3 ms·

>And if you’ve spotted the big problem with the way it works, you know it needs to be discussed. Anyone know what he's alluding to? >But the loudness won’t be

by rl3 12y ago

>And if you’ve spotted the big problem with the way it works, you know it needs to be discussed. Anyone know what he's alluding to? >But the loudness won’t be lifted if clipping would be caused in the process That would have been my first guess, thankfully it isn't the case.

anigbrowl 12y ago
I don't know what he's alluding to, even though I'm very familiar with the issue and quite familiar with the ITU loudness standard. I posted mainly because I had noticed the change myself over the last few months. Maybe he means the fact that if you don't have an adblocker YouTube ads seem to be as loud as the ones on TV used to be. It might be that this will now fall under the aegis of the FCC :) but I'm not really sure about that. Video ads on Youtube are a betrayal of the Google Adwords approach anyway, and the people who gave them the green light should be shot, but with very small calibre bullets so we can keep shooting them over and over until they get the message about how annoying advertising in temporal media is.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- JeremyBanks 12y ago
  So should they stop advertising, and take down YouTube?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Did I say that? No.
AlyssaRowan 12y ago
I'm not sure what he's alluding to. It may be that they've done simple loudness normalisation instead of one of the more preferable, advanced techniques, like ReplayGain 1.0, R128, or BS.1770 (/ReplayGain 2.0)?
- rl3 12y ago
  Some of these techniques appear to (optionally) take the entire album into account when conducting normalization. Maybe that's it. Due to its nature, YouTube tends to lend itself to album fragmentation. It's not uncommon for people to have an entire album on their playlist where no two tracks were uploaded together, let alone even share the same uploader. In this scenario, barring some sort of mitigation strategy, any seamless transitions between tracks would most likely be destroyed. Each track would have been normalized individually.

by rl3 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

I don't know what he's alluding to, even though I'm very familiar with the issue and quite familiar with the ITU loudness standard. I posted mainly because I had noticed the change myself over the last few months. Maybe he means the fact that if you don't have an adblocker YouTube ads seem to be as loud as the ones on TV used to be. It might be that this will now fall under the aegis of the FCC :) but I'm not really sure about that. Video ads on Youtube are a betrayal of the Google Adwords approach anyway, and the people who gave them the green light should be shot, but with very small calibre bullets so we can keep shooting them over and over until they get the message about how annoying advertising in temporal media is.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
JeremyBanks 12y ago
So should they stop advertising, and take down YouTube?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Did I say that? No.

AlyssaRowan 12y ago

I'm not sure what he's alluding to. It may be that they've done simple loudness normalisation instead of one of the more preferable, advanced techniques, like ReplayGain 1.0, R128, or BS.1770 (/ReplayGain 2.0)?

rl3 12y ago
Some of these techniques appear to (optionally) take the entire album into account when conducting normalization. Maybe that's it. Due to its nature, YouTube tends to lend itself to album fragmentation. It's not uncommon for people to have an entire album on their playlist where no two tracks were uploaded together, let alone even share the same uploader. In this scenario, barring some sort of mitigation strategy, any seamless transitions between tracks would most likely be destroyed. Each track would have been normalized individually.