Imagine there are two groups of students, each group with five students. Both groups are given a test. The results are as follows:
Group 1: 100%, 90%, 75%, 60%, and 50%. Average score: 75%.
Group 2: 100%, 100%, 90%, 80%, 80%. Average score: 90%.
Group 2 sure looks like the smarter of the two groups. However, you will note that no one in group 2 scored higher than what someone in group 1 had scored. In other words, the highest score in group 2 was 100%. What was the highest score in group 1? It too was 100%.
So why does group 2 seem to be the smarter of the two groups? The answer is that group 2 had a higher average score than did group 1. However, the peak score of both groups was the same.
It appears that there will soon be a new law in the United States. While Congress cannot do its Constitutionally mandated duty of passing a budget, the Senate did find time on Wednesday to pass a law that will require that TV stations do not play a commercial at a volume louder than that of the program containing the commercial.
I have not been able to find an explanation of just how this law defines "volume." If they define "volume" as the peak level, then broadcasters already obey the law. If they define "volume" as the average level, then that would, essentially, make it all but illegal for producers of commercials to use audio compression -- meaning that this new law tells producers how they must produce their spots.
There is another option: using the numbers from our hypothetical students above, if the scores of the group 2 students are reduced by 1/6, then they, too, would have the same average as the the students in group 1.
The problem with that scenario is that broadcasters use a small amount of audio compression and limiting. The main reason for a broadcaster to do this is that the audio channel is not very wide. If the audio level is not high enough, then it gets lost in the background noise. If it is too loud, it bleeds over into other channels.
Producers of commercials want their messages to be heard, so they often use a great deal of compression on their spots. Program producers, on the other hand, want to maintain a somewhat realistic range of volume -- called "dynamic range." It just would not be very realistic if the sound of someone softly closing a door was just a loud as a bomb going off. So what did the Senate hope to prove with this measure? I doubt they have any idea of what they are talking about. And aren't there more pressing matters for them to be concerned about?
Wow, thanks for explaining this, Matt. I had no idea about audio compression and limiting. I think you made a great comparison.
ReplyDeleteI heard that they passed this the other day and just shook my head as there as SO MANY other critical things are representatives SHOULD be doing. I'm very hopeful for the Nov. elections but if there is a new majority...they better remember why people sent them to congress and stick with the pledge items.
WTF?
ReplyDeleteare=our
sheesh
Thanks, Florie. I had Fay read it to see if it made sense. Glad I did not make it too obtuse.
ReplyDeleteMatt, your analogy is brilliant. Thanks for explaining this in terms we can all understand.
ReplyDeleteI can't for the life of me figure out why Congress would even CARE about such a trivial item. ~x(
Florrie, I hear ya sistah.
This is the whole "there oughta be a law" phenomenon at work.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I've heard many people complain over the years about how loud commercials are. From time to time, I've been one of them.
Now you could probably get a bunch of experts in psychoacoustics together and try to come up with a limiting algorithm which takes into account all the nuances Matt alluded to. Maybe they'd agree on something, maybe not.
But in any case the likelihood of Congress doing something constructive is nil, as is the need for this law (my own preferences notwithstanding).
I understand the complaint. I'm not saying that I have not been one of the complainers, either. But I find it doubtful that the Senate consulted with any experts in psychoacoustics when writing this law.
ReplyDeleteIf I were dictator I'd simply require the that within an ad, the RMS power averaged over a 200ms rolling window to be less than the max of such an rolling average at any point over the last 15 minutes of whatever was on before.
ReplyDeleteOf course if I were dictator, I'd make my cat a Senator, too. (Horses were so two millennia ago).
So be glad I'm not dictator... I am... :)
Hah! The "mute" button is always the first I wear out on remotes.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I were Dictator, I'd make Congress an unpaid position (including expenses stipends) for every day they neglect to pass a budget, past the due date of 01 October, non-reimbursable post facto. Then, if the foot dragging lasted over 3 months, their annual pay and expense stipends would be halved.
And out cat, our dogs and our horses would all be Senators. They know which hands feed them.
I like the unpaid Congress thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd even though I CONSTANTLY complain about this issue (I also hate how loud the music is in TV shows), I think Congress has better stuff to worry about.
Really.
Truly.
Sheesh.
So if I read you correctly, Lewy, you want to be sure that the average during a commercial is no higher than the peak during the program. Did I read this right?
ReplyDeleteAFW, something I can't figure out with music on TV shows now is that they often have vocals. Which are loud. While there is softly spoken dialog. Is the writing or the acting so bad that they don't want us to hear it?
Matt - peak during commercial vs peak during program - should be no higher - also, "peak" meaning something like power averaged over two tenths of a second, not "instantaneous amplitude". That being my off the cuff guess at an "annoyance factor".
ReplyDeleteMy cat would like to address the chamber now.
And if I were Dictator, I'd make Congress an unpaid position (including expenses stipends) for every day they neglect to pass a budget, past the due date of 01 October, non-reimbursable post facto. Then, if the foot dragging lasted over 3 months, their annual pay and expense stipends would be halved.
ReplyDeleteSounds good to me. I think a majority of Americans would agree with you.
Lewy said: "My cat would like to address the chamber now."
ReplyDeleteAri (the real) Dog says he'll yield 5 minutes to feline.
Ike would like to rebut the assertion that the puddle in the basement had anything to do with the canine community.
ReplyDeleteAnd Gertie the precocious chicken invokes her fifth amendment rights when it comes to the chewed up marigolds in the barrel planter.
ReplyDeleteShe's also very nervously looking over her tail feathers for lewy's cat.
"Gertie" is obviously a "Teabagger."
ReplyDelete