This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
Not sure if this explanation is still valid, but years ago it was explained this way: There was a limit to the peak volume of any broadcast in the USA. On normal shows that peak tended to be people shouting, explosions, etc. and was only reached occasionally in any show. BUT commercials tended to record EVERYTHING in the ad at that peak volume, so it might not actually be louder, but it was constantly at the peak volume through the whole commercial.
snofan · M
@ChipmunkErnie Audio compression
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
@snofan Not really, but sort of. The sound wasn't compressed, rather consciously boosted in recording the commercials.
snofan · M
@ChipmunkErnie I've worked in tv as a sound guy for a long time - both in the studio, AND making commercials. The audio chain is run at it's optimum 24/7. That is, levels as close to zero without pushing the system into distortion. In a digital system you can't push levels over zero, so lifting level to make things louder is not an option. Compression and limiting is all that can be done. It increases the power within the waveform envelope without increasing level - so it sounds louder.
Oh, and what you described above is compression.
Oh, and what you described above is compression.
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
@snofan The info I was referring to was from long ago, before digital. If I remember right, it was an explanation in TV GUIDE way back when. And having the actors talking as loud as possible into the microphone is "compression"? Because that was the explanation back then. The commercials weren't louder, but they felt that way because the peaks were consistent. At least that was the article's explanation back then.
snofan · M
@ChipmunkErnie You clearly do not understand very much about audio. I never mentioned actors talking loudly into microphones. Whilst trying to shoot me down you are actually describing audio compression. Over the years I have recorded more audio than you are ever likely to listen to, so I am not going to waste my time trying to explain.
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
@snofan Can you read? I was the one who quoted the article about loud actors, I NEVER said you did. I never mentioned digital recording techniques. I simply referred a very old article about analog recording of TV many decades ago. And I doubt you'll ever record as much audio as I've listened to in the last 70+ years. If you don't like the old explanation, try digging up the probably now dead editors of TV GUIDE and argue with them.
snofan · M
@ChipmunkErnie I would bet that I've recorded more audio than you'll listen to. Digital or analogue the same rules apply - just way more critical for digital. Yes, I can read, and I also understand audio - which you do not. You are trying to quote someone who wrote a report and was probably asking someone like me what was happening. I have tried to explain, but you comprehension skills have left you. If you could understand what you wrote yourself, you would see that you are describing audio compression.
Stick to what you know.
Stick to what you know.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment