Ronn Blankenship schreef:
> At 15:53 10-03-01 +0100, you wrote:
> >Kevin Tarr schreef:
> >
> > > <paranoid mode> Now think about this, you already know that when a
> > > commercial comes on TV the sound is noticeable LOUDER. I record everything
> > > before I watch it so I can fast forward past commercials, my remote has a
> > > button labeled skip which fast forwards for one minute. This would be
> > highly
> > > unlikely, but imagine advertisers talking with VCR makers and broadcasters
> > > and saying 'We want a signal that will disable the fast forward when our
> > > commercial is playing.' A consumer has no 'right' to fast forward past
> > > commercials. If all of those companies agreed to this who could you
> > turn to?
> > > Coke might have a commercial, in print media, saying 'You can fast forward
> > > past our commercials, those BASTARDS over at Pepsi make you watch theirs'
> > > VCR makers might market certain models, 'This unit costs 2X then other
> > > units, but the fast forward chip is removed!' </paranoid mode>
> >
> >A thought occured to me. Shouldn't we get money for the intrusion into our
> >lives
> >called commercials? It would be fairer then having to pay for all the
> >advertising crap they dump on us through the higher prices we have to pay
> >if we
> >buy any advertised products. All things well, but they use our electricity,
> >running time on our equipment and our valuable free time to get a message
> >across. ;o) (Forgot to mention the assault on eardrums. I'm not deaf, but the
> >increase in loudness of sound in commercial broadcasts seems to imply that
> >I am)
> >
> >Sonja
>
> Technically, the sound during a commercial is NOT any louder than the sound
> during the program.
>
> Let me explain this obvious false statement from the point of view of the
> people who make the commercials. (Remember Obi-Wan's statement about "a
> certain point of view.")
>
> There is a certain range of loudness allowed for the sound on TV. The
> maximum level for commercials is the same as the maximum level for
> programs, and a sound meter will show that both commercials and programs
> stay within that maximum level. The commercials just spend a much greater
> percentage of their time with the sound just below the maximum allowed
> level, whereas the programs utilize the lower part of the allowable volume
> range. So the people who make them and broadcast them can tell you, with a
> straight face, that the commercials are not any louder than the
> programs. (From a certain point of view.)
>
> Of course, the point of utilizing the upper part of the allowable volume
> range for commercials is so that you can still hear the message while you
> are in the kitchen or the bathroom. Of course, so can the people in the
> next apartment (perhaps even on the next block) who are trying to sleep.
That's were you are wrong. Sound basically consists of intensity and wavelength.
The actual loudness might be the same for two sounds but we percieve one of them
as louder when it is in a certain frequency range. It's just that our ears are
more sensible to some pitches of sound then others. We are alerter to sounds in
the upper frequency ranges than in the lower ones. Whereass the sound from nomal
tv programs is a mix af all frequency ranges the commercials are pitched so that
they are specifically in that (to our ears) more sensitive range. Hence the
numbers of decibels is the same but the percieved loudness increases. That is why
the 'voices' in commercials all seem to be somewhat similar in how they sound.
They choose speakers with voices in that particular frequency range to get our
attention.
Same goes for color. We are better with looking at greens then we are with
yellows. There are much more frequencies in the green range we can percieve
seperately then there are in the yellow range. Hence we react more alert to yellow
then we would to green.
Sonja
