Open endolith opened 6 years ago
Yes, dBFS is commonly defined as dBFS = 20log10(rmssqrt(2)) such that 0 dBFS = full scale sine wave.
AES specifically clarified this in AES17 http://www.aes.org/standards/blog/2020/12/aes17-revision-to-clarify-0dbfs#:~:text=AES17%20defines%20a%20digital%20Full,effort%20to%20eliminate%20this%20confusion.
also here: https://www.sis.se/api/document/preview/571704/ (section 3.4)
My previous understanding was that "dBFS" is ambiguous and a full-scale sine wave can be either 0 dBFS or -3 dBFS depending on convention, and I've been using the -3 dBFS convention because it makes sense that RMS level should be -3 dB from peak level.
However, I've looked at all the standards and there's no ambiguity in the standards. A full-scale sine wave is:
So I should change all the measurements to either use the unit dBov or to be increased by 3 dB and use dBFS.
It doesn't look like "peak dBFS" is even a legit unit?
AES17 doesn't really say:
but implies that it's an RMS measurement with this note:
AES-6id-2000 says RMS specifically:
IEC 61606 specifically says RMS(signal)/RMS(FS sine), and doesn't mention peak:
ITU P.381 mentions RMS as the reference, but doesn't specifically say the signal is RMS:
ITU P.382 is the same:
Rane's "No Such Thing as Peak Volts dBu" says:
but then it says: