Live data from Hacker News

The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

lcamtuf.substack.com

441–450 of 511 posts

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#441
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The units are implied by the context. This is the absurd part. There do exist other ratios that masquerade as units, e.g. specific gravity, and its meaning also changes depending on what you’re using it for - liquids are compared to pure water at 4 C, gases are compared to air at 20 C. As the parent comment points out, you can get used to things with experience. That doesn’t make them any less absurd. Look at Fahre…

> Look at Fahrenheit, for example. I’m American, and I still think it’s absurd, but because I’m extremely used to it, it feels natural. What do you find absurd about Fahrenheit? If it is that its 0 point is not absolute 0 then I think you can make a good case, at least for scientific work. It's a bit harder to make the case for absolute 0 being the 0 point a scale for ordinary day to day use since all temperatures mo…

For the same reason that every other Imperial measurement is absurd – they’re completely arbitrary. 1 inch is 3 barleycorns, which can have very different sizes. 12 inches to a foot, because a human foot is a decent measurement, I guess? 3 feet to a yard, 5280 feet to a mile… these make sense for their time, but we are no longer in that time.

I understand the argument for Fahrenheit having better granularity with whole numbers in the human range of the scale. I don’t think that justifies everything else about it, especially considering the rest of the world somehow manages with Celsius.

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#442
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The units are implied by the context. This is the absurd part. There do exist other ratios that masquerade as units, e.g. specific gravity, and its meaning also changes depending on what you’re using it for - liquids are compared to pure water at 4 C, gases are compared to air at 20 C. As the parent comment points out, you can get used to things with experience. That doesn’t make them any less absurd. Look at Fahre…

Coulomb? In a discussion about units, leaving out the degree word or symbol made me initially try to parse it as that you must mean it literally, though context quickly makes clear that isn't the case ^^'

Fair point. I did briefly think about finding the Unicode symbol on my phone. My bad.

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#443
post #62

This seems exceedingly ignorant of the work decibels do in telecommunications, RF and fibre engineering. The voltage vs power relationship is something that exists and is a core memory of beginner blunders in the field, but it boils down to a simple 10 vs 20 division operation. Besides that, the decibel simplifies a lot of multiplying very small and very big numbers to summing of two-digit numbers that you can do in…

> makes me really doubt that the OP has any practical experience about the things they're talking about. Maybe not, but you can get used to many odd things given enough experience. I totally share the authors view. I don't usually have trouble grasping the definition of a unit, but dBs are just hilariously overloaded. The same symbol can literally mean one of two dimensionless numbers, or one of who knows how many ph…

Consider the signal chain of a live audio system, from a singer to a PA.

The singer produces sound pressure waves into a mic. These pressure waves are measured in dB SPL, and the microphone's specifications will tell you its sensitivity, maximum sound pressure level, frequency response, on- and off-axis response, and so on. An engineer can look at all these specs to choose a mic based on the environment, how much background noise there is and where it's coming from, the quality and character of the singer's voice, etc.

The microphone will produce a voltage, which is measured in dBV or dBu. This voltage travels to a preamplifier, which boosts the signal to a nominal level by applying a gain (in dB, with no units since it's just a dimensionless ratio between input level and output level) and converts it to a digital signal -- measured in dBFS ("decibels full-scale", signal level relative to the maximum level that can fit in the bit-width of the digital signal).

Note that all the different signals going into the preamps have wildly different voltage levels -- a kick drum produces much more sound energy than a singer. And the ratio between SPL and voltage is not fixed; different mics have different sensitivities, and an active guitar amp will generate a signal many orders of magnitude stronger than a passive microphone. For some instruments like synthesizers, "SPL" isn't even a concept that makes sense because the sound is produced entirely electronically, rather than by capturing a mechanical wave. So, the preamps are configured to normalize all the incoming signals to one nominal level for processing.

After the preamp, the signal goes through a digital signal processing chain. Most of these processing steps will affect the level of the signal, and the amount is measured in dB (without units, since this is a dimensionless ratio between input level and output level. Remember, we're dealing with a fully digital waveform, so there is not even a physical measure of "loudness" or "signal strength" that can apply to the signal at this point.)

The signals from all the different sound sources are mixed together, and the mixer's per-channel volume faders are marked in decibels -- usually from +10 to -infinity, with 0 corresponding to "unity gain" (which means the output signal should have the same intensity as the input signal). Again, no units because we aren't measuring a physical quantity, just how much the mixer should change the intensity of the signal.

Finally, the signal is converted back to an analog voltage (measured in dBu) and sent to a power amplifier. The power amplifier applies an adjustable gain, and outputs a signal measured in watts (dBm) for sending to the PA system. You might then walk around the room with an SPL meter to ensure the sound is at a safe level; the value you measure will depend on the frequency and directional response of the speakers, as well as how far away from the speaker you're measuring.

