CRTC Regulations on Loud TV Commercials

[jon]

CRTC moves a step closer to making loud TV ads a thing of the past
Canada NewsWire

OTTAWA-GATINEAU, May 8, 2012 /CNW/ - Today, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) published the final regulations requiring Canadian broadcasters and broadcasting distributors to control the loudness of TV commercials by September 1, 2012.

"The rules we published bring us a step closer to our goal of eliminating loud TV ads," said Leonard Katz, Acting Chairman of the CRTC. "We have every expectation that the industry will take the necessary steps to meet our deadline and provide relief to viewers."

The regulations require Canadian broadcasters to adhere to the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) standard for measuring and controlling television signals. Adherence to this standard will minimize fluctuations in loudness between programming and commercials. The ATSC is an internationally recognized body that sets technical standards for digital television.

In December 2011, the CRTC published draft regulations for comment after responding to Canadians' concern that commercial advertisements were too loud.

Broadcasters are also responsible for maintaining the volume of programs. They must follow these rules and ensure that both programs and ads are transmitted at the same volume by no later than September 1, 2012.

Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2012-273
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-273.htm

[Howaboutthat]

So what's the point in saying... "How do we do it? VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME!!!!!" .... if it can't be louder?

[Dave L]

History Channel is the worst offender. Here's an aircheck.

[isthisthingon]

My vote is for worst offenders are CITY-TV 24/7, and OMNI's syndicated sitcoms.

[tuned]

Maybe one of the tech types could weigh in but my understanding of the "loud" commercial problem is that it has do to with compression. Unless broadcasters are deliberately running lower levels
on program and then letting audio levels hit 100% on commercials only? By applying heavy compression to spots it gives the perception of greater loudness when in actual fact the peak levels
are the same. On program audio you'd have more dynamic range whereas with spots you have the needle pinned at zero the entire time because "quiet" sections would be pulled up
by compression. There is a simple solution to the problem. It's called a mute button. The other solution is to PVR the program and skip the commercials. The audio is conveniently muted
when you do that. Rogers are the worst offenders always. For anything. It's what they do.

[jon]

Looking at DaveL's chart, it is tempting to say that it is just a matter of specific volume settings at the TV station. But I'm no longer sure of that explanation.

Have others noted how some program material aired on television varies quite a bit in audio levels from one segment to another? That and other variances in volume would have me questioning whether TV stations have anything resembling the "automatic volume control" we are used to in Radio: a minimum of a Peak Limiter to avoid Overmodulation; and almost always increasing the volume of quiet passages of music and even talk.

[Dave L]

Looking at DaveL's chart, it is tempting to say that it is just a matter of specific volume settings at the TV station. But I'm no longer sure of that explanation.

You are right, it's not the specific levels at each station. Every station, whether radio or television have peak level controls and DJ's, operators and controllers are always instructed to push it into the red, irrespective of programming type.

In most cases, the spots are fine. It's the program's audio levels that are too low. The simplest solution would be to insist producers submit their programs with a minimum broadcast standard for audio as opposed to just video. Then no technical fix would be needed at all.

Older and existing programs would probably need to be re-encoded to bring their levels up to minimum standards.

[jon]

With the exception of CKLG-FM until about 1969, and possibly the CBC's FM stations, every radio station I knew about back then had equipment that would automatically bring up the audio level of quiet passages of music and even talk. How quickly -- Attack Speed is the term I've seen -- depended on the station. CHQM-FM was the slowest I ever saw, and that was no more than 10-15 seconds. Legendary stations like CKLW had a subsecond Attack Speed that, when combined with State of the Art Equalization, gave them a very Loud sound all the time.

That is what is missing with History TV and/or the cable company that delivered their signal to you.

What can be confusing in the whole situation is that cable companies have received at least some of their feeds "early in the audio chain". I have 10 year old recordings of CHQT off Shaw Cable FM and the levels change drastically, but on 880 KHz, there was no such variation.

[Dave L]

AM is linear, so level adjustments are reflected in the output power as opposed to volume. FM on the other hand isn't (TV audio is FM), so cranking up low levels can cause overmodulation (if only for a split second) on the next track within the system, before it even gets to the compressor.

When you drive block to block in your car, it doesnt make any sense to floor it, then jam on the brakes hard to make it to your next stop.

Currently, broadcast quality is only limited to bit and sample rates, but not levels. Cable providers are only carriers (though that seems to be changing these days). They are responsible for maintaining equalized levels between channels, but causing them to make adjustments for bad production levels between spots and programs isn't necessarily fair.

Producers and editors need to step up on this issue.

[Toomas Losin]

I remember the "commercials are too loud" arguments back in the 80's. Not sure if this was in Canada or the US but, as I recall, it came down to the definition of an average level. Commercial producers were able to get around a simple average limit by processing the audio to have loud peaks but an acceptable average. It's just a variant of the loudness wars.

Interestingly, CHEK TV has a Delivery & Format Specifications page on its web site which says "audio reference levels shall be +4 dBu and or -20 dBfS as applicable". It says nothing about limits but that -20 does leave room for some dynamic range. As far as I know, as a technically oriented consumer who'se done some research, -20 dbFS is an industry standard average level, isn't it?

[Dave L]

As far as I know, as a technically oriented consumer who'se done some research, -20 dbFS is an industry standard average level, isn't it?

In all honesty, I don't know enough about television engineering to say for sure, but let's presume you are correct.

That would beg these questions, Are the margins of these levels sufficent to address the problem? If so, why are they not adhered to? If not, what should the standard be?

[Mike Cleaver]

I've pointed out this before.
Most new TVs have automatic loudness control.
Read your manual and set it up.
It will correct almost all loudness problems.
This "autolevel" feature is also included in most of today's home theatre audio systems.
Cable and satellite tv are the worst offenders with levels all over the place.
Levels can be off at the originating station and then are manipulated again when uploaded to cable or satellite and manipulated again when downloaded and sent out to you.
The whole process today is pretty well automated with few humans intervening when something goes awry.

[Anotherwpgguy]

In my experience, TV staff has always had an ..... "audio? ... who cares about the sound, we're a TV station." atttude about their sound levels, fidelity, etc.

AWG

[isthisthingon]

In my experience, TV staff has always had an ..... "audio? ... who cares about the sound, we're a TV station." atttude about their sound levels, fidelity, etc.
AWG

'zactly!