Island Life: Effective Immediately
44 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
The same issue applies to music. If you make a mix of songs from different CDs, some will sound louder than others. Programs like iTunes have a feature to equalize this, but generally over the past 20 years bands have all been trying to sound louder.
The technical term for squishing low (and high) volume bits closer to the average so that there's a constant volume level is compression , if you want to google up this hateful phenomenon.
-
I was deliberately avoiding the technical term ;)
-
I was slumming it
ah well. that's swell,
orwell that ends well...
insofar as tenets go
- it's "a slum dank case"
(George that is,
Tenet not Orwell)speaking of boom boom and bust
wasn't Cleopatra bitten by an ASB?yrs Con Vole-Looted
-
When 30 second ads are made they take great care to modulate and technically bring the sound levels right up to the permissible level. Programs such as dramas, comedies etc cannot spend the time or money to fiddle levels so keep a safe average level below permissible levels. Therefore ads are at the right loudness. Other items are less loud.
-
I think there are some reasonably quick and dirty software based fixes that can be used Ian, but television programmes are also not aiming to GRAB your attention all the time. Whispered bits are actually whispered, and loud noises can be used for dramatic effect. In contrast, the ads are our to grab attention. I don't think it would be necessarily desirable to compress a drama for example.
Ooh. This is interesting, and disingenuous by TV3
Also, on the so-called Loudness War in music. Check out the animated gif at the top of the page, showing the same Beatles song re-mastered 4 times in 20 years.
-
The technical term for squishing low (and high) volume bits closer to the average so that there's a constant volume level is compression, if you want to google up this hateful phenomenon.
Audio compression is not hateful per se. The question is how it's used.
-
Also, on the so-called Loudness War in music. Check out the animated gif at the top of the page, showing the same Beatles song re-mastered 4 times in 20 years.
I'm not sure that the gif shows audio compression, given that in the early examples even the peaks are far from full volume? With my limited experience of audio engineering, I'd have thought that one wouldn't want to waste any precious bits and introduce unnecessary digitisation noise.
Oh, but I had to laugh at people complaining about a Metallica album being too loud and distorted!
-
Mercifully, I'm no longer a consumer of ads for the most part (thanks GB-PVR).
And mercifully, I'm no longer a consumer of ads for the most part (thanks cable internet and pop-up blockers). ^_^
-
3410,
This is interesting, and disingenuous by TV3
Absolutely. Whoever wrote TV3's explanation -- TV3 spokeman Roger Beaumont may be just forwarding what he's been told to say -- is either lying or so uninformed as to be incompetent to comment on the issue.
I'm not sure that the gif shows audio compression, given that in the early examples even the peaks are far from full volume?
True, except for the difference between the third (1993) and fourth (2000) examples, which shows fairly significant loss of dynamics.
That said, it's a pretty mild example by today's standards. It's a real problem. Many catalogues are currently virtually unlistenable due to ridiculously extreme compression. Post-'98 Jimi Hendrix springs to mind, but there are many others (and worse.) I'm grateful I'm not a fan of the Chilli Peppers.
BTW, Apple have specifically said that they will go easy on the compression for this year's Beatles remasters.
-
Yes, you're right. I did notice that, and sort of ignore it. It does show actual loudness more than compression. However, if you scroll down there is a particularly gold shot of a song by ABBA. The original has a few peaks (fewer than 1% I'd guess) near peak amplitude. The later mix has probably 50% AT peak amplitude. Actually, I should quit describing. Follow the link. That's a pretty good depiction of compression.
I know the Chillis have always been compression whores, and I'm also away that I like your old stuff better than your new stuff (thanks Regurgitator), but I sometimes wonder whether this might explain why I can't stand their recent output.
Also, for those of you nerdy enough to still be hear, did you hear around the traps about the suggestion that kids prefer MP3 sizzle?. The particular version I linked to makes an alternative argument, but while he argues that familiarity and preference are being conflated, I think a lot of the time preference is about familiarity. Actually, there is plenty of evidence that familiar things become more liked.
-
It seems actually the solution for TV3 is much easier than I'd previously thought. The replay gain solution used by MP3 players like iTunes is rather easy. It manages to assess perceived loudness, and attenuate accordingly.
Also, I have no particular evidence for this, but I wonder whether Comskip is sensitive to changes in audio compression? For a computer program to detect the start and end of ads, I can think of several heuristics. Obviously there's timing (TV3's appear to be exactly 4min, TVNZ about 3.5min), there's the splash screen graphics, and the sound changes. If the latter is included, it might persuade advertisers to reconsider compression.
-
It seems actually the solution for TV3 is much easier than I'd previously thought. The replay gain solution used by MP3 players like iTunes is rather easy. It manages to assess perceived loudness, and attenuate accordingly.
Agreed. ReplayGain is really useful. Although iTunes uses its own method (called SoundCheck?), which AFIK just analyses peaks, rather than the perceptual measurement used by ReplayGain. Which is better than nothing.
Players which support ReplayGain tend to be those oriented towards the geek market. -
Audio compression is not hateful per se The question is how it's used.
I come back to find all sorts of erudition sparked by an innocent comment of mine. Still begs the question of why TV station don't lower the master volume when the ads come on. It doesn't seem technically very difficult to achieve - all you need is a brain and a functioning wrist.
-
why TV station don't lower the master volume when the ads come on
I thought the answer to this was very clear. They don't want to. I assume that they'd implement something like replay gain or lowering the volume on the recording, rather than changing the master volume.
As to why they don't want to. I assume the advertisers believe it makes their ads more effective, and the TV stations go along with this. -
Meanwhile, tellies everywhere are muted or channel-changed - or switched off completely in favour of other methods that don't treat watchers like fools.
Is no one doing real market research so advertisers know they're wasting their money? Or is there still a sizeable rump of passive telly imbibers who will take whatever they are given?
And to prove I am not immune, I must say I do love the following advert for its sheer tangential out-there-ness. That's cut through.
-
Is no one doing real market research so advertisers know they're wasting their money? Or is there still a sizeable rump of passive telly imbibers who will take whatever they are given?
Perhaps the problem is that it is marketers doing market research. I sometimes wonder if they've become a little good at arranging questions to provide the desired answer, that maybe they've lost the art of attempting to write unbiased questions.
-
Minister of Justice Simon Power
-
As to why they don't want to. I assume the advertisers believe it makes their ads more effective, and the TV stations go along with this.
I presume the volume change for adverts is partially because people leave the room when the adverts are on or start talking to people.
If you want your adverts to reach those people, raising the volume so it cuts through the chatter or gets into the kitchen is kinda obvious. And I'm sure it's backed up by research. Sure it'll piss a bunch of people off, but I bet it sells more stuff as well.
-
Actually that makes perverse sense - nail us from the other room. I do so love being pestered at a distance.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.