|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.20.204.170
In Reply to: RE: Physics, energy, frequency posted by Caucasian Blackplate on April 13, 2014 at 10:02:45
If vibrating a given cone 20k times takes more energy than doing so 40 times, then, you can't separate frequency from sound energy.
Logically, it seems that the energy of sound must be proportional to both amplitude and frequency. I don't see how to get around the point that oscillating something 20k times/sec takes more energy than doing so at 40 Hz. However, low frequencies have to be amplified more in order to be detected by the ear and that is why they require more energy. The formula should contain both amplitude and frequency, tho.
Follow Ups:
...The Joules that are required to move the "length of a wave".
"Low frequencies carry less energy. So why does bass require more energy in a sound system? "
.
."If vibrating a given cone 20k times takes more energy than doing so 40 times, then, you can't separate frequency from sound energy."
With regard to sound, both of your premises are wrong. I'm unfamiliar with electromagnetic/light radiation science, but it doesn't matter - you're asking about acoustics.
Quite frankly, you come across as a bit of a know-it-all. You don't know what you're asking about, hence your question, yet when people with some insight reply, you argue with them.
I suggest you buy two books:
"Music, Physics and Engineering" by Harry F. Olson (Dover Press, still available through Amazon as a reprint or used).
"Master Handbook of Acoustics" by F. Alton Everest.
These will go a long way to clearing up your misconceptions about sound and acoustics.
Hope this helps!
:)
Edits: 04/14/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: