Ask HN: Are YouTube ads allowed to be louder than the video they appear on? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Are YouTube ads allowed to be louder than the video they appear on?

12 pointschirau28 comments

From what I understand, at least on TV, commercials are legally not allowed to be louder than the show they appear on.

I really hate the inconsistency of volume/loudness on Youtube. I'll be watching a video then boom, 2 or 3 times louder, a commercial pops up. I constantly have to lower the volume during commercials and then have to increase again for the video.

Does the law for TV not apply to Youtube? Is YouTube not an MVPD?

For reference, the CALM Act is the law governing this: https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/loud-commercials

View on HN

This is a huge problem in advertising. I don't know if there are any regulations in my country but this practice is rampant. It's unbelievably annoying and when you're watching something like a cricket match that plays all day with an ad break every 5 minutes, it can make you go insane. It's practices like these why I carry no qualms in using ad blockers or consuming pirated content. (Hey, I've already paid for a subscription, shouldn't matter where I watch it, right?). I for one, am absolutely outraged at content producers pushing down dark patterns and attempting to exploit me to the maximum every minute of our interaction.

Mainly I'm wondering why you aren't using an ad blocker? I guess there's some good reason.. But I wouldn't watch youtube for one second if I had to see ads popping up during what I was watching. Your mind deserves better.

To support channels is one reason.

YouTube rolls ads now on channels regardless of whether or not the channels are receiving a share of the revenue

How does that work? Do the creators now just chose whether or not to receive money? Or is the option to be paid from ads just completely gone? For channels that were receiving money for the ads prior to the change, did Google just decide to not pay them anymore?

To support creators.

Ok, fair enough. But I don't think I want to support a creator who wants me to watch ads. Sorry, I'm sure this discussion has been had a million times..but if you want to support them, why not give them money directly, and..then you get to not spend some sizable fraction of your life watching ads. Your mind deserves better. But I don't know—personally, I loathe ads, maybe you like watching them.

Your supposition is misguided. When a person creates a product, they know what their monetization model is. YouTube creators included. They know their money comes from ads, via views. This suggestion of handing out money to them is misplaced. If your friend opens a shop and knows their monetization model is sales, are you implying if you want to support them you are just going to hand out cash to them?

Me watching their video with the ads open up a whole lot of other revenue opportunities to them as opposed to just handing them out money. They are not a charity case.

> Your supposition is misguided.

Uh, which one? I can't work out what this refers to.

> If your friend opens a shop and knows their monetization model is sales, are you implying if you want to support them you are just going to hand out cash to them?

I don't understand how this analogy is supposed to work. In a shop, you exchange money for things. On youtube, you enjoy videos and..the creator gets paid somehow, you seem to be suggesting, by my watching ads, which is nowhere near acceptable to me[0], but since they want money, I suggested paying them money, which is a win-win, no?

> Me watching their video with the ads open up a whole lot of other revenue opportunities to them

Could you spell out what this means? What "other revenue opportunities"? Thanks.

> They are not a charity case.

I don't get the reference to charity. As if being made (against your will) to watch ads is somehow loftier than paying people who make stuff you like? but I'm sure I misunderstand your point.

[0] Well, before I had an adblocker in the last few years, I never found myself on a channel that showed ads. None of my favourite channels had ads. Hmm.

It seems to me there are three options available when it comes to YouTube. One can allow the ads to play, block them, or pay for a subscription.

I've never not blocked online advertisements.

YouTube creators don't have much of a choice. No other platform is currently feasible as almost everyone only uses YouTube.

They also no longer have a choice whether or not ads run on their channels due to policy changes.

Also, I think your supposition is invalid as you are comparing digital entertainment to physical food

Or get a YouTube premium subscription.

As an ASMR fan I can tell you categorically that ads are never volume matched to their videos.

I didn't know what ASMR is, I looked it up, found a video of Gentle Whispering ASMR about a haircut. Watched it, ended up in a nap, super relaxed. This is crazy. Thank you!

Why would you think the content of YouTube is governed by any laws?

Because they are actually an MVPD and those are governed by laws.

I suppose advertisers and youchube think we'll buy more stuff if they scream "Your customers want...with twilio...sign up today" at 100 decibels.

No Twilio.

TLDR: Ads do follow the limits - precisely.

Long answer: most YouTubers are not properly mixing their audio so that it'll hit -14 LKFS (which is the de facto target loudness for online content. Most movies and television shows are de jure targeted to -24 LKFS/-23 LUFS. LKFS and LUFS are perceptual volume measurement scales, LKFS being predominant in America/SMTPE while LUFS are predominant in Europe/EBU.), either due to being intentional (ASMR content) or not knowing how to do it.

On the other hand, most advertisers have the backing of professional mixers, and they will hit -14 LKFS constantly, period.

Note that Youtube has a loudness normaliser - but only for videos that is significantly louder than -14 LKFS (you wouldn't want ASMR content to be NASMR). This is only done so that poor speakers won't be blown up and not get the ire of EU et al. due to popped ears.

Interesting. But would it not be the onus of Youtube to determine this LKFS for videos and normalize the loudness of whatever ad they are showing in-stream to that loudness? I am not a sound guy, but i'd think if an ad is recorded at higher loudness, it can still be presented at lower loudness, no? I may be wrong, looking to learn.

Fair point, well unfortunately that question needs to be answered by YouTube.

What is LKFS aka LUFS? Seems equivalent to dB. Couldn't find any info on weightings or perceptual models of loudness.

Sorry that this is a little late, and unfortunately most of these resources are paywalled. However, K-weight basically normalises the volume by frequency so that for a given LKFS (for example) 1,000 Hz tone, 100 Hz tone and 10,000 Hz tone sounds similarly loud perceptually (while if we set them to similar dB instead, 1,000 Hz is perceptually louder than 100 and 10,000 Hz tones). Of course, being perceptual, it's more accurate to say that it's what an average person would perceive so it can be off for some people (but like with colour this is a rabbithole of topic).

Ah thanks. There's not much to find about LKFS/LUFS. I find something about dB(A) vs dB(C) vs LUFS[0] saying:

> Finally, we come to LUFS measure, which is intended to reflect how we perceive loudness. It also isn’t particularly concerned about frequency response either. It has simply been found that by using a shaping filter ahead of RMS power measurement, with the lowest bass below about 37 Hz eliminated, and sounds above 1.5 kHz boosted by 4 dB, gives a gated RMS measurement about the same ability to predict human loudness perception as real listeners engaged in comparative studies.

[0] http://refined-audiometrics.com/wordpress1/2016/12/31/dba-db...

The 'm' key will mute videos and commercials.

My point is I shouldn't have to do that.

Yes, I would like to live in that world as well.

On TV you do.

wow, now i'm intrigued.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com