Confronting ISO: On the Use of the dBA Symbol
for A-Weighted Sound Levels
Enfrentando a la ISO: Sobre el uso del símbolo dBA
para los niveles sonoros con ponderación A
Federico Miyara
#1
#
Laboratorio de Acústica y Electroacústica,
Universidad Nacional de Rosario
Riobamba 245 bis, 2000 Rosario, Argentina
1
fmiyara@fceia.unr.edu.ar
Abstract— The International Organization for Standardiza-
tion (ISO) recommends the symbol dB for all instances where
decibel units are used, particularly in the cases of quantities
such as the A-weighted and C-weighted sound pressure levels,
ruling out the symbols dBA y dBC. In this paper several
arguments are put forward as to why such recommendation is
mistaken and should be revised, taking into account that the
dB prefix is used in the symbols of many substantially different
units as well as the fact that there are examples of situations
where the criterion hereby proposed is accepted.
Keywords: ISO; units; decibel A.
Resumen— La Organización Internacional de Normaliza-
ción (ISO) recomienda el símbolo dB para todas las instancias
de uso de unidades de decibel, en particular en los casos de
cantidades como el nivel de presión sonora con ponderación A
y C, censurando los símbolos dBA y dBC. En este trabajo se
argumenta por qué ello es un error atendiendo al hecho de que
el prefijo dB se utiliza en los símbolos de muchas unidades
sustancialmente diferentes y a la existencia de ejemplos de
situaciones donde se sigue un criterio similar al propuesto.
Palabras clave: ISO; unidades; decibel A.
I. INTRODUCTION
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
recommends the symbol dB for all instances where decibel
units are used, particularly in the cases of quantities such as
the A-weighted and C-weighted sound pressure levels,
ruling out the symbols dBA y dBC.
In order to make it clear that the stated value has been A-
weighted, it is required that such condition be expressed as a
subscript in the quantity symbol, not in the unit symbol. For
instance,
L
Aeq
= 85 dB. (1)
The definition of the decibel itself and its symbol dB are
provided in International Standard ISO 80000-3 [1], while
the recommendation preventing the addition of any suffix
indicating the weighting is established in International
Standard ISO 80000-8:2006, which states, in a note attached
to the definition of bel and decibel,
“NOTE: The addition of a postscript to indicate the fre-
quency weighting e.g. dB(A), is incorrect. This infor-
mation should be carried by the quantity symbol, e.g.
L
A
.” [2]
This sort of recommendation is also included in the re-
port of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures
(BIPM), which states that the unit symbols should not have
any attachment, such as subscripts or suffixes, which carry
information about the quantity being represented using that
unit. Such information should be included in the quantity
symbol:
“(...) the unit symbol should not be used to provide
specific information about the quantity, and should never
be the sole source of information on the quantity. Units
are never qualified by further information about the
nature of the quantity; any extra information on the
nature of the quantity should be attached to the quantity
symbol and not to the unit symbol.” [3]
A similar criterion is expressed in the document of the
International Organization of Legal Metrology OIML D 2,
Section 1.5:
“It is not permitted to add any kind of adjective or sign to
the legal names or legal symbols of units. (For example,
electrical power is expressed in watts, W, not in electrical
watts, We).” [4]
These prescriptions are essentially correct as they are
based on an economy principle, inasmuch they discourage
assigning different symbols to the same unit. The question
is, thus, whether or not in the present case they are being
applied correctly. We will attempt to provide an answer in
the next section.
II. INADEQUATE APPLICATION OF A CRITERION
We consider that applying these prescriptions to the case
of the decibel A and similar units is a mistake that has been
repeated for a long time and should be corrected by
adopting more suitable unit symbols such as dBA, dBC, etc.,
as it was common practice decades ago and as is still
customary in a significant proportion of the scientific and
Recibido: 09/09/25; Aceptado: 21/11/25
https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.9.2.216.2025
Technical Report
Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 37-41 (2025)
ISSN 2525-0159
37
technical literature, as well as in normative and regulatory
documents. In what follows, an attempt will be done to
substantiate this proposal.
In the first place we are not in the same situation as in the
example provided by the BIPM publication cited above,
which states that to indicate that a given quantity U is the
maximum of an oscillating signal it would not be correct to
write
U = 1000 Vmax. (2)
Instead, it should be notated as
U
max
= 1000 V. (3)
In this case there is absolutely no difference between the
units represented by the symbols Vmax and V; they are,
indeed, one and the same, so it is reasonable to avoid the
use of the symbol Vmax when we already have the symbol
V to represent such unit. There is no difference whether it is
an instantaneous value, the maximum or the effective (root
mean square) value.
In the case under discussion, the situation would be
similar as if one attempted to express the peak value of a
sound pressure level as
L
p
= 102 dBpeak. (4)
to indicate that the referred value is the maximum in a given
interval. There would be no difference between the unit
whose symbol is dBpeak and the one whose symbol is dB.
There would be no difference either between the units used
to quantify sound pressure and barometric pressure.
However, the decibel A is not the same unit as plain deci-
bel. To begin with, the sound pressure level is not just a log-
arithmic form of the ratio between two arbitrary sound
pressures, as is the case of the logarithmic expression of a
gain, an attenuation or a signal-to-noise ratio, i.e., relative
quantities, which, by the way, is the only situation in which
the dB is accepted as a unit outside the SI to be used with
the SI [3]. Rather, it is an absolute unit used to express a
physical quantity univocally, just as the metre is not just a
unit to express the ratio between two lengths (e.g., the length
to be measured and the reference length) but to represent the
value of a length or distance. This is so because there exists a
specific standard reference, unlike the case of a gain, where
we can speak of the gain of a linear system regardless of the
particular values of the input and output signals.
In order to clarify this concept, the decibel, as a unit used
in acoustics, is an example of a unit to express what is
known as the level of a field quantity,
1
where there is a
concrete reference, in this case 20 μPa, which has been
universally accepted
2
and is defined in many standards, that
links the sound pressure levels expressed using this unit to
the pascal or N/m
2
, unit of sound pressure in the SI. Another
similar example is the dBV, used in sound systems, which
by convention uses a concrete reference equal to 1 V. We
could hardly state that the “V” that accompanies as a suffix
the particle “dB” in the symbol dBV is an attachment that
1
A field quantity (also called a root-power quantity) is a quantity
such as sound pressure or electric field whose square is pro-
portional to power.
2
For air-borne sound. In other media it may differ; for instance,
in
water it is 1 µPa.
onl
y informs the nature of the quantity being measured, as
would be the case in the mistaken use of symbols Vmax or
Vef to connote that we are referring to a maximum or an
effective value.
By the same token, the acoustic decibel is not just a unit
for the logarithm of the non-dimensional ratio between two
generic values of sound pressure but, rather, between the
value to quantify and a concrete reference. The fact that for
historical reasons we keep using the symbol dB for this unit
is unfortunate, since it gives rise to several misunder-
standings, including the one we are referring to. It is
tolerated because of the long tradition which dates back to
the very origins of acoustic metrology. It could be replaced
by dBp or, as is customary in many authors, dBSPL.
Now, using the same symbol dB for the A-weighted
sound pressure level is doubly confusing, as we are refer-
ring to a completely different kind of measurement, where
there is a filtering process prior to the actual measurement
which causes that in many cases where the sound pressure
levels of two signals are identical, the A-weighted values
differ, and the other way around. For instance, two sounds
of 100 Hz and 1000 Hz, both of 60 dB, have A-weighted
values of 41 dBA y 60 dBA respectively (see figure 1):
L
A1
= 60 dB + A(10
0 Hz) = 60 dB − 19 dB = 41 dBA (5)
L
A2
= 60 dB + A(1000 Hz) = 60 dB + 0 dB = 60 dBA (6)
whereas a sound of 100 Hz and 60 dB has an A-weighted
value of 41 dBA, the same as one of 630 Hz and 43 dB:
L
A1
= 60 dB + A(100 Hz) = 60 dB − 19 dB = 41 dBA (7)
L
A2
= 43 dB + A(630 Hz) = 43 dB − 2 dB = 41 dBA (8)
It is worth to note that the “A” attached as a suffix to the
unit symbol dB is not providing information on the quantity
but on its dimension, much the same as when in the case of
the symbol °C a “C” is attached to the symbol ° without the
“C” qualifying the quantity. It is attached to denote that they
are two different units since the angle and the Celsius tem-
perature are two type of quantities which are dimensionally
different. The same as in the case of the dB, here the ° has
been traditionally used for angles and temperatures, which
is also unfortunate but honors tradition. Interestingly, from
the inception of the SI the character ° is not used any longer
in the symbol of the absolute or thermodynamic temperature,
the kelvin (formerly known as degree Kelvin), whose
symbol is just K [3].
Fig. 1. Frequency response of an A-weighting filter [5].
L
p
, dB
10
0
−
60
−
40
−
20
−
50
−
30
−
10
10
f, Hz
10
0
1
000
10
000
Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 37-41 (2025)
ISSN 2525-0159
38
http://elektron.fi.uba.ar
III. THE SAME NAME FOR MANY UNITS
What is essentially happening here is that several differ-
ent units have been emerging including the prefix dB just
because there is a logarithmic process involved in the
computation of the quantity values from quantities that are
directly measured,
3
not because they are all quantity-
informative variants of a single unit. Using the same symbol
for units so diverse as the sound pressure level dB, the
sound intensity level dB, the spectral level dB, the gain,
attenuation or signal-to-noise dB, the voltage level dB (in its
variants dBV, dBu, dBmV, dBμV, dBkV), the electric
power level dB (dBm, dBW) is misleading. The use of a
single unit for all of them because of a fundamentalist
interpretation of the cited BIPM text is cause of confusion,
especially in disciplines such as sound technology where
several of such quantities coexist. In technology disciplines
it is frequent to find decibel quantities expressed as
−
26 dB re 1 V, (9)
where the “re” means “referred to”. This is cumbersome
since it takes a unit, a clarifying particle and a reference
quantity just to make clear what we are talking about. It
should be replaced by
−
26 dBV. (10)
IV. A SIMILAR CASE IN OPTICS
In order to see the question from another perspective we
can consider an extreme case in a similar discipline, optics,
and one of its technological branches, lighting technology.
Here we come across the case of the candela (cd), the SI unit
for luminous intensity, I
V
, used to quantify the brightness of a
light source ([3], p. 135). This quantity is defined as
d
Ω
dΦ
V
V
=I
, (11)
where Ω is the solid angle and Φ
V
, the radiant flux, which is
computed in the spectral domain as
( )
λλ
λ
Φ
=Φ
d
d
d
780
380
e
mV
VK
, (12)
Here d
Φ
e
/dλ is the radiant flux per unit wavelength and V(λ)
is the luminous efficiency, which accounts for the photopic
(daylight) spectral sensitivity of the eye (figure 2). K
m
is the
maximum luminous efficacy, equal to 683 lm/W. [6]
Except for the constant K
m
, tailored so that the luminous
intensity can be expressed in candelas, the candela would be
dimensionally equivalent to a watt per steradian (W/sr), i.e.,
the unit for radiant intensity. But the candela is, indeed, a
completely different type of unit, since the luminous inten-
sity is the result of the spectral weighting process implied in
(12). In a similar fashion as the A weighting, the luminous
efficiency weights the radiant signal according to the aver-
age visual sensitivity for each frequency (or wave length).
To some extent, both units are based on organoleptic char-
acteristics of the respective stimuli.
3
A notable exception is the pH (potential of hydrogen), a loga-
rithmic quantity used in chemistry to express the concentration
of hydrogen ions in a solution, which does not have a unit. It is
usually considered a scale.
Fig. 2. Luminous efficiency for photopic (daylight) vision used to compute
luminous intensity (reference color hues are only approximate)
The most noteworthy aspect is that the candela not only
has the status of an independent unit with its own symbol
included, cd, (even if it is dimensionally equivalent to the
W/sr), but it has been adopted as one of the seven fun-
damental units of the SI!
The adoption of the candela as a fundamental unit
4
of the
SI means an implicit acknowledgment of the fact that the
frequency weighting (filtering previous to actual measure-
ment) requires a substantially different unit with its own
unit name and symbol. The same happens regarding A-
weighted sound pressure level, and even if we do not claim
that the corresponding unit should be adopted as a funda-
mental unit, we do assert that it deserves its own symbol,
the dBA.
