FCC (finally) cracks down on BLARING! TV! ADS! The US Federal Communications Commission has issued rules requiring television broadcasters and cable and satellite providers to maintain constant volume levels for programs and commercials. The rules were issued persuant to the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, better known as the CALM Act, which has been …
I've spent the last six months sat next to a DSP engineer who was writing code to measure the average[1] levels on transmissions and adjust the gain to ensure the ads aren't too loud.
Sometimes, encoder manufacturers get things right.
Vic.
[1] "Average" is actually quote hard to define; each advert is a separate item, and the repeats between adverts are their own thing. But the overall result of Huw's work seems to be a good thing.
Can somebody do the techy stuff and determine (or provide a link) if this will actually work, or if there are simple techniques around it. Or even worse, if there are any loopholes cut in to exempt things like "political announcements".
I know the "audio levelling" is most media players is pretty crap, so can't say I'm optimistic.
While my knowledge of DSP (digital signal processing) is rudimentary, I do remember from back in the 'analog days', one way around "it" was to screw with the equalization. One way to do that was to boost the high frequencies, making them seem "louder".
You can be sure that the people who create adverts will figure a way around this. After all, the sole purpose of a `commercial` is to get your attention.
In my case, "personal living space" is the main house here at the ranch. The field hands and the foreman have access to TV (payed for by myself; I have no idea how much time they waste during their off hours glued to the tube). There are also TVs in the "clubhouse" and the viewing room over the indoor arena, but they are mostly used to review horses & riders in action, as a training aide.
The house TV itself resides next to the front door. It pretty much acts as a key-hanger, hat-stand, dog lead depository, snail-mail/bill holder, sunglasses stand, telephone stand, and the like. I should probably get rid of it, but then I'd need to replace it with a similarly sized bit of kit to do the same job ... and there's the odd chance that I might want to plug it in and watch something someday.
But after years of happiness without TV, the German government decided to change the rules and replace the public TV fees with a household fee.
So, after years of NOT paying for channels I didn't watch and didn't want ... I will have the privilege to pay for low quality low IQ entertainment again in 2013.
Currently the way FIOS is in my house normal TV volume is at level 56.
Now comes commercials and it sounds like volume is at 200.
I own a LG brand new TV
I also own a XBOX360 and a PS3 both gaming consoles and my ROKU device plays sound normally at volume 15 but FIOS TV normal is at level 56? No amount of resetting to facotry default is the NOT the issue and has nothing to do with my TV settings when all devices are at correct volume level 15 but FIOS needs to be boosted up to volume level 56?
The advertising industry has broken their trust with blaring commercial rude commercials.
But it is not just TV commercials but public access TV stations who do not know who to control loudness at all as if an amature is at the controls.
PASS THIS ASAP PLEASE!
We have a similar law in the UK which came into force on July 7 2008 but the broadcasters have found a way round it. They digitally compress the audio in adverts. This means the measurable volume is no higher than the program volume, but they sound much louder to the human ear, so we still end up turning the volume down when adverts come on. I'd like to bet the USA companies will do the same.
http://conversation.which.co.uk/technology/loud-tv-television-ad-advertisements-commercial/
It's not so much "digital" compression, but compression of the dynamic range of the audio signal.
So the loud peaks are reduced and the lower parts of the signal are boosted.
Most music is compressed like this now too so it sounds better or louder on rubbish audio systems (which appear to be the norm now).
With all the modern audio processing techniques, digital dynamic-range-compression, dynamic range compression within frequency bands, etc, it's increasingly possible to make things sound louder (and which argueably are louder) but which somebody can point to a sound level meter (or peak meter) and deny everything.
I'm sure we've been round the loop in this country a few times already.
Given that TV commercials are louder than the shows they're in because they have undergone dynamic range compression, it's certainly understandable that it was difficult to form a sufficiently precise definition of subjective average loudness (as against maximum volume) for such a law.
"""Households across the country will soon get the relief they deserve from the annoyance of blaringly loud television commercials."""
Easily accomplished by turning off the television. That way you can avoid the irritating commercials /and/ the irritating programming. Maybe read a book or talk to your room mate / significant other / family instead.
Seriously though, this bill is just in time, since everyone now has a DVR to skip commercials, or they just watch on some form of streaming service, the ads on which are probably not even covered.
"Easily accomplished by turning off the television. That way you can avoid the irritating commercials /and/ the irritating programming. Maybe read a book or talk to your room mate / significant other / family instead."
Computer not working properly? Dealing with this can be easily accomplished by turning off the computer. That way you can avoid the irritating slowness /and/ the irritating internet. Maybe read a book or talk to your room mate / significant other / family instead.
Car not working properly? Dealing with this can be easily accomplished by not using it. That way you can avoid the irritating firing on 3 cylinders /and/ the irritating starter motor issues. Maybe read a book or talk to your room mate / significant other / family instead.
etc, etc, etc...
Important distinction...
TV = OPTIONAL. One will not die from lack of watching TV.
Car = Essential for many: get to work, do shopping, pick up medication. (NOT take kids to school)
Computer = Increasingly essential: access government services, banking, utilities etc. Most business as it is today unable to operate without.
"Car = Essential for many"
Use public transport, I haven't had a car in over 8 years
"Computer = Increasingly essential"
Pick up the phone, all the services mentioned are available on that. The computer at home is a convenience, not a necessity.
The TV at home is a convenience too. You don't need it, but sometimes it nice to have.
But the point that went flying over so many heads is:
saying get rid of it, or buy another brand is NOT a solution.
My ridiculous example should have been an obvious illustration of this.
Wicker, however, withdrew his support in 2010, stating that "... the television industry has been moving in the right direction on commercial advertising audio volume. Therefore, I do not believe government intervention is necessary at this time."
I wish I lived in MS so so I could vote against this slimeball.
The problem seems to have gotten worse and worse as of late. To the point where I have stopped watching TV because it raises my blood pressure whenever I do.
In a way I'll miss the louder commercials.. I'm reading a lot more now.
"...but writing a law to do so seems a stretch."
Another interesting quote. Translation: "We were lobbied by ordinary punters for a new law, but since they don't fund our campaigns, they can go take a running jump."
On the other hand, these big media firms do, and they say that it's "not necessary" so that's good enough for me.....
Sir, while I share a number of core values with you, shut the hell up. This will be about the only intelligent legislation to come out of D.C. in decades. Given the fact that the political whores are starting their campaigning, I for one don't want to be subjected crap pulled by the advertising industry, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the impending onslaught of political advertisements.
"On June 17, 2010, Barton accused the White House of a "$20 billion shakedown" of oil giant BP after the company reached an agreement with Obama to establish an escrow account to pay the claims of people harmed by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.["
Apologizing to BP, telling people mad at ads to "get over it" .
This guy's choice of finger and choice of trigger really needs to change, as he's run out of feet now. Oh, wait, his district re-elected him last election! And since '85. Oh, wait, this was Phil Gramm's old district. They don't care how idiotic their representative is!
...it only seems that way, but what it is is the compression, which is the way they've always gotten around volume limits.
It's the same thing radio stations used to do (and probably still do) to seem louder than the other stations on the dial.
At this point I'd settle for better audio in the shows themselves, so that dialogue isn't constantly buried under background noise or music.
And I think the music is over-compressed somewhere along the line before it gets added/mixed in to the show's soundtrack.
I know it's do-able, listen to old show or movies, they didn't have the problem and the current show "Burn Notice" does not have the problem, whoever does audio for that show do an excellent job.
Now get off my lawn.
Simply add to the transmission standard a mandatory notification of advert start and advert stop events in the transmission. Then those who still actually watch broadcast TV can buy televisions / decoders / PVRs etc which have sensible config options;
1) Program volume and Crapvert volume as separate settings, you could even set the default...
2) Do not record crapverts for PVRs
See, easy and it is even a commercial opportunity for equipment vendors so the Republican slimeball has somebody to take a bribe, sorry "campaign donation" from.
I have heard an explanation of why this won't work from someone more knowledgeable than I am, but which I can actually understand. The volume level of your TV is the volume you set. Think of this volume level as a speed limit, or as your bandwidth. Most of the program content does not use the full bandwidth. It is normal for the amount of 'bandwidth' used to vary with time. The explosions always sound louder than the dialog, for example. The loudest sounds in a typical program use much more 'bandwidth' than the quietest sounds.
What the commercial makers do is compress the sound information, so that the very quietest sound is only slightly quieter than the loudest sound, and they arrange for the loudest sound to use the whole 'bandwidth'. This forces all the audio to be as loud as the volume level you set.
It is unlikely that this new law will change my experience, here in California, at all. More's the pity.
Does the US still have that thing where they cut straight from the TV show to the adverts without displaying an "end of part 1" card or something similar? In the UK it's mandatory to make it clear where each break is. Shows are also supposed to wait until a natural break but that doesn't always happen, especially when it's a BBC show being screened on something like Dave or Watch and the presenter gets cut off mid sentence. I know advertisers want to be as obtrusive and noticeable as possible but sometimes all that achieves is "I'm not buying *that* because the adverts were so annoying".
... while UK TV has only just devolved to allowing product placement, US TV goes beyond it to have in-program adverts. I don't just mean presenters of live programs speaking an advert, or displaying a product with the obvious branding. No, the USA has fictional programs with characters describing features of products.
> Bingo, no noisy ads, no effort! And no monthly subscription :-)
...isn't there still a requirement to use SchedulesDirect with MythTV?
I know. I hate to be *that* soldier (to paraphrase the BOFH)...
(I played with it a while ago and it was strongly hinted that using SchedulesDirect was required. I figured that MythTV could do the same as a $5 garage sale VCR and accept simple start/stop times. It seems I was wrong, though I never really got it running and lost interest because I don't know when the last time I *cared* about TV was...)
After the ear-bleedingly horrible 'loudness' of Heart and Capital, I wondered if there was any appetite to regulate the levels of compression used in radio too?
I realise this won't affect their appalling playlist/presenters/smug tone of voice etc.
Firstly, when the adverts come on, we nip to the balcony for a smoke. We can just hear the TV at that point. When we can't we know the programme's restarted, and go back in again.
Second, it blows an idea I was thinking about - using the increased volume to operate a sensor, to stop the recorder.
Was it that pra*t Jamie Kellner,who famously said:
"Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming."
Put the fuc*king kettle on.
Your head.
We got cable. We got a box that records the serials we watch. So an evening of brain shutdown starts at the list of recorded programs. Sometimes we watch programs at broadcast time, and we actually have to sit through the commercials. I swear, being able to fast-forward through the commercials, and to have bio-breaks whenever we want, THAT is the killer feature of recording cable boxes.
Quote: "I appreciate Ms. Eshoo's efforts to protect America's ears from loud commercials and our thumbs from arthritis brought on by overuse," Barton said, "but writing a law to do so seems a stretch."
This is the saddest part of the issue (and many like it). There always seems to be a number of people who will act in a way that injures or deprives others, and it seems they will only stop when the law forces them to - resulting in a blizzard of new laws and regulations. And these people are often amongst the wealthiest...
Magnavox was selling TVs with a feature to avoid this problem twenty years ago. John Cleese pitched them in ads. Since any patents should have expired by now, why doesn't every TV now sold have this?
Does anyone know if this was effective? Or was it discouraged by those with an interest towards forcing people to notice their ads?
Unfortunately, "those with an interest towards forcing people to notice their ads" are the ones who are ultimately paying for the production and broadcasting of the programs you are watching.
That doesn't excuse excessive or overly loud ads of course. But ad funded TV (in the UK at least) isn't doing too well these days, so the TV companies aren't doing this out of unbridled greed, they are doing it to survive. The logical conclusion of making ITV even less attractive to advertisers is that ITV won't be an option any more.
Is there are research that demonstrates that louder ads produce more sales?
To me, the ads that seem most likely to influence purchasing decisions are the least noisy; the subtle, amusing or entertaining ones.
If ever I inveigh against an annoying ad, some smart-arse will chip in with "Ah, but you remembered it, didn't you?". As if remembering that the Halifax campaign is clearly aimed at imbeciles would make me trust them with my money. (Nothing specifically against Halifax; I could list numerous other ads that induce rage.)
