Exactly, I used approximations on purpose, but the real approximated value in this case is the 1%. The ratio that actually gets −20 dB is 1:100.
I felt that getting approximated but round results was worth the imprecision. If I used values like −19.96 on the table, then people without the patience to handle maths wouldn’t be able to use it as well.
Should I explain about the imprecisions of this table better in the article?
Your odds ratios, and thus your decibels, are imprecise. I don’t know if that was approximation on purpose to simplify calculation, or what?
For example, 1% is an odds ratio of 1:99, which is
10 * log(1/99) =~ -19.96.Exactly, I used approximations on purpose, but the real approximated value in this case is the 1%. The ratio that actually gets −20 dB is 1:100.
I felt that getting approximated but round results was worth the imprecision. If I used values like −19.96 on the table, then people without the patience to handle maths wouldn’t be able to use it as well.
Should I explain about the imprecisions of this table better in the article?
It seems like the obvious thing to do, but it’s worth having a tiny note that percent values are approximate, just because they look exact.
Ok, note added.
It’s a commonplace in sound that 6dB = twice the signal, even if it’s actually 1.995.