consumers) at an emotional level.

Re:The advertisers did it to themselves

[LiENUS]

And, while we're at it, can we do something about businesses that insist on using little kids in their ads, apparently in the belief that cute kids drive up sales? There's a local furniture store here that uses the owner's kids in every single ad. Those kids should sue the guy for child exploitation.

Please don't tell me you live in Louisiana. My little brother did a commercial when he was 2 or 3. He loved it. He's long since forgotten it but the filming part was fun for him as well as seeing himself on the television. So suggesting those kids sue for child exploitation would be kind of silly. That is exactly the sort of thing children love, It's also a new experience they learn from.

Re:The advertisers did it to themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

The car dealer pays to have his commercials made. The Ad producer has to pay the "actors" in the Ad. Car dealer's children are now " paid actors ", building up their college tuition fund, or simply giving it to dad, and the car dealer can write off 100% of the Ad productions costs as a price-of-doing-business expense for tax purposes. THAT is why you see the owner's kids in the commercials. And the payments may even be completely off the books by agreement between the Ad producers and the Dealership, thus you, I, and all the other taxpayers get stiffed for that otherwise taxable income. And at the dealership, there will be cute pictures on the wall, when the kids grow up and take over the dealership, showing that ""they've been in the business since they were 4 years old!!".

Amazing Accomplishment

[grepya]

It's good to see the Greatest Deliberative Body in the world getting back to the important business for America.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer

They have *time* to do this?

[Peter Simpson]

But the House has no time to mandate net neutrality? And let's not forget the economy, stupid. Sometimes I wonder why we vote these guys into office.

Re:They have *time* to do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I wonder why we vote these guys into office.

You mean this isn't the "change that you can believe in" you envisioned when you followed the other sheep to the polls last November? I know this is flamebait, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to say I told you so.

If only there were a HOSTS file for TV's

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line above (custom hosts files on PC's that use a BSD based IP stack in their OS' (most all, if not ALL, do) never see "commercials" (adbanners)).

Billy Mays...

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill effectively bans all Billy Mays commercials, as there's no volume control for that gentleman.

(RIP Billy, you were a great salesman.)

Re:Impracticle?

[Anonymous Coward]

So once the television networks go down, who's going to produce the content?

Not when...

[BT224]

...you have an infant sleeping in the next room that gets woken by the new Billy Mays screaming about something. Then it's a BIG irritant.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years back the initial generations of TV tuners came with software that allowed the tuners to automatically filter commercials. If I remember correctly, this software was promptly regulated out of existence. However, at the time I was under the impression that the way the software worked was to look for scene changes, accompanied with changes in volume. It seems that simply not over regulating the market for TV would have been a significantly easier way to deal with this problem, as it would have forced the commercials to be inline with the programming in which they were aired.

Attack on DVRs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. One less thing for my DVR (MythTV) to use to figure out when it's a commercial and flag it for automatic skipping.

doesn't have to be automated

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more than one way to not watch loud commercials, and MythTV is just one of them.

Flashblock is only one of the common approaches to Flash abuse. Another approach is to not install Flash, and another is stop visting sites that deploy annoying Flash. That is: abstinence. Just decide you're not going to put up with the bullshit anymore, and since YOU have all the power in these relationships, you don't need government's help. They are the ones who should be most likely to go crying to government. "Waaah, we run annoying ads and people don't visit our site anymore. Senator, can't you make a law that everyone has to read example.com and load the ads, at least once per day?"

You don't need automatic commercial detection if you change the channel or turn off the TV. Maybe torrent the commercials-edited-out version, or just do without those particular TV shows. Or yeah, go high-tech and get MythTV.

US lawmakers at work for us

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, some very important work is being accomplished on the Hill.

Of all the problems that the American society is facing, we finally have some sensible legislation to make Americans feel more comfortable between transitions of their TV programming to the offerings of the corporate Benefactors, whilst wallowing away in their favorite armchair, stuffing their faces with unhealthy processed food, getting fatter, getting more sick, and costing society more in terms of otherwise preventable health care, and forcing premiums up.

streaming video services too?

[jrvz]

Why doesn't this bill apply to streaming video services like hulu? Their commercials are a lot louder than anything I've heard on TV broadcasts.

Re:Billy Mays here for another exciting product...

[Anonymous Coward]

If your hooker is sleeping, your doing something wrong.

No doubt your a geek.

ALWAYS the wrong answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Appropriate government response.
Requiring that television broadcasts include a stream of information which contains information regarding audio levels which complies with certain national/international standards. Requiring that television programming differentiate commercial/advertising breaks from regular programming and including that in the information stream.

Then PRIVATE INDUSTRY can and would build products capable of regulating volume according to the individual desires of the consumers.

Inappropriate response. Government passing a bill to require television stations and cable companies to keep commercials at the same volume as the programs they interrupt.

So of course, that is what we have.

When dry loop DSL is impractical

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Since when is DSL a landline?

Since some ILECs either failed to offer dry loop DSL or added a ridiculous surcharge for it.

Re:When dry loop DSL is impractical

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the logic.

Some don't offer naked DSL (as it's known here), so DSL implies landline?

I've had DSL without a landline for close to three years now.

Tivo has no automatic commercial detection system.

[anUnhandledException]

Tivo has no automatic commercial detection system.

ReplayTV did and they got sued (and eventually went bankrupt over it despite winning the lawsuit). ReplayTV looks for the blank frames in 30 second intervals +/-2 seconds. Sometimes it would mistakenly jump past content though (Law & Order has noticeable fade to blacks which mess up ReplayTV).

Tivo has no automatic commercial detection/skip system however it does have the next best thing.

You can jump ahead exactly 30 seconds. So commercials come on. Jump jump jump jump jump. Back to content. Sometimes if the first commercial in the block is a good one I will watch that. Makes me wonder if the first commercial spot is worth more.

MythTV impact?

[gov_coder]

I was a bit worried that this might impact MythTV's commercial detection capabilities, but according to this page, it would appear that volumne levels are not part of the determination.

Any MythTV devs reading this know for sure?

Insomnia

[schmiddy]

For six months, I couldn't sleep. With insomnia, nothing's real. Everything's far away. Everything's a copy of a copy of a copy. When you have insomnia, you're never really asleep, and you're never really awake.

Re:Insomnia

[CCarrot]

...and it's nearly impossible to care about anything else, including food.

I didn't have insomnia, but I did enter one of those 'Hands On' contests, you know, where the last person to take their hand off the items wins it? Along about the second full day into the contest, my appetite was just gone, completely. Absolutely nothing looked or smelled appealing, and it was a struggle to choke down half a milkshake (usual favourite) or something equivalent in a day. Many people don't realize it, but sleep is so necessary to our health that extended deprivation will actually cause the body to ignore other critical survival needs, until it gets the needed rest. It was a real eye-opener for me, I tell you. (er, no pun intended...sorry)

The contest was for a stipulated maximum of four days (96 hours), and ended about halfway through the fourth (86 hours). I was wrecked, but at least I did it to myself (being younger and much more foolish way back when).

You have my very deepest sympathies for having to endure that torment for six months, involuntarily. I can't even begin to imagine how you pulled through. Good on you!

Re:Insomnia

[GarryFre]

Six months? Wow, that's terrible, but an accurate description of what things feel like with depression too. Nothing felt real, it felt like everything was made of aluminum. For me the almost dying part was when it first came on. I would go to bed, wake 30 to 45 minutes later feeling like it was 10AM and time to get up and that was all the sleep I could get. It continued this way for three weeks, then I became bubble boy. The immune system needs sleep. There was one study where they took fifty people and woke them up at 3am and let them go to bed again at 5am. The first night of just two hours sleep deprivation took down immune responses by 25% on average. I hope you find some solution to your problem. Insomnia sucks.

Why not ensure competition instead?

[hawguy]

I hate loud commercials as much as the next guy, but rather than tell Cable Companies how to run their business, I'd rather have leglislation that provides true competition. Unbundle cable delivery from cable content - have a regulated utility in charge of the wires that pipe cable to the consumer, and let them sell access to whoever wants to provide content (where content includes internet access). And put the management of the network up for bid every 5 years.

If people really hate loud commercials, they won't watch the channels that have loud commercials. If channels with loud commercials are more profitable, well then I guess they aren't all that annoying to most people.

Right now it's hard to "vote with your feet" because often you have only a single cable provider choice and satellite is not always feasible. If there was true competition, consumers would move away from channels that are annoying.

Of course, that's easy for me to say - I've already moved away form cable entirely, relying on online content (mainly Netflix) for all of my TV viewing.

Re:Why not ensure competition instead?

[geekoid]

Because it wouldn't happen in the market because advertisers wouldn't buy ads.
I can get TV from Cable, two different satellite companies and fios. Non of which has any controls over an ad produced outside there control.

The free market has failed in this case

[euroq]

Yes, I know the subject is a little controversial. I hate it when legislators make laws based on their current whims. I have a libertarian streak in me (but I'm not a Libertarian, but anyways), and I don't like legislators giving me or someone else useless rules and regulations.

HOWEVER, in this case I feel the free market failed the end users. Some of you are making fun of this and about how remote controls already let you control the volume. In recent years, the volume difference between the actual programming and the commercials is so great that me and my partner have to change the volume at every commercial. It's startling when a commercial comes on, and very difficult to watch TV at night when one of us is trying to go to sleep. The free market theoretically should have worked out to where the end user wants this feature, and it will appear. This could be in terms of people only watching channels which don't turn up the volume during commercials. Or in other cases people could have purchased TVs which automatically normalize the volume to a certain level. Well, both of those things don't actually exist in mass market (that I know of... I know some of you will be quick to point out that there are TVs which do have volume normalization, but I just bought a TV and none of the TVs that I were looking at had the feature, so even if it does exist it isn't in most TVs).

Sometimes there are things that the market doesn't handle on its own. This is one of them. And I can't wait for these damn commercials to return to normal volume. Regardless of your own opinions on how much of a problem it is, to some people like us, it makes watching TV unbearable at night.

Re:Impracticle?

[Yvan256]

The television networks, of course.... D'oh!

Stop using alarm sounds too

[HalAtWork]

TV commercials are also notorious for using sounds of alarm clocks, notifications from common electronic gadgets (phones, microwave beep, common PC "important dialog" noises, "door ajar" noises, fire alarm sounds, etc) to get you to pay attention. It's not only annoying but unnerving. What purpose does it serve anyway, do they want you to associate anxiety with their product?

Rescue Me from loud commercials!

[hex0D]

Now I can watch FX without holding the remote in my hand the whole time. That network really seems to allow much louder commercials than any other network, sometimes to the point of it being too frustrating to even watch a show on it when others are trying to sleep. Often I'll resort to closed captions and just keep the volume down to far to hear the shows without straining.

So, while thankful, let me just say if I were to write an ordered list of problems for congress to resolve this would easily have a four digit line item number.

all is well now

[whitehaint]

I'm so happy everything else has been fixed so we can focus on the really unimportant issues.

If you understand the problem, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of just joking about how horrible our democracy is, you could actually, truly fix it using the principles of the free software movement.

What is this, the 90s?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, does this mean people still watch commercials?

Wrong perspective

[hduff]

FTA: a bill to require television stations and cable companies to keep commercials at the same volume as the programs they interrupt

The programs interrupt the commercials, or hasn't Congress watched TBS lately?

Free markets

[Myopic]

Anyone who claims to be pro-free-market and who also supports this law is a hypocrite.

Re:Free markets

[geekoid]

or maybe they recognize a middle ground? If you are for NO government regulations at all, and for this, then yeah.

Most people recognize the middle ground. Stop being so polarizing. We ahve more then enough of that already.

Re:Free markets

[euroq]

Bullshit. The free market failed. The fact is that commercials play too loudly SUCKS, it is a HORRIBLE PROBLEM (maybe I exagerrate, not on the top of the list of the worst problems in life, but still). The free market should have taken care of this. Consumers would either 1. watch channels where that doesn't happen, or 2. Television companies would have produced TVs by now which take care of the problem. Well, that hasn't happened, and the free market failed.

Re:Free markets

[euroq]

BTW I mean to say, bullshit about free-market, I am pro-free-market and I can't wait for this legislation so I can finally go to sleep at night. When some people think "free market" they mean the literal anarchy version where there's no legislation at all, such as against tainted milk, which is not what any sane person in the world would want. So I still support "free market" and think this law is fine; it's regulation, NOT a restriction of consumer options.

Re:Free markets

[Myopic]

Whoa, dude. I *do* recognize a middle ground, that's why I said what I did. It's the "free market" ideologues who show no middle ground: a free market is a market with zero regulation, none, not one bit of regulation. Zero. No middle ground, no compromise, NO REGULATION. That's the definition of "free market".

So yeah, it sounds like you and I agree: moderately, carefully regulated markets are the best markets, because they are best for consumers.

Markets are good, free markets are bad.

Re:Free markets

[Myopic]

(I will respond to your post and also your reply to your post.)

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my post. I am not a free-market ideologue. This is a very reasonable, narrow, pro-consumer market regulation which will improve the world for almost all people. You exactly nailed the reason why free-market ideology fails: because it does not correctly predict the behaviors of actors in the market system. Free market theory, as you say, would predict that this problem would be self-correcting because consumers would reject loud commercials, thus TV stations would not play them. To anyone with half a brain, that is complete nonsense; but free-market ideologues don't really seem to think things like that through. Free market theory is wrong because its premises about human behavior are wrong.

As for your reply, I want to encourage you to drop your "pro-free-market" label. Free markets are markets with zero regulation, where consumer behavior is the only way to affect producer behavior. Free markets are always bad for consumers, because consumers do not, in fact, take the measures required to affect producers. That's the entire reason we have market regulations.

It's nice for people to trumpet how great free markets are, while at the same time speaking in favor of moderate, careful regulation, but that's not a free market, that's called a "market". You should be pro-market, because markets are good; you should be anti-free-market, because free markets are bad. I know, we all love free software, and free beer, and free Tibet, and free Willy... but free markets are bad. We might wish "free market" meant "lightly regulated market", but that isn't what it means: it means "a market with zero regulations". Your wishes and my wishes won't change the definition.

Anyway, and finally, this IS a restriction of consumer options. Consumers now do not have the option of listening to absurdly blaringly loud commercials. I, for one, think the world is a better place without that option, which is why I support this market regulation, this restriction. That makes me anti-free-market.

You still see commercials?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on. You're reading /. Do you actually see commercials? I discovered comskip years ago, got it working on Windows and under WINE and haven't seen a commercial in about 4 years. If you have a DVR, don't you skip 30 seconds at a time (usually 6 or 9 presses) and miss all the commercials too?

Seriously folks, the only time I watch commercials is when I visit family and watch Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer .... again.

Once again, our representatives are 15 yrs late on things that matter. I wish they'd stop letting cable companies screw us by removing capabilities from our service, like the ability for my VCR to work or for my media center to record Clear QAM channels, not this bonehead volume crap.

Senate

[Hamo]

You guys arguing about "government shouldn't get involved" this and "free market" that are missing the real issue here... that the Senate unanimously passed a bill! Personally, I am taking the rest of the day off in celebration of this historic event.

Use your wallet

[BCW2]

I have not bought a quart of Quaker State oil since 1985 when they did the blaring commercials. I have not and will not buy any product advertised this way. If they want my money they can act civilized not like screaming lunatics.

Re:Use your wallet

[geekoid]

pretty much all commercial do that. What oil company doesn't adjust the db?

Re:Use your wallet

[BCW2]

The one that are annoyingly loud lose my business. Everybody has their own tolerance level.

Re:Billy Mays here for another exciting product...

[GrumblyStuff]

Non Pirated material will be subject to EVEN LOUDER commercials that conveniently have the volume control disabled during duration.

I've noticed that Viddler prevents me from muting their commercials now. You can turn the volume down to a near whisper but I bet that level will creep higher and higher.

Re:Unintended conquences

[Technician]

The easy way to impliment this is to simply compress the program audio like they do CD's for FM broadcast. With no headroom for explosive commercials and CSI explosions, all program material will be uniformly loud.

Be careful of what you ask for. You could get sound that is as uniform at your local clear channel top 40 station.
They solved the loud commercial problem long ago.