> Does anyone know if this was effective?
I have a 19" Magnavox* table TV with the SmartSound feature available in the menus. Said TV dates from 1997, has been an excellent set and continues to work very well. (My only real complaint is that the firmware turns the closed caption decoder off after every power cycle, but it's only one key to turn it back on...)
Yes, the feature does work very well most of the time. When turned on, the overall audio level drops slightly. I suppose it simply watches for a sudden spike in the audio signal and cuts the amplifier's gain.
* kind of ironic that the word Magnavox is said to be based on the Latin for "great voice" ... or maybe it means that outright. I'm nobody's idea of a language scholar.
Canada:
Bell 'ExpressVu' satellite TV (my house) - the audio is remarkably consistent already. Rarely if ever have to adjust the volume.
EastLink Cable TV (parents' house) - OMG! Horrible. Absolutely horrible. Insane. Crazy. I'd be unable to watch it. It would drive me away from TV in general.
The ATSC document is a bit of a wade, the EBU one is a bit easier, but I'll try to summarise.
No, no measurement system for loudness is perfect. However, what we currently have in the broadcast world is a maximum defined level (PPM6 - measured on a 10ms integrating meter) that you are not allowed to go over, and a set of vague guidelines from broadcasters on levels (e.g. the BBC specify that speech should be in the range PPM3-5). This allows for all kinds of creative levels of sound, since there is no defined reference level.
DVDs (and Cinemas) do have this with Dolby Digital - Cinemas have a defined setup, and all films are supposed to be mixed in a room with this setup also. DVDs have the "Dialnorm" parameter, which sets the amount of attenuation applied to the output, so that the speech elements should always be about the same volume (between DVDs). This system has been half implemented by some broadcasters.
The new standards (ATSC & EBU) specify an integrated loudness over the whole broadcast which all programs should conform to, measured on a meter that takes into account our perception of loudness. For shorter programs e.g commercials, there is also a peak loudness maximum that cannot be exceeded. In theory, all programs should have the same overall loudness, and the adverts should be about the same as the program. There is little point in dynamically compressing the audio too much, since the result will still need to be level shifted to provide the same integrated level, so all that compression will achieve is to take away the dynamics of the audio, making it sound flat.
Several broadcasters have already implemented this in the US, the EBU rules come into effect next year, most of us who do broadcast sound are working towards compliance now for programs.
The presence of ads on a TV channel is a reliable indicator that the surrounding programme content is rubbish. No doubt the motto of the commercial channel programme-makers is "if they'll put up with the ads, they'll put up with anything".
This is especially true of ads for hair and skin care products. Even more especially the seasonal perfume ads that invariably feature mentally-challenged people who think glowering makes them look sexy.
From time to time there are potentially interesting factual programmes, but they are usually ruined by the way they are obliged to re-cap everything whenever they return from an ad break.
Wicker, however, withdrew his support in 2010, stating that "... the television industry has been moving in the right direction on commercial advertising audio volume. Therefore, I do not believe government intervention is necessary at this time."
More likely, he was the recipient of a "generous" political contribution from the Advertisers' PAC (Political Action Committee for you Brits). Meaning: he's been bought and paid for like all the rest of the Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress.
"Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas rose to speak in opposition, providing an example of his party's antipathy to government regulation" - Or rather is party's simpathy towards companies at the expense of citizens. Rather protecting business interests than citizens' health, eh, who pay the most?
What we call western democracies are in fact oligarchies, "societies in which wealth is the criterion of merit and the wealthy are in control". 'We, the people' was a dream, now it's a joke.
I always thought that when watching live TV the ad break was there for making coffee, urinating and the like.
But how many people watch live TV these days? The beauty of a PVR is that you can watch TV at a time that suits you rather than that suits the TV station and the advertisers. If I don't record TV I pause a program at the start, go and do other stuff (you know, crapping, making coffee, etc.) and then hit play when the program has already been running for a few minutes. This allows me to skip the adverts and other time wasting dross like recaps and opening titles.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
