Skip to main content

if you change the amplitude, of a sound wave, you change its ....

Q: If you change the amplitude of a sound wave, what do you change?


A: If you change the amplitude of a sound wave, you change its power and intensity. You also change its perceived loudness. In more general terms, you are changing the energy content of a sound wave when you change its amplitude. The amplitude of a sound is a measure of the change in pressure (force over a given area) that it exerts on the air through which it passes. 


The power of a sound is its amplitude over a given period of time. Power, like electrical power, is expressed in Watts, which is equal to 1 Newton of force per second. An increase in amplitude therefore causes a corresponding increase in power.


Sound is a 3D phenomenon. It radiates in a sphere from the source that creates it (like a speaker, human voice, airplane, or musical instrument). The power of a sound is the total force exerted by this sphere. Intensity is the power (as defined above) of the sound divided by a square unit area (usually per square meter). Intensity is usually measured in decibels (dB). This is a logarithmic measure because both power and intensity are proportional to the square of the sound's amplitude. That is, doubling the amplitude of a sound will actually quadruple the sound's power and intensity. Therefore, decibels, a logarithmic scale, are used to make the units on the measurement of intensity smaller and more tractable.


In psychological terms (that is, the way that we actually hear sound), changing the amplitude of a sound wave will also change its perceived loudness. Loudness is a function of a sound's intensity and is also measured in decibels (dB). Depending on the loudness of the sound as a function of this change in amplitude, it can vary from being impossible to hear to causing pain and, eventually, hearing loss.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more