Ban On Loud TV Commercials Takes Effect Today

I said by mozumder · 2012-12-13 04:35 · Score: 5, Funny

A BAN ON LOUD TV COMMERCIALS TAKES EFFECT TODAY /an all caps filter? really? people are actually bothered by that?

Re:I said by gstoddart · 2012-12-13 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative

really? people are actually bothered by that?
I don't know what it sounds like through the TV speakers since I always play my TV through my amp, but when you have the volume set for a TV show and suddenly a commercial comes in which is markedly louder ... yes, it's extremely annoying.
Some commercials are played at a significantly higher volume than the rest of the stuff being aired. Presumably to make damned sure you can hear the commercial.
It can be the difference between a comfortable listening volume and "WTF just happened". It's just the advertisers being asshats, and someone has finally told them they can't do it.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:I said by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-12-13 04:49 · Score: 4, Informative

The thing about it is that my understanding is that for most "loud" commercials, they are not technically louder than the TV show. It is just that the entire commercial is as loud as the the loudest part of the TV show while the loud point in the TV show is only for a moment or two before the volume returns to much lower normal volumes. I am sure there are exceptions, but I remember seeing a study which made this claim back right around the time this law was passed.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:I said by Amorymeltzer · 2012-12-13 05:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is just that the entire commercial is as loud as the the loudest part of the TV show while the loud point in the TV show is only for a moment or two before the volume returns to much lower normal volumes.
That's what "louder" means. Put some averages and standard deviations in there if you like, but "peak loudness forever" is louder than "peak loudness for a brief moment." I usually drive my car around the speed limit but I went 100mph once, a car going 100mph all the time is faster than me.

--
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Re:I said by Joce640k · 2012-12-13 05:03 · Score: 4, Informative

It even has a name - "dynamic range compression".

--
No sig today...
Re:I said by DarkOx · 2012-12-13 05:07 · Score: 2

Well fortuitously my receiver has settings to detect when the dynamic range suddenly becomes less dynamic and will kick its normalization. Anything that stays constantly loud for more than a few ms, an it kick in the normalization and compression.
I can't stand watching TV without that feature on. Even most programs are recorded such that events like explosions will rattle the pictures off your walls if the have base volume level high enough that the dialog is comfortably audible. These settings do ruin the effects of Horror movies some thrillers (have to turn off for those), but they solve the loud commercial problem and make most other programing much more enjoyable.
Luckily the amp does keep these settings tied to source, so i don't have to manually change them for tuner/mp3/cassette/wii/pc.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:I said by ottothecow · 2012-12-13 05:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am pretty sure that by all reasonable measures of loudness, that counts as technically louder. If I am quietly telling you a story and in the middle of it, I make a loud clap of my hands and then continue telling you the story quietly, you would not say I am loud. The average volume is quite low. If someone walked in after my story and yelled a whole story at the volume of my clap, you would say that they were loud. For something like that, you can't just measure the peak, you have to weight it over some duration.
Compressing the dynamic range of a commercial to make the whole thing as loud as the peak volume of the TV show counts as "technically louder" unless you are using an unreasonable measure of loudness.
I mean, it is a shame that someone has to actually push through regulations to ban this. It's probably complicated and has all sorts of long definitions about what counts as loud (what if you were just watching a particularly quiet part of a show?)...but the advertisers have brought this burden on themselves. If they hadn't been dicks, nobody would force them to monitor the volume of their commercials.

--
Bottles.
Re:I said by medv4380 · 2012-12-13 05:08 · Score: 4, Informative

That's actually a part of the reason the FCC has taken so long to pass the regulation in the first place. However, that argument no long applies. The technical document describing it is here. That document describes the Normalization process the commercial should be sent though to make it in compliance. Someone could probably try to subvert it, but that's what the reporting is for. If there is a complaint then the FCC will go back and look to see if it was a problem with the Algorithm or if it was someone subverting it.
Re:I said by Grand+Facade · 2012-12-13 05:28 · Score: 2

"Some commercials are played at a significantly higher volume than the rest of the stuff being aired. Presumably to make damned sure your neighbors can hear the commercial."
There, I fixed that for you...