The discussion is bogged down by the unfortunate fact
that the symbols dB and dBA begin with the same prefix,
causing the impression that the A is just a clarifying suffix
when it is clearly not.
V. THE CASE OF THE PHON
Getting back to acoustics, let us consider the case of the
psychoacoustic quantity known as loudness level.
5
It is quite
a particular case in that there is not only a spectral weight-
ing but such weighting further depends on the level of the
signal [8]. A special unit, the phon, whose symbol is equal
to the name of the unit, has been introduced to express loud-
ness level. Dimensionally it would be the same as the deci-
bel, and in fact the loudness level and the sound pressure
level have the same values at 1 kHz. Since the name of the
unit does not include the prefix “dB” there has been no
objection to its use. Had it been called differently and a dB
symbol (such as dBL or dBph) been introduced, it would
have probably suffered the same fate as the dBA.
VI. THE dBA IN THE LITERATURE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
On the other hand, the use of the dBA is customary in
many bibliographic sources, including several books, for
4
The fundamentalness of the candela has been challenged and
the lumen been proposed as more fundamental [7].
5
It is actually a psychophysical quantity which is intended as an
intermediate step for computing loudness.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
λ
,
nm
V(
λ
)
Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 37-41 (2025)
ISSN 2525-0159
39
http://elektron.fi.uba.ar
instance [9], [10], some of which are highly regarded in the
acoustical education community, such as [11]. Other authors
prefer to notate it dB(A) ([12], [13]), which, in our opinion,
is less economical and introduces unnecessary non-alpha-
betic symbols with a mathematical interpretation that might
cause confusion (a functional notation). But all the same,
they acknowledge the need of a different unit symbol. In [14]
all three conventions (dB, dB(A) and dBA), are used de-
pending on the author of each chapter. The scientific liter-
ature contains plenty of examples using these symbol units
([15]) and the same holds for PhD theses ([16], [17]).
In documents from the World Health Organization
(WHO) dealing with community or occupational noise the
use of these units is also frequent. For instance, [18] uses
primarily dBA; [19] uses both dBA and dB(A), while [13]
and [20] use dB(A).
There are also many examples in regulatory documents,
such as in the Law 1540 from the Autonomous City of
Buenos Aires, which uses both dBA and dB(A) [21], and
the basic document of protection against noise in force in
Spain, which uses dBA [22]. The Noise Code from New
York City 0 uses dB(A), while Article 8.04 from the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Paris uses dBA [24]. The Noise
Abatement Ordinance in force in Switzerland [25] uses
dB(A).
It is noteworthy that even in relatively recent ISO stan-
dards it is possible to find cases where the dBA symbol is
used (however, they could be residual cases or cases where
the main subject of the standard is not acoustics so
reviewers might have overlooked the non-conformity with
the style requirements). Two examples are the International
Standards ISO/IWA 24:2016 [26] and ISO 16976:2023 [27].
Several ITU standards use the symbol dBA as well, such as
ITU-R BS.1771-1 0, ITU-T H.872 [29]. There exists also an
ITU recommendation, ITU V.574-5 which recommends, in
its clause 8 about special notations [30]:
“For absolute acoustic pressure level (see § 6.8)
dBA, dBB or dBC: weighted acoustic pressure level with
respect to 20 μPa, mentioning the weighting curve used
(curves A, B or C, see International Standard IEC
61672).”
The Standard IEC 60268-16, on the other side, uses an
atypical variant: dB A, with a blank between “dB” and “A”
[31]. Though we do not recommend this practice, it is
further evidence that plain dB does not convey the full story.
It is worth mentioning that until the last version of the
argentinean standard IRAM 4062 on annoying community
noise, published in 2021 ([32]), the symbol units used to
express A-weighted and C-weighted sound pressure levels
were dBA and dBC respectively. In the new version
published in 2025 ([33]) the suffixes have been dropped,
probably due to pressure to adhere completely to ISO’s
styling directives.
6
This is particularly problematic since this
specific standard is used as a de facto reference in many
local ordinances and regulatory documents dealing with
noise pollution, so it transcends widely the sphere of
technicians and noise control specialists. The impact is
uncertain, but there is the risk that several misunderstand-
6
The IRAM is the national standard organization from Argentina
and
a member of ISO.
ings could impair the effects of the standard. Indeed, some
non
-specialists could be led to believe that there has been a
change in the indicator used to assess noise pollution.
VII. CONCLUSION
We can conclude that the use, not only in academic but
also in regulatory and normative texts, of a specific symbol
(such as dBA or dB(A), with preference of the former) to
express the quantities that result from the application of a
frequency weighting is quite widespread. This reveals that
there are many specialists that acknowledge the need to
distinguish both decibel types and that the corresponding
symbology is a logical answer to that need. The cases of the
candela and the phon should be carefully considered since
they are examples of application of different criteria for a
similar conceptual problem.
Several of the preceding arguments have been submitted
to the ISO or its Committee ISO/TC 43 (which deals with
the study of standards in connection with acoustics) from
2011 onward. The reply has varied as to the attention and
consideration that the observations have received, but not in
terms of the final response, which has been monolithic in its
rejection to the proposal ([34], [35]) on the basis that the
issue had been already discussed and the decision had been
final. In some cases, after the author’s reply with more
arguments, no further reply was received. In view of all the
evidence exposed, the ISO and other standard organizations,
either national and international, should revise the position
which proscribes the use of symbols such as dBA or dBC.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is a further development of the one presented
at the XIX Congreso Argentino de Acústica AdAA 2025 [36]
by an agreement with Elektron. The author wrote this paper
as part of his duties as a full-time professor at the National
University of Rosario, Argentina. The author declares that
there is no conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
[1] ISO 80000-3:2006 Quantities and units — Part 3: Space and time
[2] ISO 80000-8:2006 Quantities and units — Part 8: Acoustics
[3] BIPM (2019). The International System of Units (9th edition), p. 132,
127
https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41483022/SI-Brochure-9-
EN.pdf
[4] OIML D 2 Consolidated Edition 2007 (E) Legal units of
measurement
https://www.oiml.org/en/publications/documents/en/files/pdf_d/d00
2-e07.pdf
[5] IEC 61672-1:2013 Electroacoustics - Sound level meters - Part 1:
Specifications
[6] De las Casas Ayala, José María (1991) Curso de Iluminación
integrada en la Arquitectura. Servicio de Publicaciones del Colegio
Oficial de Arquitectos de Madrid. Madrid.
[7] Ferrero, Alejandro; Campos, Joaquín (2021) ¿Es la intensidad
luminosa la magnitud más fundamental para medir la luz? Instituto
de Óptica “Daza de Valdés” (IO, CSIC). e-medida N° 18-
https://www.e-medida.es/numero18/es-la-intensidad-luminosa-la-
magnitud-mas-fundamental-para-medir-la-luz/
[8] ISO 226:2023 Acoustics — Normal equal-loudness-level contours
[9] Cowan, James P. (2016) The Effects of Sound on People. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
[10] Manik, Dhanesh N. (2017) Vibro-Acoustics: Fundamentals and
Applications. CRC Press
[11] Beranek, Leo (comp.) (1988) Noise and Vibration Control. Institute
of Noise Control Engineers
Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 37-41 (2025)
ISSN 2525-0159
40
http://elektron.fi.uba.ar
[12] Harris, Cyril (comp.) (1994) Handbook of Noise Control and
Acoustical Measurements.
[13] Fritschi, Lin; Brown, A. Lex; Kim, Rokho; Schwela, Dietrich;
Kephalopoulos, Stelios (comp) (2011) Burden of disease from
environmental noise Quantification of healthy life years lost in
Europe. World Health Organization.
https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/326424/9789289002295-
eng.pdf?sequence=1
[14] Beranek, Leo; Vér, István (comps.) (1992) Noise and Vibration
Control Engineering. Principles and Applications. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
[15] Waugh, R. (1973) dBA Attenuation of Ear Protectors. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 53, 440–447.
https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1913341
[16] Ballesteros Garrido, María Jesús (2014) Análisis del ruido de ocio,
propuesta de procedimientos y herramientas de gestión. Tesis
Doctoral Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
https://oa.upm.es/32847/1/MARIA_JESUS_BALLESTEROS_GAR
RIDO.pdf
[17] Accolti, Ernesto (2015) Generación automática de paisajes sonoros
realistas con espectro, distribución de duraciones y categorías
semánticas especificados. Tesis doctoral FCEIA Universidad
Nacional de Rosario.
[18] Berglund, Birgitta; Lindvall, Thomas (1995) Community Noise.
Stockholm University and Karolinska Institute.
https://docs.wind-watch.org/WHO-communitynoise.pdf
[19] Berglund, Birgitta; Lindvall, Thomas, Schella, Dietrich; Goh, Kee-
Tai (2000) Guidelines for Community Noise. World Health
Organisation.
https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/66217/a68672.pdf?seque
nce=1&isAllowed=y
[20] Goelzer, Berenice; Hansen, Colin H.; Sehrndt, Gustav A. (2001)
Occupational Exposure to Noise: Evaluation, Prevention and
Control. Publication Series from the Federal Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. Special Report S 64. World Health
Organization.
[21] LEY L - N° 1.540 Control de la contaminación acústica en la ciudad
autónoma de Buenos Aires (texto consolidado 2017).
https://digesto.buenosaires.gob.ar/documento/download/Ley%20Ciu
dad-1540__8bbd883db98dac7a993dcf777998ddad503e4ca7.pdf
[22] Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana (2019)
Documento Básico HR Protección frente al ruido.
https://www.codigotecnico.org/pdf/Documentos/HR/DBHR.pdf
[23] New York City (2016) Noise Code
https://www.nyc.gov/site/dep/environment/noise-code.page
[24] City of Paris (2025) Code of Ordinances chevron_right Chapter 8
Offenses and Additional Provisions chevron_right ARTICLE 8.04
NOISE
https://ecode360.com/39778036
[25] Swiss Federal Council (2025) 814.41 Noise Abatement Ordinance
(NAO)
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1987/338_338_338/en
[26] ISO/IWA 24:2016(en) Non-sewered sanitation systems — General
safety and performance requirements for design and testing
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:iwa:24:ed-1:v1:en:fn:1
[27] ISO 16976:2023 Respiratory protective devices — Human factors —
Part 7: Hearing and speech
https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/82900/e8693e672dc54fd68794
937a154a0d2f/ISO-16976-7-2023.pdf
[28] ITU-R BS.1771-1 (01/2012) Requirements for loudness and true-
peak indicating meters
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/r-rec-bs.1771-1-201201-
i!!pdf-e.pdf
[29] ITU-T H.872 (10/2024) E-health multimedia systems, services and
applications – Safe listening. Safe listening for video gameplay and
esports
https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.872-202410-I/en
[30] ITU-R V.574-5 (08/2015) Use of the decibel and the neper in
telecommunications
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/v/R-REC-V.574-5-201508-
I!!PDF-E.pdf
[31] IEC 60268-16:2011 Sound system equipment – Part 16: Objective
rating of speech intelligibility by speech transmission index
[32] IRAM 4062-1 (2021) Ruidos molestos al vecindario. Parte 1 -
Método de medición y calificación en ambientes interiores y en
exteriores no linderos con la vía pública
[33] IRAM 4062-1 (2025) Ruidos molestos al vecindario. Parte 1 -
Método de medición y calificación en ambientes interiores y en
exteriores no linderos con la vía pública
[34] Nielsen Leif (2011-01-12) Personal communication by email.
[35] Kornprobst, Hans-Joachim (2018-01-18) Personal communication
by email.
[36] Miyara, Federico (2025) Enfrentando a la ISO: Sobre el uso del sím-
bolo dBA para los niveles sonoros ponderados A. Paper AdAA39.
XIX Congreso Argentino de Acústica AdAA 2025.
Revista elektron, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 37-41 (2025)
ISSN 2525-0159
41
http://elektron.fi.uba.ar
Enlaces de Referencia
- Por el momento, no existen enlaces de referencia
Copyright (c) 2025 Federico Miyara
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Revista elektron, ISSN-L 2525-0159
Facultad de Ingeniería. Universidad de Buenos Aires
Paseo Colón 850, 3er piso
C1063ACV - Buenos Aires - Argentina
revista.elektron@fi.uba.ar
+54 (11) 528-50889