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

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

[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

[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]

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

[MoonBuggy]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

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

[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

[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.

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:This is impractical

[nicolas.kassis]

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

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.

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

[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

[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]

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.

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

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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.

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)

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: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.

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

[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.

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: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.

HI

[ghee22]

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

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: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.

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?

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: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.

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

[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".

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: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: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:This is impractical

[Thud457]

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

Re:This is impractical

[characterZer0]

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

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: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: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).

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.

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?

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.