Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est la Même Chose
Congress tries to quiet loud commercials . . . again
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. That appears to be the motto of Rep. Anna Eshoo, who has re-introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (H.R. 1084). (She introduced an identical bill last term as well; it went nowhere.) The House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet is holding a hearing on the bill on June 11.
If enacted, her bill would require the FCC to prescribe regulations to assure that: (a) ads accompanying video programming (from broadcasters and/or MVPDs) not be “excessively noisy or strident”, and (b) ads not be “presented at modulation levels substantially higher” than the programming they accompany; and (c) the “average maximum loudness” of ads not be “substantially higher” than the “average maximum loudness” of the accompanying programming.
This isn’t the first time the government has tried to chase down this particular wild goose.
Putting aside the obvious observation that her proposals are a bit shy on necessary definitions of important terms – how should we define “strident” or “excessively noisy”, for example? – we are constrained to note that Rep. Eshoo appears not to be aware that the FCC has already struggled with the issue of loud commercials, unsuccessfully, for nearly 50 years. In 1962, the FCC commenced an inquiry into that very question. (Check it out – Docket No. 14904, 27 Fed. Reg. 12681 (December 21, 1962).) After three years of fact-finding, though, that inquiry was terminated “with little new information gained”. Between 1965-1973, the FCC conducted spot surveys to determine whether any broadcasters were deliberately jacking up their levels during spots – but no such evidence was found.
In 1979 the FCC opened yet another inquiry into the subject. (You can look that one up, too – BC Docket No. 79-168, 44 Fed. Reg. 40532 (July 11, 1979).) After five more years of tests, public comments, industry studies, etc., etc., the FCC concluded that “due to the subjective nature of many of the factors that contribute to loudness, it would be virtually impossible to craft new regulations that would be effective.” The FCC observed that “loudness” includes many factors, such as “audio processing, mood of the listener, listener’s experience with the product being advertised, and method of presentation.”
It appears that Rep. Eshoo eschewed a look back at the record before she introduced her bill. Or perhaps she has been able to ferret out information that decades of FCC efforts failed to – although one could not tell that from her bill. Ideally, this item will die a non-strident death – as it did last year – leaving the Commission free for more useful and fruitful activities.
This is a good example of ignoring known and common engineering principles for political and commercial expediency. It is in fact quite easy to establish specific dBv, dBV or linear voltage difference limits between the video program of interest and the advertisement at any point in any delivery stream, even at the destination in the end user's premises. There are purpose built chipsets and finished devices for just this purpose (called, interestingly enough, compressor/limiters). Just ask any broadcast studio engineer, or pro audio technician.
I'm sitting in my barcalounger eating Cheese Doodles and watching the "NCIS" marathon on the USA channel. It's Saturday, and I'm taking the day off. I don't want to be distracted by having to make decisions or pay bills on the weekend. But now, as another commercial comes on, I'm thinking to myself, "enough already, there ought to be a law." I reach for the remote to turn down the volume. Is it just me, or is the commercial way louder than the regular programming? Yes and no. It seems broadcasters are allowed to air commercials at a volume equal to the peak volume of the program during which they play. For instance, there's a loud bomb blast in an episode of our favorite show. All the commercials during that program can reach that level. In other words, the commercial is constantly running at the loudest volume possible, while the actual show balances the explosions with dialogue at a natural level. The shows have a realistic pattern of volume that ranges from whispering to loud dialogue to loud blasts, while the commercials constantly blare at the peak volume. This issue has confounded TV viewers for years, and is now being investigated by the U.S. Congress, which this week heard from experts on the subject while considering HR 1084, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM). The appropriately named CALM Act would require the FCC to restrict television commercial volume to the average sound level of the program that it airs on, as opposed to the program's peak volume. As I keep having to reach for the remote during each commercial interruption, I'm comforted by the fact that the day of the ear-blasting announcements for male enhancement products, AARP membership and bipolar medication is coming to an end. Soon there could be a law.
NCIS, and any program with 5.1 audio has very dynamic audio and a commercial coming in that format is going to sound much louder than a "stereo" or 2 channel mono signal. Did she ever watch a action movie in a theater to hear how dynamic audio sounds? Or has she used a tv with an audio "process" button that messes up audio by itself depending on center channel information?
She needs a lesson in TV audio and possibly operating in master control to see how absurd her bill is. As it is, we have no control on audio levels of our network delivered stuff on our HD switcher. In upconvert, we can control the items, but loudness is based on dynamic levels and NOT VU or Peak levels. You don't want to hear anything that measures equal in Average levels to a fixed reference or a compressor that puts all audio at one level. Complex audio would be awfully low and announcer only would sound like shouting...much worse than her complaints.
Plus, that in itself is distortion which is a no-no in itself.
Henry Cohen is right.Everyone who has grabbed the remote to boost the volume in order to hear one of those clever commercials raise your hand. Wha ? Anybody? Come on raise 'em up!
Well Barry, the good news is, after the law passes, I am sure you will be able to buy a box from the folks selling the one's you can buy now to "ride gain" (as us old engineers used to call it) to keep the top of people's heads from flying off. And the TV manufacturers will put in a pain maximizing option for you. Put those hands up again. Where did everybody go? Well, both of you purists will still probably get what you want. Just stay CALM.