--
Rick B.
Re:I said by X0563511 · 2012-12-13 05:30 · Score: 2

There's already technical means to describe loudness. I hope they decided to use something like that instead of trying to use lawyer-speak.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:I said by X0563511 · 2012-12-13 05:32 · Score: 2

Looks like they DID in fact use something similar. Someone else pointed to this specifically. (PDF warning)

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:I said by Deadstick · 2012-12-13 05:41 · Score: 2

In other words: Hey, viewers, our commercials aren't louder than the program; remember the scene where that guy got shot?
Re:I said by gagol · 2012-12-13 05:54 · Score: 2

I actively uses a compressor when watching movies, mainly to be capable of hearing conversations without explosions blasting my ears off. I call it, the "baby is asleep" mode. I guess it would work with tv shows and ads, but I despite ads so much I dont watch tv anymore.

--
Tomorrow is another day...
Re:I said by Yakasha · 2012-12-13 05:57 · Score: 3, Funny

The thing about it is that my understanding is that for most "loud" commercials, they are not technically louder than the TV show. It is just that the entire commercial is as loud as the the loudest part of the TV show while the loud point in the TV show is only for a moment or two before the volume returns to much lower normal volumes. I am sure there are exceptions, but I remember seeing a study which made this claim back right around the time this law was passed.
Seems about right. They measure internet speeds the same way. My connection is advertised at 25 mpbs because from 2:01:34 A.M. to 2:01:38 A.M. I actually get 25 mbps.
Re:I said by Joce640k · 2012-12-13 06:24 · Score: 2

I hate them. They gradually raise the volume in the gaps between sounds (background crickets or whatever get louder and louder and louder) then SLam it back down again on the first syllable of each dialog, making the first word unintelligible.
I'm sure the tech exists to embed proper compression information somewhere in the binary but nobody except me seems to think it's a good idea.

--
No sig today...
Re:I said by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 07:44 · Score: 2

Remember Billy Mays? His commercials seemed loud, but he was loud even in person. But what made the sound of his voice intolerable was that he was able to maintain the same level of loudness with every breath, and he made sure that 98% of the commericial time was literally the loud sound of his loud voice with no pauses. Even with the volume turned down he still sounded loud because the human voice does not modulate the same with a quiet "indoor" voice as it does when we "speak up" and talk loudly. It actually took remarkable skill for him to speak that way.
So even with the volume reduced, we will still probably perceive many commercials as being loud, or at least obnoxious.
Re:I said by adolf · 2012-12-13 08:23 · Score: 2

No. The law has never (before now) limited loudness on television.
There has (for eons and eons), and continues to be limits maximum modulation (which is indirectly related to amplitude), but that's not at all the same thing as loudness, and has nothing to do with human perception but instead everything to do with minimizing interference.
In other words: The only person confused about what the term "loudness" means is you. So stop doing that.

--
Kid-proof tablet..

Mixed feelings. by gfxguy · 2012-12-13 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know if I like government to get involved in regulations like these. I can't say I don't like this particular one, of course - it pisses me off when the kids are sleeping and we need to turn up the volume to hear the show, then the commercial comes on and wakes up the whole f-ing neighborhood. But I have to wonder if this is the best use of government, and if we eliminated these positions that come up with and enforce rules against things that don't violate your rights, how much money we could save?

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.

Re:Mixed feelings. by fermat1313 · 2012-12-13 04:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't know if I like government to get involved in regulations like these. I can't say I don't like this particular one, of course - it pisses me off when the kids are sleeping and we need to turn up the volume to hear the show, then the commercial comes on and wakes up the whole f-ing neighborhood. But I have to wonder if this is the best use of government, and if we eliminated these positions that come up with and enforce rules against things that don't violate your rights, how much money we could save?
I see where you are coming from, and we shouldn't need government interference here. But if government doesn't create laws like this, then the alternative is that big business sets defacto policies for us, because they hold all the cards. Your only choice as a consumer is to just turn off TVs.
I liken this to the CAN SPAM act. Technically it's a limitation on free speech, but if the government doesn't step up to create policies that benefit consumers, who will? Trust me here, the media companies don't have our backs here. Never will.
Re:Mixed feelings. by interval1066 · 2012-12-13 04:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is EXACTLY where the government needs to step in. Stupid, annoying things like this. When I heard the ban was coming I prayed then and there on the spot and my atheist heart warmed knowing there is a God who loves and cares for us.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:Mixed feelings. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 04:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Your only choice as a consumer is to just turn off TVs.
Which, BTW, is an excellent choice.
Re:Mixed feelings. by ArchieBunker · 2012-12-13 04:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

I look at it this way. People have complained and the market did not fix itself so now government has to step in. I'm no fan of big government either.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Re:Mixed feelings. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 05:01 · Score: 5, Funny

loose: the opposite of tight.
lose: something you had, you have, no more.
English: FUCKING LEARN IT
Re:Mixed feelings. by geekoid · 2012-12-13 05:17 · Score: 2

Why do you think the governemnt has one use? IN fct, why do you think 'the government is a single separate entity from the people?
And save money compared to what?
The government agency, which is run by citizens, are responding the the people. That's their job.
Do you also think the police should handle it when your neighbor is playing music at 120 db when it's 2 in the morning?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Mixed feelings. by geekoid · 2012-12-13 05:18 · Score: 2

You just make any excuse to shove god into the conversation, won't you?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Mixed feelings. by gstoddart · 2012-12-13 05:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

People have complained and the market did not fix itself so now government has to step in. I'm no fan of big government either.
And when, exactly, does the 'market' ever 'fix itself'?
This notional abstraction of the 'market' as an entity which resolves problems for the better is, well, a myth. It's missing all of the mechanisms which would cause it to self correct.
Instead the corporations typically do what they want, and the governments have given them the ability to do it.
The market solution which would correct this would take decades on its own, if at all. Because first you'd need viable competition to the cable companies so there was any consumer choice so they could choose a provider which didn't do this. And the barrier of entry to that is so enormous, that it won't happen. And then they'd need to either stick with the idea, or give up and decide there's more money to be had.
As it exists, the 'market' doesn't naturally settle on an optimal outcome except for the corporations, who basically set the rules themselves. Instead, it's more like a dog which will eat all of the food until it gets sick, and then start all over again.
This idealized entity which everyone thinks is mostly infallible is so heavily skewed and manipulated that it isn't capable of generating the outcomes ascribed to it. And, in reality, that idealized 'market' has only ever existed on paper -- there's always been corruption, collusion, cheating, bribing, self interest and other things. The consumers lack perfect information and make irrational choices. The assumptions on this perfectly even-handed entity are largely erroneous.
Every time someone talks about the 'market' finding a solution I cringe, because the only solution it will ever come to is the one which maximizes profits by any means necessary.
The market doesn't 'choose' to not sell baby formula with melamine in it -- it has to be told, and it's not like "over time people will simply choose to not buy baby formula with melamine in it" solves the issue.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Mixed feelings. by WrecklessSandwich · 2012-12-13 05:59 · Score: 2

It's a limitation on corporate speech. Yet another example of what happens when you apply 1st Amendment rights to corporations: they get a megaphone.
Re:Mixed feelings. by PapaSmurphy · 2012-12-13 05:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Your only choice as a consumer is to just turn off TVs.

Which, BTW, is an excellent choice.
Yep, it sure is! It works in all similar situations too.
Don't regulate spam. If people don't want spam, they can just turn off their internet.
Don't regulate traffic speed. If people don't want car wrecks, they can just turn not drive anywhere.
Don't regulate yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. If people don't want to be stampeded to death, they can just not go out in public.
See, this works for everything doesn't it.
Re:Mixed feelings. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

