<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: this is the tv show THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL tvtv COMMERCIAAAAAAAAAALLLLLL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://selfimportantwebsite.com/2009/01/30/this-is-the-tv-show-this-is-the-commercial-tvtv-commerciaaaaaaaaaallllll/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://selfimportantwebsite.com/2009/01/30/this-is-the-tv-show-this-is-the-commercial-tvtv-commerciaaaaaaaaaallllll/</link>
	<description>I got opinions.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:45:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zeke</title>
		<link>http://selfimportantwebsite.com/2009/01/30/this-is-the-tv-show-this-is-the-commercial-tvtv-commerciaaaaaaaaaallllll/#comment-1329</link>
		<dc:creator>Zeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selfimportantwebsite.com/?p=27#comment-1329</guid>
		<description>Well, no matter what the proper term, be it an issue of loudness or volume, the levels are lower for television than commercials by a significant margin, particularly anything on a cable or satellite feed. Cable networks are run at a lower level than local stations, and the local commercials on top of the ones sent by the network are even worse since the TV&#039;s volume is higher anyway to compensate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, no matter what the proper term, be it an issue of loudness or volume, the levels are lower for television than commercials by a significant margin, particularly anything on a cable or satellite feed. Cable networks are run at a lower level than local stations, and the local commercials on top of the ones sent by the network are even worse since the TV&#8217;s volume is higher anyway to compensate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kezmoo</title>
		<link>http://selfimportantwebsite.com/2009/01/30/this-is-the-tv-show-this-is-the-commercial-tvtv-commerciaaaaaaaaaallllll/#comment-1328</link>
		<dc:creator>Kezmoo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selfimportantwebsite.com/?p=27#comment-1328</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d just like to apologise in advance, &#039;cos I&#039;m about to start being a show-off...

As I understand it, there is a subtle difference between the concepts of &#039;volume&#039; and &#039;loudness&#039;. The extra-loud sound that comes with most commercials is actually the same &#039;volume&#039; as the normal sound of programmes (Spelling - I&#039;m British!), but the extra &#039;loudness&#039; is caused by audio compression increasing the sound waves, which produces a different effect on the eardrum, and so through the rest of the auditory process.

As an analogy, you could compare it to water pressure in a hose - the more compression at the nozzle, the greater the pressure, although the volume of water is still the same.

You&#039;ll find that the same thing occurs with many commercials on radio, as well as TV.

There have been studies which suggest that loudness is more damaging to our hearing than plain old volume, and for that reason, there are some here in Britain who are trying to stop the use of compressed sound in advertising.

Personally (especially being hearing-impaired myself), I support them in their endeavours, and from the sound of the article, I feel you may also agree with them! 

As far as I know, the data is still inconclusive as to the true effects of compressed audio, and further research needs to be conducted, but if there is a risk component to it, I think that this issue may ultimately be much bigger than the aggravation these ads cause.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d just like to apologise in advance, &#8216;cos I&#8217;m about to start being a show-off&#8230;</p>
<p>As I understand it, there is a subtle difference between the concepts of &#8216;volume&#8217; and &#8216;loudness&#8217;. The extra-loud sound that comes with most commercials is actually the same &#8216;volume&#8217; as the normal sound of programmes (Spelling &#8211; I&#8217;m British!), but the extra &#8216;loudness&#8217; is caused by audio compression increasing the sound waves, which produces a different effect on the eardrum, and so through the rest of the auditory process.</p>
<p>As an analogy, you could compare it to water pressure in a hose &#8211; the more compression at the nozzle, the greater the pressure, although the volume of water is still the same.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ll find that the same thing occurs with many commercials on radio, as well as TV.</p>
<p>There have been studies which suggest that loudness is more damaging to our hearing than plain old volume, and for that reason, there are some here in Britain who are trying to stop the use of compressed sound in advertising.</p>
<p>Personally (especially being hearing-impaired myself), I support them in their endeavours, and from the sound of the article, I feel you may also agree with them! </p>
<p>As far as I know, the data is still inconclusive as to the true effects of compressed audio, and further research needs to be conducted, but if there is a risk component to it, I think that this issue may ultimately be much bigger than the aggravation these ads cause.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

