[BC] DTV Audio Levels

[Cowboy]

On Monday 15 June 2009 11:12 pm, Rich Wood wrote:
>  ------ At 08:23 AM 6/15/2009, Cowboy wrote: -------
>  
>  >  This one is bigger than radio guys can ( at first ) imagine !
>  
>  Why is that? The concept is easy to imagine. Does my TV experience 
>  make me more smarter than most everyone else here? It's a nice 
>  fantasy, but that's all.

 No !
 Please note my "at first."

>  Understanding the combobulation and discombobulation of digital 
>  signals isn't really the problem. What's hard to fathom is why the 
>  FCC would approve a system that virtually guarantees ongoing 
>  violations of their regulations.

 Oh, come on, Rich !
 You're much better than that.
 Who says that FCC even KNOWS their own regs ?
 ( after a few visits at NAB, they don't. Trust me )

>  Unless, of course, the industry's  
>  designers of the implementation of the system didn't understand it 

 BINGO !!

>  and used the analog model which assumes levels should be tolerable 
>  and easy to manipulate.

 Methinks we have a double winner !
 Heading for the trifecta are we ?

>  >  The "old school" producers still seem to want to control that 
>  > level, until they
>  >  find out how much trouble it really is.
>  
>  There's a dramatic advancement. The manipulation of levels is often 
>  part of the creative process.

 TRUE ! ( in more ways than one )

>  I'm going to assume there's some way  
>  for the folks creating the product to make level changes without 
>  starting from scratch,

 TRUE, and it's their negligence we're discussing, isn't it ?

>  though I think we're talking about something  
>  further down the signal path.

 In that they've created a problem that they themselves can not solve, yes.

>  One way or another there's got to be a way to make digital levels 
>  acceptable to viewers.

 Of course there is !
 Just that it's EXPENSIVE !
 It requires competent producers who care, AND are capable.
 The last one I talked to asked me "you want frys with that ? "

>  If not, there's plenty else to do. Note that  
>  Bob Orban's letter to the legislator references the occasions where 
>  the FCC ruled against loud spots.

 I did, and I support Robert's position entirely.

>  This will be the third time,  
>  possibly more, that complaints have driven authorities to take 
>  action. 

 Against who ? Themselves, for the situation they have created ?
 You know better than that.

>   but it's still not normally the 
>  station's fault. The bad audio is.

 Only if you saddle the individual stations with the responsibility for the very
 expensive fixes required to repair a problem easily and cheaply fixed
 at the source, and which should not exist in the first place.

>  I'm encouraged that Bob Orban and Frank Foti found ways to fix the 
>  problem. I believe that because I respect them both. The same with 
>  Tom O's claim that the unit he saw did the trick.

 Agreed.

>  Now we have to convince the stations to install the equipment and 
>  force the CEO's to forego the new car or the titanium golf clubs. 

 HA, Ha, ha, choke cough cough.
 Yeah. THAT'll happen !

>  The  
>  fact that the situation is against regulations

 Depends on what the meaning is "is" is, and whether or not there is any
 "controlling legal authority."

>  should be a good  
>  incentive. I suspect the FCC will give stations a grace period as 
>  everyone learns the traps of digital.
>  
>  I wonder if we'll have the same luck with the satellite services.

 Uh, huh.
 Dream on..............

-- 
Cowboy