Loud TV Ads: No Need for Regulation

by on October 21, 2008 · 24 comments

This summer, I posted a tongue-and-cheek piece thanking policymakers for taking steps to save us from loud television ads. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) have proposed H.R. 6209, the “Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act.” (the “C.A.L.M. Act”) to address the supposed scourge of “volume manipulation” in TV ads by making sure that TV ads are not “excessively noisy or strident.” The FCC would be empowered to regulate “the average maximum loudness” of ads to make sure they “shall not be substantially higher than the average maximum loudness of the program material that such advertisements accompany.”

Ken C. Pohlmann, one of my favorite A/V columnists, offers his thoughts on the Calm Act in his monthly column for Sound & Vision magazine in the November issue. “This bill is a totally dumb idea,” he argues, “and it has the added advantage of being unenforceable. What are we supposed to do? Levy a $550,000 fine when Janet Jackson has a volume-control malfunction?” Good question. As I pointed out in my essay on this, the thought of FCC bureaucrats sitting around squandering their time and taxpayer money on this nonsense is really appalling, and I can’t wait to see the reams of paperwork they would spit out when they have to open an proceeding about how “excessively noisy or strident” ads will be defined, measured, and then penalized.

“Fortunately,” Pohlmann points out, “practical solutions are already available from the private sector” such that regulation is unnecessary. He elaborates:

At the broadcast and distribution end, as part of the ATSC standard, Dolby Digital has built-in loudness-normalization parameters. Using these protocols, any receiving decoder will recognize the metadata and adjust the sound to proper levels. All Dolby audio signals are controlled by these parameters; when used properly, they ensure consistent levels across one channel and between many channels. True, some engineers and producers aren’t setting the metadata properly, but that’s a simple matter of education and experience.

At the receiving end, systems such as Dolby Volume use psychoacoustic models that help maintain a consistent level across all kinds of material. They let the listener (not the government) control a program’s dynamic range, optimizing it for personal taste, particular listening conditions (such as late-night viewing), and the gear at hand.

The point is that we want TV with a wide dynamic range. After decades of listening to squashed analog audio from two-inch built-in speakers, we want kick-ass TV sound played through our home theaters. Let’s not mess that up.

As an audio purist, what Pohlmann is most concerned about is the idea of the government coming up with new regulatory standards for advertising that might have the unintended consequence of changing the way program distributors set sound levels for actual programs. Not everybody cares about audio quality as much as Pohlmann and me, but for those of us who do, anything that ended up degrading the soundtrack of original programming would be a huge step backwards. Network and cable television programs are FINALLY starting to catch-up with movie soundtracks after years of being way behind he curve.

Of course, these are the little things people in Congress and the FCC never think about when they are proposing absurd laws like this.

  • http://www.cordblomquist.com cordblomquist

    This has been solved technologically by many devices. Volume regulation is a regular feature on many televisions.

    Oh, I now have regular cable TV, so now I'll understand these comments about the television. My new cable box is the size of a paperback book. I remember when those things looked like small PCs.

  • JR

    Well, it has been solved technologically but unfortunately the cable/broadcasting industry sends in the wrong values anyway so you either have cable-company inserted loud ads or inconsistent volumes between channels depending on your equipment.

    As for cable boxes, I was recently in Office Depot and noticed how they have a few PCs as small as mine!

    But not everyone hates cable. My cable box draws right around 40W, whether on or off so while they shrink (and the cat grows), they keep the warmth that makes them so well loved, and now 24 hours a day, not at TV time.

  • PeteyRamone77

    As someone who has been annoyed by this practice for almost 40 years, I applaud the lawmakers who are taking a stand on this.

    I realize it's not up there with bringing the corporations back down to earth or stopping illegal immigration, but to anyone who watches TV more than a few minutes a day and particularly after 9:00 PM or so, I feel this is an important step.

    Our local cable company, as if regular ads are often loud enough, has their own ads for their different services that run all the time and they are even louder than standard ad volumes, to the point where it's like someone yelling at you.

    I cannot count the times I have grabbed the remote as quickly as I can, not only to ease the assault on my hearing, but also so others in the house will not be awakened.. It's the difference between say a Mustang driving by and a fire truck with siren blaring.

    Being in radio, I understand your sound quality concerns; my pet peeve is compressed sound on some movies on television.

    But given the choice, I will take not having to grab the remote and crank it down, then back up four minutes later, every hour ad nauseum.

    I actually watch through the ads, because I know if not for them, it would cost a lot more to get the programs and I appreciate them paying for much of the cost and feel to respect that, I can at least hear what they have to say.

    But the volume boosting done by technical people is just way out of line.

    Petey Ramone

  • PeteyRamone77

    As someone who has been annoyed by this practice for almost 40 years, I applaud the lawmakers who are taking a stand on this.

    I realize it's not up there with bringing the corporations back down to earth or stopping illegal immigration, but to anyone who watches TV more than a few minutes a day and particularly after 9:00 PM or so, I feel this is an important step.

    Our local cable company, as if regular ads are often loud enough, has their own ads for their different services that run all the time and they are even louder than standard ad volumes, to the point where it's like someone yelling at you.

    I cannot count the times I have grabbed the remote as quickly as I can, not only to ease the assault on my hearing, but also so others in the house will not be awakened.. It's the difference between say a Mustang driving by and a fire truck with siren blaring.

    Being in radio, I understand your sound quality concerns; my pet peeve is compressed sound on some movies on television.

    But given the choice, I will take not having to grab the remote and crank it down, then back up four minutes later, every hour ad nauseum.

    I actually watch through the ads, because I know if not for them, it would cost a lot more to get the programs and I appreciate them paying for much of the cost and feel to respect that, I can at least hear what they have to say.

    But the volume boosting done by technical people is just way out of line.

    Petey Ramone

  • PeteyRamone77

    As someone who has been annoyed by this practice for almost 40 years, I applaud the lawmakers who are taking a stand on this.

    I realize it's not up there with bringing the corporations back down to earth or stopping illegal immigration, but to anyone who watches TV more than a few minutes a day and particularly after 9:00 PM or so, I feel this is an important step.

    Our local cable company, as if regular ads are often loud enough, has their own ads for their different services that run all the time and they are even louder than standard ad volumes, to the point where it's like someone yelling at you.

    I cannot count the times I have grabbed the remote as quickly as I can, not only to ease the assault on my hearing, but also so others in the house will not be awakened.. It's the difference between say a Mustang driving by and a fire truck with siren blaring.

    Being in radio, I understand your sound quality concerns; my pet peeve is compressed sound on some movies on television.

    But given the choice, I will take not having to grab the remote and crank it down, then back up four minutes later, every hour ad nauseum.

    I actually watch through the ads, because I know if not for them, it would cost a lot more to get the programs and I appreciate them paying for much of the cost and feel to respect that, I can at least hear what they have to say.

    But the volume boosting done by technical people is just way out of line.

    Petey Ramone

  • Pingback: Loud TV Ads No Need for Regulation The Technology Liberation Front | Wood TV Stand

  • Pingback: Congresswoman, CALM Thyself! LA Times Eschews Eshoo Nanny State Bill to Regulate Ad Volume — Technology Liberation Front

  • Pingback: important source

  • Pingback: Psychic Reading

  • Pingback: top link building service

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Gloria Bauer

  • Pingback: boucle d'oreille homme

  • Pingback: The Tao of Badass

  • Pingback: topsail beach

  • Pingback: see here

  • Pingback: probiotic acidophilus

  • Pingback: Last minutes

  • Pingback: online football game

  • Pingback: La loi Malraux c'est une réduction d'impôt de 30 % sur les travaux de restauration réalisés par le contribuable sur l'immeuble . Cette réduction d'impôts n'est pas concernée par le plafonnement global des niches fiscales

  • Pingback: betrachten hier jetzt

  • Pingback: Jurken Sale

  • Pingback: discover this link if you can't wait to see a roulette system that is effective

  • Pingback: Discover NHCPS

Previous post:

Next post: