Austin - of course RMS measurement applies to dynamic range. I think the fact that you say this points to where your view differs from the rest of the world, but I'm damned if I can work out how...
Remember the definition from the book *you* posted and *you* agree with: >the Dynamic Range equation out of "Digital Signal Processing in VLSI": >DR (dB) = 10log10(largest signal/smallest discernable signal) How exactly are you going to measure "largest signal" and "smallest discernable signal"? Most people would use RMS, or at least try to approach that with a mean measurement if they didn't have the true-RMS gear. Alternatively you could use peak measurements, but that is a bit tricky with the noise and you have to involve some statistical assumptions, and as Julian V says, sometimes it can change the results depending on your choice of peaks in the HiFi world where short term peaks can be a lot higher than sustainable peaks. Why on earth would you say "RMS doesn't apply to dynamic range."? Julian R At 23:33 12/06/02, Austin wrote: > > > SNR also is an RMS based measurements, and RMS doesn't apply > > > to dynamic range. Julian V replied: > > Why not? I've seen quite a few designers and vendors use the > > above-described convention for specifying dynamic range. Consumer HiFi > > manufacturers have used other schemes, measuring the limits of their > > products to handle impulses or "instantaneous" signals. But usually these > > schemes are designed to generate more impressive numbers for > > advertisementss ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