Throughout this process we had signals in the form of sound pressure, voltage, digital samples, and wattage, at power levels ranging from microwatts to kilowatts. Even a simple physical quantity like sound pressure for a single signal is not straightforward -- how far are you measuring it from, and are you talking about SPL before the microphone or after the speaker?

The fact that a single unit is used for all of these different purposes is a feature, not a bug. If my preamp is close to clipping and I turn it down by 3 dB, how much do I need to turn up the gain at my compressor to compensate? Easy -- 3 dB. If we used more "appropriate" physical units at each step of the signal chain, it would be impossible to determine this number quickly or in your head; and would involve taking into account even more factors I haven't mentioned (like input impedances). The fact that decibels are scaled differently depending on whether you're working with voltage or power means that 1 dB corresponds to the same change in loudness everywhere without having to remember whether it's 1 dB of voltage or power.

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Other names for the metric horsepower are [...]" I'm not clear on what point you think you're making. Is it interesting that the same thing might have different names in different languages? That subsection of the article, by the way, is obviously lying: > The various units used to indicate this definition (PS, KM, cv, hk, pk, k, ks and ch) all translate to horse power in English. cv and ch translate to steam hors…

That a unit of power has a dozen metric abbreviations and converts to watts at different values depending on what it is measuring (and when) is precisely the point. Decibels aren't ridicluous or a unit of measure. Horsepower, however...

> That a unit of power has a dozen metric abbreviations and converts to watts at different values depending on what it is measuring (and when) is precisely the point.

How is that point illustrated by an extended digression on the words for the unit in various different languages?

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally the same as saying that you don't need to explicitly specify units in any field because "it all makes sense in context" to "engineers working in those fields". No. We've painstakingly figured out the right answer to this through the generations of doing science and engineering: You always specify units.

But obviously we don’t. So, there’s your counter proof.

The meaning of my last sentence is "You (should) always use units (or else there will inevitably be some mistake eventually due to confusion about the units)".

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#446
post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European if somebody tells me the diagonal size of a display in cm or meter, I'm simply not able to "grasp" it. I need to whip out the calculator and divide by 2.54, turning it into inches. It's just how monitors are measured in my head at this point.

When the Euro was introduced, I've heard people say things like "older generations will never adapt to the new currency, they'll always refer to the old denominations in their head" – which turned out to be completely untrue. Adapting to new units is very possible, but it needs a concerted effort. Absent a good inherent reason or anybody capable of artificially creating one, it won't happen on its own.

Wasn't arguing otherwise. If anything, I was illustrating so: I used inch so much, that despite it not being the native unit of length measurement over here, for the specific purpose I used it for it managed to stick incredibly hard.

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#447
post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say 35 it would be strange for it to be anything but years. 3 days, weeks, months or years are ironically all common units when someone is "3".

Not where I live. You'd never specify how old somebody is with a bare number and have it mean anything other than years in the US. "My kid is 3" is always 3 years. So is "How old is your Tammy?" "Three". That only ever means years. Every other unit is always explicit. In my decades as a parent and being around other parents of kids and newborns, I've never experienced an exception to this.

That's the point. If you are talking colloquially to someone where you live, sure, whatever, this doesn't matter. But if you are writing something down in some publication for a wide and unpredictable audience, you should use units.

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I just live on the planet, but I don’t have this problem with dB and to me, it sounds like you’re the alien. Maybe you could elaborate, or give a motivating example? I just don’t remember encountering the problem you’re describing, and it’s unfamiliar to me. There’s something about your experience that I don’t understand, but I don’t know what it is.

Moving from EE to audio to radio is enough to go through a few iterations of "people just write dB but mean completely different things". I got used to it, but that doesn't stop me from saying it's a bad idea and we should improve things for the next person.

Yeah exactly. Lots of people here can't seem to distinguish between "thing that I'm used to" and "thing that is good practice".

But these are totally different. I'm used to and thus comfortable with lots of things that are nonetheless terrible!

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation and motivating examples are in the article.

The article only had bad examples in it, I was hoping for perspective from someone that made sense. The voltage / power example doesn’t make sense. It’s always power or voltage squared, which are equivalent when the load is resistive.

The articles examples were fine. You (and lots of others here) are being obtuse.

Re: The scientific “unit” we call the decibel

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The point is that for some reason dB seems particularly susceptible to people dropping the units. For instance, I've heard loudness of sounds described in decibels for my whole life, and first saw the actual units people are describing when I read this article and thread today.

That’s because you’re a casual observer. If you’re an audio engineer, recording things, designing microphones, amps, or speakers, then you’d know it. Trust me. I’m a digital electrical engineer (computer engineering, basically). I thought that dBs were weird, too. My dad worked in microwave communications systems for his career and dBs are perfectly natural for him. Ditto my daughter who is an audio engineer. Droppin…

That's the whole point. You're failing to communicate clearly. You think it's fine because you're used to it. But it's bad. That you are used to and comfortable with something does not imply that it is not bad.
Post reply on HN