Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lightspeed
With the powers of technology, that's how!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerc...Mitigation_Act
"The CALM Act [...] requires broadcast and cable television stations to adopt industry technology that ensures that commercials aren't louder than regular programming." |
That's great 'n all, but how is 'louder' determined? Since volume is subjective, how are we to measure what is deemed 'louder'? Is we're to measure it, say, in terms of dbfs then there's really no need to insist on a national standard of 'loudness' since broadcasters already transmit everything at -10 dbfs. But since the CALM Act doesn't mandate a specific level but rather a vague notion of how loud audio should be (how loud? Not too loud!) then what would a similar vague standard here achieve?
The Australians have an similarly vague code of practice known as
Operational Practice 48. Again, it doesn't mandate any technical requirement to meet a specific standard, just a vague directive that "Commercials must not be excessively noisy or strident." The
Australian Screen Sound Guild explains better than I can why OP48 is not very useful.
Curran talks about some international standard that she believes is being ignored but as neither CALM Act nor OP48 are international standards, that can't be what she's referring to.
This whole idea of Curran's is nothing more than a sop to voters who don't have any important issues they care about. Vote Curran and Labour will save you from pesky commercials that make you spill your tea!