Why does bass have a higher tendency to move objects compared to treble?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LukeeeeBennet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sound
AI Thread Summary
Bass frequencies have a greater tendency to move objects compared to treble due to several key factors. First, human ears are less sensitive to bass sounds, requiring higher power levels for the same perceived intensity. Second, low-frequency vibrations produce larger amplitudes, making them more visually impactful, while high frequencies often do not create noticeable movement. Lastly, objects like coins have low resonance frequencies, making them more responsive to bass vibrations. These principles explain the observable effects of bass on physical objects.
LukeeeeBennet
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
So, I'm writing a music A-Level dissertation, but because of my love for physics, I've based it on the physics of sound. I didn't think this should go into the homework section because it's not so much homework that I need help with.

Whilst working through some fundamentals on my board, I puzzled myself as to why bass has a higher tendency to move objects.

For example, if I put a coin on the desk that my speaker is on and keep the speakers at volume x, why will bass cause the coin to vibrate/move and treble not?

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are three reasons:

1. our ears are less sensitive to bass than to middle-C: to perceive the same intensity of sound bass acoustic waves must have much bigger power;

2. vibrations at the same energy have bigger amplitude for low frequencies. Thus coin vibrating at 20Hz may be seen as vibrating, but the wine glass vibrating at 5,000Hz make no visual effect;

3. objects like coin on a table have their resonance frequencies rather low.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top