True. But by not using English correctly, you put a burden on your readers. You are saying: "I'm too lazy to learn the protocol. It's your responsibility to do all the error detection/correction." -- It's just rude.
Re:Mixed feelings. by sjames · 2012-12-13 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem, and the elephant in the room people refuse to look at is that all of that market theory that showed it acting as a correcting and optimizing force were predicated on a great many players in the market with buyer and seller on roughly equal terms. If there were hundreds or even tens of cable operators competing for each customer, it might begin to work, except that there isn't room in the spectrum or on the poles for that many in one place.
None of the market theorists ever considered the case of 3 or 4 billionaire multi-nationals replacing dozens or hundreds of individuals selling in the market. It just doesn't work if the seller doesn't need the buyer as much as the buyer needs the seller.
The market theorists also presumed near perfect information. That is, the buyer could easily know enough about the product to make a good estimate of the value being offered. That went out the window some time ago, and buyers were forced to resort to reputation rather than an examination of the goods. With 'value engineering', market segmentation and rampant re-badging, that has gone out the window as well. The result is that the consumer is left with nothing but price as a criterion for buying and the race to the bottom is on.
You allude to the latter part with the melamine example. The consumer can't see or taste the melamine in the product. The consumer has never heard of melamine until babies start dieing.
Re:Mixed feelings. by metlin · 2012-12-13 07:37 · Score: 2

People have complained and the market did not fix itself so now government has to step in.
That, indeed, is the idea behind Keynesianism. It assumes that while free market is great, like any system it has its shortcomings, and it is the job of the government to step in and fix any systemic issues (including regulations, helping fix broken institutions such as banks and industries etc).
Re:Mixed feelings. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thanks for the useless analogy that has no real bearing on the conversation. Your input is valued.

Re:I am so relieved by gfxguy · 2012-12-13 04:38 · Score: 2

+1 - I don't like loud commercials, but I question the use of resources to implement and enforce laws against things that violate no one's rights.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.

Myth TV plugin? by Hatta · 2012-12-13 04:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

It seems that the FCC is relying on citizen complaints for enforcement. I think a great opportunity is to be had by a Myth TV plugin that automatically checks the RMS amplitude of the commercials and forwards a complaint if it's outside of spec. Clearly we can't rely on the FCC to actually monitor the airwaves for enforcement, but we could do so ourselves pretty easily.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Myth TV plugin? by Nimey · 2012-12-13 04:51 · Score: 5, Funny

RMS amplitude
That's GNU/amplitude, please.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Myth TV plugin? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-12-13 05:09 · Score: 3, Funny

uhuh. clip RMS and he'll certainly go non-linear on you.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Myth TV plugin? by ottothecow · 2012-12-13 05:15 · Score: 2

I don't know why you would want to do this full time. The director chose to have some things louder and some things quieter and it is a part of the movie. Explosions should be big and rumbly, quiet conversations should be soft and draw in your focus.
Obviously there are times when you might want compression--you might want to bring the high volume sections down late at night, or bring the low volume sections up if you are watching it while doing something noisy (sanding a woodworking project, running on a treadmill, etc) but doing it all of the time kind of ruins the idea of dynamic range. It's like listening to pop music on FM radio. Great for a car when you can't hear the soft spots, but not really the ideal listening scenario.
My last two receivers had something called "Midnight Mode" which was essentially a compressor. I don't know how well it works since I never really touch it, but this might be an option if you aren't watching something through a computer where you can use the VLC plugin.

--
Bottles.
Re:Myth TV plugin? by Nimey · 2012-12-13 05:22 · Score: 2

Sometimes the sound engineer will do a bad job. I've watched a few movies at home wherein the characters will be talking too quietly to hear easily, so I'll turn up the volume, then the next scene will have something really loud like an explosion or an ambulance going by, and I have to lower the volume quickly, and then they start talking quietly again.
Dynamic range is good, but only up to a point.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Myth TV plugin? by ArchieBunker · 2012-12-13 05:37 · Score: 2

Because the dynamic range is too great. When the dialog is at an acceptable level the other noises (gunshots or explosions) cause physical discomfort to my ears. Movies on VHS were never like this, as soon as DVDs came out this nonsense started. Look I know car crashes and explosions are loud but come on I'm watching 2D images while sitting on my couch here. You are right about music having no more dynamic range. I do take issue with that. I just like the idea of a hard limit. The volume is set to a level and nothing should be able to go over that level.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Re:Myth TV plugin? by iluvcapra · 2012-12-13 05:39 · Score: 2

