PDA

View Full Version : Audio Loudness Standard for TVCs - A Joke?


Matthew
02-12-2004, 10:34 AM
http://www.ctva.com.au/control.cfm?page=commadvforms&pageID=135&menucat=1.4.28.135&Level=3

points to a new Operational Practice 48 which is supposed to control the loudness of commercials. You know, the compression etc they use to make to TVCS stick out from normal programming. But is this OP 48 useful? ... or is it a load of baloney?

"Producers will be required to certify that their commercials comply with this
OP as a condition of acceptance for broadcast. This will require a
declaration of compliance when the commercial is submitted to the
broadcaster."

Yet the OP does not set any new standard whatsoever as far as I can see.

Section 4 merely repeats the industry standard lineup signal requirement that has existed for years

Section 5 deals with compression, limiting and equalization - but talks about "appropriate use" of that technology so as not to produce "excessively noisy or strident" material.

There is, as far as I can see, no measure or specification of loudness or perceived loudness whatsoever, yet the post houses (such as FSM whose newsletter alerted me to this) are now announcing they will include "compliance to the OP48" on their ident boards(!) even though there is apparently no way of measuring compliance! What???

Can a soundy explain this to me? What have I missed?

shilby
02-12-2004, 11:49 AM
Yes this is absurd. I recieved an advice from CAD reminding me that I had to comply with OP48.
Apparently to get the monkey off my back all I need to add to the ID board is something like this...
AUDIO LEVEL : PEAK -10db.

Take a dep breath and try not to roll your eyes too obviously.

WaZ.

Matthew
02-12-2004, 11:56 AM
AUDIO LEVEL : PEAK -10db.


not even that's in the OP!!

shilby
02-12-2004, 12:07 PM
True, but no whining from CAD yet (not that it won't happen eventualy)

WaZ.

Matthew
02-12-2004, 12:10 PM
What? Your idents are not fibbing, are they?

shilby
02-12-2004, 12:21 PM
LMAO - What? ME ! ... never.
I agree with you though. All this fussing by CAD is a PITA, though I can see why thay are trying to formulate a response to all the Nanas out there who moan about 'LOUD' commercials.

Nanna - I'm ringing to complain about XYZ commercial on telly last night, it was so 'LOUD' that it blew my hearing aid right out of my ear !

CAD - Maddam we assure you that this cannot be the case as all TVCs are certified to be the 'correct loudness'. We know this to be true, because it said so on the board. CLICK.



WaZ.

shilby
09-12-2004, 10:10 AM
I went back a re-read a few docs on the CAD site,

http://www.ctva.com.au/documents/Introduction_of_OP48.pdf

is actually quite clear what they want on the ID board....

"Compliant with OP48 (Audio Levels and Loudness)"

What CAD have NOT defined technically, is what "excessively noisy or strident" levels actually are, other than exceeding the levels we have all be producing to all this time ie Max Peak -10db, I guess their point is they don't want it averaging -10db as well.

I'm with you Matthew,
http://www.ctva.com.au/documents/OP48_Audio_and_Loudness_Levels_July_2004.pdf
is a load of bull, my 4 year old can write better tech specs than this, If this group of bureaucrats have the power to reject work based on tech requirements then I want CLEAR tech specifications not the drivel passed of as OP 48.
In the meantime, everyone should just add "Compliant with OP48 (Audio Levels and Loudness)" to their boards and carry on as usual.
Damn I love red tape, now where's my chainsaw.

WaZ.

Daz
09-12-2004, 10:13 AM
Please don't dis my Nanna.

shilby
09-12-2004, 10:20 AM
I'll bet your Nana could have done a better job on OP48 than CAD.

shilby
01-04-2005, 05:02 PM
A follow-up from our friends at the Australian Screen Sound Guild, including some worrying aspects regarding OP 48 (http://www.assg.org.au/op48.htm)

http://www.assg.org.au/op48.htm

WaZ.

Matthew
15-04-2005, 07:18 AM
well spotted waz. there was an article on this in the herald a few weeks back - I meant to write a letter to ze editor but ... too busy.