Good luck training a machine to decide what the perceived volume is then decide how the human ear is perceiving it in relation to the television programming. Unfortunately sound meters are how machines decide what volume is, and the sound meters only understand peaks, which are the same for the programming and the commercials.
There are average volume meters but the relationship between what they read, and what you are hearing is tenuous at best. That's why a real engineer relies on his ears, not the meters. All the meters are good for is to keep you from clipping a signal.
OK, I think we agree. It doesn't really matter what the meters display, what matters is what people hear. What I was suggesting was that a regulated broadcast/advertising industry would rely on measurements rather than subjective judgment. And that would be ineffective at best, if not downright dishonest.
If you want to be able to hold an intelligent conversation about sound, study every article on the site.
Get all my information on a subject from only one source? I'd rather remain ignorant thanks.
For purposes of the link I gave you, think of the original recording as the tv show, with the LOUD WIMPY SOUND BEING THE COMMERCIAL. The peak levels are the same, but the average volume (aka perceived volume) is much higher. So to make the perceived volumes match, you either brick wall limit the tv show to sound as horrible as the commercial (which wouldn't really work, continue reading), which is a violation of contract, since you are tampering with the programming, or you have a guy sitting there on the board turn the commercial down, which is also tampering with the material and will cost you your advertisers. Since all commercials are mixed differently, it'd be a non-stop job to keep the apparent volume of the commercials right and a human would have to do it.
If it were regulated there'd be no way to measure whether or not a broadcaster was compliant since all sound volume measurement devices register peak volume. The volumes would "match" right now with no regulation.
Again, I think we agree. You're adding technical weight to my somewhat cynical, uneducated, based-entirely-on-observation-and-commonsense suspicions.
The problem lies with the people that make the commercials. The engineers on the commercials are getting paid by these people and if you want to get paid, you do what you are told.
No, the problem is that the broadcasters accept ads that are too loud so the advertisers keep making them that way. They are both at fault. Although, it does make me wonder why the problem of the ads being louder than the programmed content is much more prevalent on one station than on another, even though they show mostly the same ads. (the discrepancy is particularly noticeable here in.au between Ten and Nine)
This is why I don't watch TV. TV doesn't care and I know it. I just don't like the constant auditory assault every few minutes. It drives me crazy.
Fair enough. I do watch TV, but if the ads are too loud, I hit the mute button on the remote. (Hey advertisers! Read this - If your ads are too loud, I won't hear them. Got it?)
If you don't like it, watch a pay cable channel, or watch movies. Stop supporting broadcasters that take overcompressed ads from advertisers.
Or you can complain to the broadcaster. A carefully considered, well written letter of complaint is considered far more seriously than an email or phone call. I can recall many years ago hearing that a single letter of complaint represents about 1,000 dissatisfied customers, whereas a phone call equates to about 20. And I wouldn't be surprised if an email were even less.
The problem actually occurs when the commercial is edited down during filming and production. This is where the sound is Compressed which essentially brings all of the Lower volume portions of the sound Up to much higher volumes often equaling the the Higher volume portions of the sound. This is not really any louder. The highest levels are not affected so it's not actually louder, but since the lower volumes have been pumped up, it appears to be louder.
This is exactly the sort of bullshit excuse that broadcasters/advertisers will use to get around any legislation introduced. "The ads really aren't any louder than the content, they only sound louder." Well guess what? THERE'S NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE! Their audience is people, not sound meters, so it does not matter what their instruments read - if the ads sound louder to human ears, then they really are louder.
However, not so much if you happen to be chinese, though.
One eight? Easy fortune - good.
Two eights? Double fortune - good.
Three eights? Birth (of) fortune - good.
Four eights? Death (of) fortune - bad, very bad!
Given the current unstable nature of the world economic system, is it a sane move to ignore your investments for a year?
No, it isn't. But also taking into account the sporadic nature of connectivity while backpacking, it probably is a good idea to exit any stock holdings and leave your investment capital as cash in the bank for a year. Sure, it's a lower interest rate, but you can rest easy in the knowledge that your capital won't decrease.
That's not depression, that's just not enjoying your job. Try going to bed dreading the idea of waking up in the morning - every single day - for months on end.
The end result is a tarry dusty sticky thick layer which stinks, is slightly electrically conductive, stops optical lenses from working, and prevents cooling from working efficiently.
Agreed. But it's not an OSHA violation. And that's what Apple is claiming, according to TFS. They should have the balls to say it's damaged, rather than it's "icky".
Sure it stinks and there's a coating of tar on everything. You know what else? A lot the dust that usually collects as dust puppies is now stuck to the tar. This aggregate of tar and dust acts like an insulating blanket, preventing effective heat dissipation. Tobacco smoke is really bad for computers!
But you know what is absent inside the computers of smokers? Second hand smoke, that's what. Once the computer gets to the service centre, all the smoke has either exited the case or condensed as tar. So there's no danger from second-hand smoke. Apple should make it clear that contamination by tobacco smoke can void the warranty on the grounds that it can cause technical problems, but this business with secondhand smoke being an OSHA violation is utter bullshit.
- I get a little fed up with these arbitrary cultural rules that seem to have no basis for existing.
The point about "arbitrary cultural rules" is not that they are arbitrary, but that they are rules. Right or wrong, they exist and they aren't going to change just because you want them to. Be fed up with them all you like, but should you break them, be prepared to accept the consequences.
So what's the problem with taxing all religions as if they were businesses? Tax them a certain proportion of their profits - no profits, no tax. I'd expect that the Cult of Scientology would be among the first to get wholly reamed via the new taxation regimen.
I find it hard to watch movies like this one. I cannot suspend reality enough. Yet, I watch Star Trek where humanity has ended all internal conflict. Go figure.
I'm pretty much the same. I think it's because something very early on in some movies is so thoroughly unbelievable that I think "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." and I can enjoy it without needing to believe it.
Now in 2012, I had my "Kansas" moment in the first scene. Our hero descends into the world's deepest copper mine via a rickety old mine elevator to find a particle physics lab in a geology lab - and no cleanroom to speak of. My "Kansas" moment was confirmed within a couple of minutes with the whole "mutating neutrinos" thing. The cause of the world's ills might as well have been a wicked witch or a martian death ray.
That might happen under natural selection, after a few hundred (thousand?) years. But we artificially select these bacteria for their ability to glow in the presence of boom-dust, therefore natural selection is irrelevant.
Uhh yeah, pretty much what he said! Seriously, the best review I heard was from a friend who said "They spent a squillion bucks making the movie and once the special effects start, you can see where the money went." So I knew what I was in for. I expected little more than lots of big things blowing up or falling apart and making lots of big noises, and I loved it!
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be silly. There's no sharks in space.
Maybe not yet!
Dear Mr. Onlooker,
It is not the invasion of privacy that is funny here. Move along, you need not be concerned.
Signed
The Humor Police
Good luck training a machine to decide what the perceived volume is then decide how the human ear is perceiving it in relation to the television programming. Unfortunately sound meters are how machines decide what volume is, and the sound meters only understand peaks, which are the same for the programming and the commercials.
There are average volume meters but the relationship between what they read, and what you are hearing is tenuous at best. That's why a real engineer relies on his ears, not the meters. All the meters are good for is to keep you from clipping a signal.
OK, I think we agree. It doesn't really matter what the meters display, what matters is what people hear. What I was suggesting was that a regulated broadcast/advertising industry would rely on measurements rather than subjective judgment. And that would be ineffective at best, if not downright dishonest.
You have no idea how sound engineering works...
You're right, I don't.
I'll do you a favor. Go learn something: http://www.digido.com/loudness-war-explained.html
Thanks. That was interesting.
If you want to be able to hold an intelligent conversation about sound, study every article on the site.
Get all my information on a subject from only one source? I'd rather remain ignorant thanks.
For purposes of the link I gave you, think of the original recording as the tv show, with the LOUD WIMPY SOUND BEING THE COMMERCIAL. The peak levels are the same, but the average volume (aka perceived volume) is much higher. So to make the perceived volumes match, you either brick wall limit the tv show to sound as horrible as the commercial (which wouldn't really work, continue reading), which is a violation of contract, since you are tampering with the programming, or you have a guy sitting there on the board turn the commercial down, which is also tampering with the material and will cost you your advertisers. Since all commercials are mixed differently, it'd be a non-stop job to keep the apparent volume of the commercials right and a human would have to do it.
If it were regulated there'd be no way to measure whether or not a broadcaster was compliant since all sound volume measurement devices register peak volume. The volumes would "match" right now with no regulation.
Again, I think we agree. You're adding technical weight to my somewhat cynical, uneducated, based-entirely-on-observation-and-commonsense suspicions.
The problem lies with the people that make the commercials. The engineers on the commercials are getting paid by these people and if you want to get paid, you do what you are told.
No, the problem is that the broadcasters accept ads that are too loud so the advertisers keep making them that way. They are both at fault. Although, it does make me wonder why the problem of the ads being louder than the programmed content is much more prevalent on one station than on another, even though they show mostly the same ads. (the discrepancy is particularly noticeable here in .au between Ten and Nine)
This is why I don't watch TV. TV doesn't care and I know it. I just don't like the constant auditory assault every few minutes. It drives me crazy.
Fair enough. I do watch TV, but if the ads are too loud, I hit the mute button on the remote. (Hey advertisers! Read this - If your ads are too loud, I won't hear them. Got it?)
If you don't like it, watch a pay cable channel, or watch movies. Stop supporting broadcasters that take overcompressed ads from advertisers.
Or you can complain to the broadcaster. A carefully considered, well written letter of complaint is considered far more seriously than an email or phone call. I can recall many years ago hearing that a single letter of complaint represents about 1,000 dissatisfied customers, whereas a phone call equates to about 20. And I wouldn't be surprised if an email were even less.
Dream on, you're on Slashdot.
Oh, that explains why I thought of Vir Cotto instead of virgins. (Own up, people - I know I can't be the only one!)
This is exactly the sort of bullshit excuse that broadcasters/advertisers will use to get around any legislation introduced. "The ads really aren't any louder than the content, they only sound louder." Well guess what? THERE'S NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE! Their audience is people, not sound meters, so it does not matter what their instruments read - if the ads sound louder to human ears, then they really are louder.
OK, I'm willing to sacrifice my bonus points...Just how do we make the jump from Blood Sweat and Tears to Macarthur Park?
Awesome IP address, too (ping -a 8.8.8.8)
The alternate is equally cool (8.8.4.4)
However, not so much if you happen to be chinese, though.
One eight? Easy fortune - good.
Two eights? Double fortune - good.
Three eights? Birth (of) fortune - good.
Four eights? Death (of) fortune - bad, very bad!
Given the current unstable nature of the world economic system, is it a sane move to ignore your investments for a year?
No, it isn't. But also taking into account the sporadic nature of connectivity while backpacking, it probably is a good idea to exit any stock holdings and leave your investment capital as cash in the bank for a year. Sure, it's a lower interest rate, but you can rest easy in the knowledge that your capital won't decrease.
Urban Myth? I'm devastated. Little hint though - The joke is in the well-known myth of her death, not in the lesser-known truth of it.
"A ham sandwich? That sounds harmless." - Mama Cass.
I think he's a fucking law enforcement officer.
The urge to what? Oh, I see, you ended a sentence with a preposition and an ellipsis just to enrage the Grammar Nazis*.
(* What's this? I seem to have misspelled Grammer Nazi's)
That's not depression, that's just not enjoying your job. Try going to bed dreading the idea of waking up in the morning - every single day - for months on end.
The end result is a tarry dusty sticky thick layer which stinks, is slightly electrically conductive, stops optical lenses from working, and prevents cooling from working efficiently.
Agreed. But it's not an OSHA violation. And that's what Apple is claiming, according to TFS. They should have the balls to say it's damaged, rather than it's "icky".
Sure it stinks and there's a coating of tar on everything. You know what else? A lot the dust that usually collects as dust puppies is now stuck to the tar. This aggregate of tar and dust acts like an insulating blanket, preventing effective heat dissipation. Tobacco smoke is really bad for computers!
But you know what is absent inside the computers of smokers? Second hand smoke, that's what. Once the computer gets to the service centre, all the smoke has either exited the case or condensed as tar. So there's no danger from second-hand smoke. Apple should make it clear that contamination by tobacco smoke can void the warranty on the grounds that it can cause technical problems, but this business with secondhand smoke being an OSHA violation is utter bullshit.
Two wongs don't make a right....
But occasionally, two Wongs make a white.
You know what they say...
Occidents will happen!
Actually, the word was not pussy, it was the C word.
Are you sure? TFS mentions a "feline-inspired vulgarity", and I can't see how "Cat" is a vulgarity.
Point -
- I get a little fed up with these arbitrary cultural rules that seem to have no basis for existing.
The point about "arbitrary cultural rules" is not that they are arbitrary, but that they are rules. Right or wrong, they exist and they aren't going to change just because you want them to. Be fed up with them all you like, but should you break them, be prepared to accept the consequences.
Relax, AC's just making a slashdot post. It's not like he's over-engineering a recipe for a crappy bar-room snack by using heavy industrial equipment.
So what's the problem with taxing all religions as if they were businesses? Tax them a certain proportion of their profits - no profits, no tax. I'd expect that the Cult of Scientology would be among the first to get wholly reamed via the new taxation regimen.
I find it hard to watch movies like this one. I cannot suspend reality enough. Yet, I watch Star Trek where humanity has ended all internal conflict. Go figure.
I'm pretty much the same. I think it's because something very early on in some movies is so thoroughly unbelievable that I think "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." and I can enjoy it without needing to believe it.
Now in 2012, I had my "Kansas" moment in the first scene. Our hero descends into the world's deepest copper mine via a rickety old mine elevator to find a particle physics lab in a geology lab - and no cleanroom to speak of. My "Kansas" moment was confirmed within a couple of minutes with the whole "mutating neutrinos" thing. The cause of the world's ills might as well have been a wicked witch or a martian death ray.
That might happen under natural selection, after a few hundred (thousand?) years. But we artificially select these bacteria for their ability to glow in the presence of boom-dust, therefore natural selection is irrelevant.
Uhh yeah, pretty much what he said! Seriously, the best review I heard was from a friend who said "They spent a squillion bucks making the movie and once the special effects start, you can see where the money went." So I knew what I was in for. I expected little more than lots of big things blowing up or falling apart and making lots of big noises, and I loved it!
The "Darwin Award" is pure bullshit; evolution doesn't work like that.
Whoosh, buddy. Whoosh!
Touché, mon ami!