A "compressor" just takes the signal, attenuates it if it exceeds a fixed amplitude. It then cranks everything up.
It doesn't actually make things louder, it's just that many films and TV shows are mixed so that dialogue hits speakers in the middle range of the loudness, so the LOUD parts of the movie can actually be louder than the dialogue. Since laptop speakers are tiny, and only just audible at their maximum level, the compressor cranks up all the middle-loudness dialogue stuff, but when you get to a LOUD part, it's only as loud as the talking before it.
The trend of everybody watching everything on shitty computer speakers has started a new loudness war on Youtube videos and the "home theater" mixes of trailers, which don't have to abide by industry loudness standards. We end up cranking everything up and flattening the dynamic range so you can hear the words. I recently mixed a short that played on vimeo, the mix for vimeo have to get a full 10 dB of gain before it was comfortable to watch on a laptop, and this had the effect of making the loud scenes, which are exciting on the big screen, boring and flat. It sounds like the airline mix of a movie.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:Myth TV plugin? by iluvcapra · 2012-12-13 06:32 · Score: 2

Movies on VHS were never like this, as soon as DVDs came out this nonsense started.
HiFi VHSs only have maybe 50 dB of S/N ratio, tops. DVDs have 70dB and then 20dB of headroom.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:Myth TV plugin? by adolf · 2012-12-13 07:37 · Score: 2

If you want less dynamic range from a DVD, just crack open the manual for your player and learn how to adjust it. This is a function that is part of Dolby Digital and it is adjustable on every player I've ever had my hands on.
Some of us like loud car crashes and explosions while watching 2D images and sitting on the couch.
We can have it both ways.

--
Kid-proof tablet..

Fast forward. by csumpi · 2012-12-13 04:40 · Score: 2

Loud or less loud, commercials get the skip button treatments.

And Internet Streaming? by FurtiveGlancer · 2012-12-13 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does the law encompass Hulu and other internet streaming services? Loud and repetitious ads are worse than merely repetitious ads.

--
Invenio via vel creo

Hat to US politicians for their acronyms by Kergan · 2012-12-13 04:42 · Score: 2

Whether the law itself works or not, one has to hand this much to US politicians: over the years, they've turned finding acronyms into an art form. Few -- if any -- other countries have politicians who can boast the same.

Re:Hat to US politicians for their acronyms by Mindcontrolled · 2012-12-13 07:08 · Score: 2

Ah, man. I take our German way to name acts over backronyms like CALM or PATRIOT...

Look at the glory of the LMBestrV - the "Lebensmittelbestrahlungsverordnung", a law regulating food treatment with electron-, gamma-, X-, neutron- or UV-rays.

Or look at the PatAnwAPO, the "Patentanwaltsausbildungs- und PrÃ¼fungsordnung", the act regulating training and examination of patent attorneys.

Only in such nomenclature can you really appreciate the majesty of the law... ;)

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Re:I am so relieved by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

This must mean that all those other more important problems have been solved...

Really? You think focusing everyone employed by the federal government on one issue at a time will solve it faster? You want the communication guys focusing on the accounting issues, and the accountants focusing on the medical issues, and the doctors focusing on the energy issues?

Re:10 Years by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 04:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good thing the free market fixed it long before!

Re:I am so relieved by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you live in an apartment (or even just share a house with other people), suddenly-fluctuating sound levels can pose quite a problem -- particularly if you like to watch TV at night. Commercials are nothing, though, compared to the foley mix on just about every DVD I've ever watched (why they can't come up with a dialogue-prominent audio track I'll never understand).

Great Taxpayer Spending by Jetra · 2012-12-13 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's great to know our money is going to a good cause such as making TV commercials quieter and erections last twenty hours....I honestly want to punch someone. What the hell!? How about using that money to fix our roads or our education!?

Re:Great Taxpayer Spending by geekoid · 2012-12-13 05:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yes, stupid government responding to an outcry from the people~
You want roads and better education? Tell the republicans to reinstate the proper taxes to support those expenses.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

We should all thank God by Lucas123 · 2012-12-13 04:52 · Score: 2

Billy Mays isn't around to see this sad day. RIP.

Whoa, slow down there. by BrookHarty · 2012-12-13 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny

Took the FCC 10 years to fix this? Whats the rush!?

sometime it's just stupidity by Thud457 · 2012-12-13 04:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

One of our local stations seems incompetently unable to match the line level when they insert their local commercials into the national feed. This also happens on certain cable channels, so maybe it's the cable operator at fault.

I've seen this kind of idiocy many places on many different cable and OTA systems.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:sometime it's just stupidity by cayenne8 · 2012-12-13 05:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

So, will this address the commercials compressing their sound so that it SEEMS to sound louder...?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:sometime it's just stupidity by geekoid · 2012-12-13 05:09 · Score: 4, Funny

They want people who went to the kitchen to hear the commercial.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:sometime it's just stupidity by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-12-13 05:35 · Score: 2

They do it deliberately to catch your attention. I imagine that surveys say it works, otherwise they probably wouldn't.
This legislation is about 10 years too late though, I stopped watching commercials a very long time ago.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:sometime it's just stupidity by Githaron · 2012-12-13 07:52 · Score: 2

What's a commercial?
Re:sometime it's just stupidity by ScienceofSpock · 2012-12-13 07:54 · Score: 2

I'm too busy flushing the toilet to hear the commercials.
You have a toilet in the kitchen?
Re:sometime it's just stupidity by k_187 · 2012-12-13 08:01 · Score: 2

Like you've never needed to heat up a bagel on the toilet.

--
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Re:sometime it's just stupidity by mcgrew · 2012-12-13 08:51 · Score: 2

You're just another reason why Boomers don't trust anyone over 90
We also don't trust anybody under 91.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:sometime it's just stupidity by wiredlogic · 2012-12-13 11:41 · Score: 2

Compresion alone is less of a sin than deliberately clipping the audio so the speaker drivers overshoot for extra volume. That's why the annoyingly loud commercials all sound like they have shitty sound quality.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Re:How is this loudness measured? by iluvcapra · 2012-12-13 05:16 · Score: 5, Informative

ITU-R BS.1770-1 or -3 are measurement standards, they don't prescribe any limits. It gives a way of measuring the subjective "loudness" of a program based on a psychoacoustic model but it presumes total control over the speaker system (which TV doesn't provide), and it doesn't say "how loud."

EBU R128 gives a single standard, and you use it with ITU-R BS.1770. The problem is that it treats a dialogue-heavy program the same as a musical program; a musical program has a lot more signal, over a half hour average, than a dialogue one, so a musical performance will tend to sound quieter when put next to a dialogue heavy one, given they're mixed with the same level normalization scheme.

The CALM Act is actually based on Dolby Laboratories technical definitions and the dialnorm subcode metadata in an ATSC bitstream actually has to be decoded and properly enforced. It's not actually LAW but it's an adopted FCC federal regulation. Dolby's standard is to measure the average dialogue level in the program, and only the dialogue, and to use that to derive the normalization level -- EBU R128 uses the entire program mixed together, dialogue, music and sound effects. I think Dolby's approach is superior but more technically demanding, since it requires the person encoding the AC3 bitstream to have access to the dialogue mix-minus, but on professional productions this isn't an issue.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.

Re:Now decrease the amount of ads by iluvcapra · 2012-12-13 05:32 · Score: 2

I had a directing teacher in college who used to direct the old Bosom Buddies TV show -- he went on to do this silly movie about a woman and her big fat Greek wedding. Strange guy. ANYHOO, he brought in a bunch of episodes that he'd done to show us, and the went on forever, and there were like two commercial breaks, each having maybe two commercial, tops. It was amazing how much time you had in a half-hour block back in 1980.

It was cool, but I grant that show felt flabby and slow, I'm sure it didn't at the time, but nowadays people don't necessarily expect less TV show, but they do expect the show to get to the point faster. And the style of shooting and editing lets that happen in a way an audience in the 70s might not have accepted. I'll bet if you showed "Big Bang Theory" or "Modern Family" to an audience of "Alice" or "It's a Living" it'd seem strange and avant-garde, setting aside the content issues.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.

Re:I am so relieved by X0563511 · 2012-12-13 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not like this kind of thing isn't exactly what the FCC was put in place to do...

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Re:Another law so full of loopholes that it's usel by crazyjj · 2012-12-13 05:37 · Score: 2

No it doesn't. The FCC does not, and cannot, regulate cable. This law only applies to over-the-air channels, NOT cable channels. That's what all that "pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934" crap is about.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Another law so full of loopholes that it's usel by geekoid · 2012-12-13 05:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Incorrect.
"Only applies to over-the-air broadcasters, no cable channels"
Broadcast television stations and pay TV providers were given until this date to be in full compliance.
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials

"Allows for a one year exemption for anyone requesting."
If they can show that it is a financial hardship to do it now.

"Does not apply to any commercials put in by your cable or satellite provider"

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
" Specifically, the CALM Act directs the Commission to establish rules that require TV stations, cable operators, satellite TV providers or other multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs) to apply the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) A/85 Recommended Practice ("ATSC A/85 RP") to commercial advertisements they transmit to viewers."

You are just another asshole who looks to complain and thinks an opinion based on ignorance is just as justified as actual facts.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:PBS by TheSync · 2012-12-13 07:04 · Score: 2

PBS member stations (and other non-commercial TV stations) are exempt from the CALM Act because the act only applies to commercial advertisements.

Re:Mixed feelings. UNIONS by Viewsonic · 2012-12-13 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

And when, exactly, does the 'market' ever 'fix itself'?

Unions are the best example I can come up with. When companies run workers into the ground, and the government wont step in, and other better companies don't appear to replace the bad ones, it's up to the workers. Unions are the defacto example of a free market regulating itself.

Re:I am so relieved by Bigby · 2012-12-13 07:18 · Score: 2

FCC was put into place to managed airwave frequencies. It morphed into the Department of Censorship.

Re:How is this loudness measured? by erikscott · 2012-12-13 07:31 · Score: 2

It's not actually LAW but it's an adopted FCC federal regulation.

In all seriousness, I'm curious, educate me - I (naively?) thought if something was an FCC regulation, it would end up in 47CFR (maybe months later). Is there a difference between (administrative?) law and regulation, in the FCC's case or in general, and if so what is that difference?

Re:How is this loudness measured? by iluvcapra · 2012-12-13 08:20 · Score: 2

I dunno :) Congress grants the FCC the power to levy fines and penalties against people that break "the rules," and then it grants the FCC the right to define "the rules," because congressmen don't want to spend time deciding if setup level should be 0 or 7.5 IREs.

More interesting is that by accepting Dolby's standard, the FCC has in fact incorporated a proprietary, black-box technical procedure into US "law."

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.

Re:Now decrease the amount of ads by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-12-13 13:42 · Score: 2

I'll bet if you showed "Big Bang Theory" or "Modern Family" to an audience of "Alice" or "It's a Living" it'd seem strange and avant-garde, setting aside the content issues.

It's true. I've seen it in action.

My parents don't own a television, so they watch little or no TV whatsoever. My mother likes to watch old movies on a hand-held DVD player sometimes, but that's the extent of their motion picture exposure. So on the rare (very rare) occasions when the family is watching a modern movie, it's necessary to explain what's happening. They have to ask.

Modern motion picture making has developed such an abstract language that if you don't practice at watching it, you can't understand it. There are built in mutual assumptions involved nowadays. The director sketches in an outline and the viewer is supposed to jump to the appropriate conclusion, because the director doesn't want to spend the time to detail the situation. The director assumes his viewers can reach the appropriate conclusion and the viewer assumes they know what the director means. For people who watch a lot of modern TV, or modern movies, these assumptions match up correctly. For people who haven't been watching modern TV, they don't even make the assumption, let alone the correct one, and so have no idea what's going on after a while.

As an aside, even for someone who watches a lot of modern television, if you watch television made for another culture, you'll sometimes find yourself in this situation. If you're an American watching modern anime, it's not hard to find yourself wondering if you're making the right assumption, where a Japanese viewer would know for certain. Not only is there an abstract language, but that language is culture-specific and varies noticeably across cultures. The variance is getting more pronounced as time goes by. It used to be, film makers across the world spoke "Hollywood", because that was the origin of the idioms everyone was using. Nowadays, as markets and artists mature, the language of the moving picture is diverging from that Hollywood language and starting to match the native culture better.

Slashdot Mirror

Ban On Loud TV Commercials Takes Effect Today

73 of 383 comments (clear)