If you consider the music commercials too, they are as uniformly loud as the shock jocks.

They had time for this but not a budget

[bonch]

Democrats in Congress had time to vote on TV commercial volume but not to approve a goddamn budget for the country. They had much more important things to do, like campaign to save their jobs from an angry public.

Better yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Just blow up your television!

Re:Sirens already solved in most markets

[Technician]

This tends to correct itself. This was tried a couple years ago and it's use has died out. Research showed the moment someone heard the commercial siren, they automatically tuned out the commercial and gave attention to the road looking for the emergency vehicle and most often did not even register the commercial message. When the source was identified as the radio, the most often response was to turn it off and continue to see if there was a real siren in the area. I have not heard a siren in a commercial in several years now.

this is great

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great. Next step: all commercials must be black and white and in monotone.

One Can Only Dream

[Philomage]

or at least until the commercial comes on.

Re:Billy Mays here for another exciting product...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for explaining the joke ... and apparently there was a mod who didn't get it, either...

Let me take a wiiiiild guess

[ThatsNotPudding]

polical campaign commericals are exempt, right?

Free market

[bradley13]

This sort of micromanagement is nuts. My son is - entirely coincidentally - just this instant reading a web-site about crazy laws. Like it being illegal to throw a moose out of a helicopter (Alaska), or it being illegal to sing in public in a swimsuit (Florida, I think he said).

All these sorts of laws - including the one about volume in commercials - are the result of knee-jerk reactions by legislators who have lost sight of the big picture. Probably some idiot did through a moose out of a helicopter - there's no need to add a law governing this. If the government must regulate it, this is in the purview of the FCC.

Better would be to leave it to the free market. As far as I can see, television stations are doomed anyway - the quantity, volume and general stupidity of commercials has increased dramatically in the past decade or two. If the stations continue down this path, in another decade or two, no one will care, because no one will watch standard TV anymore - everyone will be streaming over the Internet.

The Congresscritters are probably hoping that little "treats" like this will save their collective ass in the upcoming elections. In fact, they have once again proven that they need all need to be removed from office for blatant incompetence.

Re:Free market

[geekoid]

The Free Market will not solve this, it doesn't have the power to do so.

This sin't incompetent. They are actually serving a need here.

The unfettered free market has always resulted in economic destruction. Do you really expect large corporation to NOT destroy any competition if they where not regulated? IN your World, IBM would be the only computer maker, MS would be the only OS makers, and Ma Bell would control all communications.

BTW: those 'crazy laws' list are almost always urban myths, or incorrect quotes. but hey, so guy put it o the internet and it appeals to your perceptions, so just nod your head and take you spoon feeding instead of thinking.

Re:Some Commercials are put in at the cable Headen

[TheSync]

Some Commercials are put in at the local cable Headend and the tv network do not have control of that volume

And the CALM Act applies to "Any broadcast television operator, cable operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor". Exactly how cable operators are going to move from splicing local ads of a set "loudness" level into 1000 channels each running at different target "loudness" values is a bit of a mystery to me!

I watch little TV and I agree with it

[Chirs]

It's always been annoying that commercials are perceptually louder. It shouldn't take priority in the business of government, but I think this is a good thing to do.

Re:Billy Mays here for another exciting product...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on a second... you let your hooker stay over!?

Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

My books have no commercials

I never knew this ....

[hesaigo999ca]

I always knew that my GF was busy playing with the remote when I was walking away, usually to play with the volume and I always thought this was why those dang commercials were always too loud, however, now I know better, and think this is a good thing, why should the commercials be so much louder then the show, I buy a TV to be set at a volume that I set it at, not to be changed half way through by someone who thinks I should hear something more then another.

Ban the logos and "dancing ads"

[Anonymous Coward]

So while they are at it why can't they also ban the logos and "dancing ads" during the program?

Re:Ban the logos and "dancing ads"

[fnj]

Ban everything I don't like.

Behind the times

[swfranklin]

In other news, Congress is passing new legislation mandating minimum flexibility requirements for buggy whips. Anyone who isn't skipping through commercials with their DVR deserves loud commercials.

live with old half-deaf guy next door

[Anonymous Coward]

Try sharing an apartment wall next to an old person who can't hear very well but likes to watch shows well past midnight, and come back and tell me of this minor annoyance. As soon as you manage to fall asleep amidst the "normal" noise from the shows he watches, commercials come blasting in and wake you up. As soon as the commercials end, he can't hear the show any more having been adapted to the loud noises and moves the volume UP, making the next blast even more deadly.

There are regulations preventing people from making loud noises at certain hours; loud TV commercials make that impossible - you either make the volume so low you can't hear anything but commercials, or risk breaking the rules if you want to actually hear what people are saying and aren't ready to mute at the first commercial change.

I'm thinking...

[Anonymous Coward]

My God! We need an Act of Congress to control the volume on our TVs! How pathetic we are. All Americans should be ashamed! We are so useless and lazy we cannot act on our own behalf. We cannot petition and boycott cable companies and tv stations. We have to rely on the Feds to wipe our ass next. Where is the constitutional authority to do this? to control the media we consume in our homes? It's a very slippery slope from here on...

Re:Billy Mays here for another exciting product...

[mcgrew]

Sick of commercials blaring and waking up your hooker in the middle of the night?

If your hooker's asleep you're doing it wrong.

Re:Unintended conquences

[cayenne8]

And exactly where in the constitution does congress have the power to regulate this?

Or..just using the interstate commerce clause like they do for everything? I mean..what does a local commercial have to do with interstate commerce if it isn't transmitted beyond state lines?

My new Vizeo has this. Doesn't work.

[Viewsonic]

At all. It sometimes makes the tv content quieter, so I have to turn it up because the guy on History channel that is explaining black holes can't be heard, then a commercial comes on and I'm deaf.

Commercials? What commercials?

[Kazoo the Clown]

Oh, that's right. There are some quaint souls out there that still watch NETWORK TELEVISION, without modern technologies like Tivo. And you see, there's this new technology called the DVD. With Netflix and/or renting, borrowing or buying DVDs, I can watch TV shows and movies whenever I want, and the only commercials I ever see are a few trailers for other films. In fact, my local library has a great selection, and it's what I'm getting for paying my property taxes, so I might as well get my money's worth there, eh?

Suuuuure....

[jack2000]

Because only TV networks can produce content isn't that right guys?

What I'd like to see

[TheABomb]

is DVDs having a "Dialogue-Boost" audio track. If you live in a house with other people, and try to watch any DVD that's not an episode of Mad Men at night, you'll find invariably that every film and television program that exists consists solely of about twenty seconds of unintelligible dialogue, which you have to crank the volume up to 11 to make out, and as soon as you do, you're hit with three minutes of discordant score and explosions, then twenty more seconds of unintelligible dialogue (repeat ad nauseum). It wouldn't be too hard to add in an audio track that mixes down the music and sound effects and turns up the dialogue so you can just hear what the fsck they're talking about without waking up your entire neighbourhood.

I swear, the Brotherhood of Foley Artists and Phillip Glass Wannabes, Local 523 makes Jimmy Hoffa look like Mother Theresa.

Re:Tivo has no automatic commercial detection syst

[mujadaddy]

Makes me wonder if the first commercial spot is worth more.

It is. And the earlier in the program, the more the spot can be sold for, as well. Prices spike back up at the tail end of shows, too, to ride the coattails of the next show. Ditto the 10 minutes on each side of the bottom of the hour in an hour-long show.

IWAMCO (I was a master control operator -- the "DJ" for TV.)

I'm good with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, something good came out of Congress.

Thank you for NOT reading this

[Anonymous Coward]

This will never be bumped up to 5.

Given all the cheap audio hardware out there I can't figure why none of you have no gone to your local music store to pick up a stereo audio compressor. Been using one on my SDTV for years. Keeps those pesky loud commercials in the doghouse.

BTW, yes you do need an external sound system, but the geniuses here should know that!

Proudly AC since 2001.

I had (kinda) thought of this...

[KingAlanI]

...that I would make sure not to play music with siren sound effects off of CDs played into the car stereo. Howeve,r nto as big of an issue with the self-selection involved.

(NWA's "Gangsta Gangsta" is the only track i have that comes to mind right now as having that sound effect.)

Re:---- Fuck Holes the lot of them

[dogzdik]

Really?

.

3am... watching TV....

.

In a quiet voice of salvation - "And I felt Lawdy Jeezers cum into me - I was saved"(looks earnestly into the kamera)

.

.

.

"BUY BUY BUY --- FUCKING BUY --- LOUDER STILL --- ON SPECIAL THIS WEEK ONLY FOR $99.99 --- BUY BUY BUY --- FUCKING BUY"

.

.

.

Wakes whole house up. TV stations are run by fucking tools who should get their teeth rammed down their throats - with my fist. Cunts the lot of them.

blaring commercials compared to show

[umarekawaru]

It's about time someone clamps down on this. To make matters worse, some stations lower audio the first minute the shows come back on. I'm constantly fiddling with the volume control or mute button.

This is sad it took so long....

[awfar]

I mean, something as nearly universally annoying to the public, and it literally takes an act of Congress. Just like the Do Not Call registry.

Do we need to jump through this hoop every time some sociopathic weasel exploits some loophole or weakness in technology (or other)? Or, do we need some baseline of understanding that we have a basic human right to peace and tranquility?

I know that there is a whole judgment thing (who would appropriately judge such things), but come on, and act of Congress?

This will break commercial killers

[WindShadow]

This will make commercials harder to identify automatically, not that anyone would use that to drop commercials, of course.

However, not to worry. Note that the House and Senate passed different bills, allowing them to say "we are protecting you" at election time. If you think they will resolve the differences between the versions and actually pass any law, then you are pretty gullible. And if such a bill were passed and signed into law, the Supreme Court would probably rule that volume is part of Freedom of Speech, just like money, even though my version of the amendment doesn't include any right to make me listen.

On a related note, I see that politicians can bypass "do not call" if you ever voted, since that now counts as a "prior business relationship." I get calls from parties I never joined, and they assure me they have the right. My right to blow a whistle in their ear is protected, too.

TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's TV? ...Lorenzo

Re:Billy Mays here for another exciting product...

[hazydave]

Well, some of that could really be about volume, but it's more about averages. In a real TV show, you have dynamics... it's mid-range, people are talking, etc. Then it gets really quiet, as Col. Jack O'Neill, Samantha Carter, and T'ealk are sneaking down the hallway, trying not to be seen. Almost too quiet. Then it gets really loud, as the Replicators spring into action and everyone's shooting them to pieces... or was it a bunch of Goa'uld up to their old tricks.

Anyway... dynamics. There's a range, ideally something like 90dB or so, between quiet and loud.

Then an ad comes on. That ad has been processed through a compressor, which puts the quiet parts at 85dB, the midrange at 90dB, and the very loud parts at full range 96dB (this is assuming a 16-bit audio sample, which is what you have in most digital TV systems using AC-3 or MPEG Layer 2 audio). Now of course, they've taken that nice 16-bit potential and dropped it down to about two or three effective bits of resolution, but they don't care, long as it's as loud as your explosions ever get.

You can tell if the originator really dials down the show volume. That's really unlikely -- for one, you'd be getting huge variations in volume from channel to channel, which I've never seen. But in normal audio, the average is probably around -20dB from peak, and your loud ads with their compression probably average out at -10 to -5dB from peak... in other words, they can actually be 2x-3x louder in practice than the television show, even without playing any evil games with your show's normal volume. And if they did that, they'd really be cheating you, because the show's audio would have to be compressed, or you'd simply miss part of it.

If there are ads that really show up a VU meter louder than the loudest explosion peak, that's proof they're really messing with the overall show's volume. But I don't believe that's necessary.

In fact, popular music has already been though a loudness war. Years back, with the advent of cheap audio gear and more bands getting more involved with the technical side of their own work, music started getting louder. This was also new for the digital era -- you simply couldn't make an LP that loud, the mechanics of it were against you. But enter CD, and the issue of "too compressed" goes away, at least if you don't care about dynamics. Again, not really louder in peak, but louder over all -- more compressed, so the effect is louder. Here's the ever-present Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war. And here's a short article about it as well: http://georgegraham.com/compress.html. Same principles as the loudness escalations on TV.