Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was in the shower while my roommate was listening to music and got to thinking about the fact that I could only hear the bass and lower drums through the walls. Why is this? The two possibilities I could think up were:

  1. For some reason, sound waves at low frequencies (if I remember this means a lower pitch) are better at traveling through solids.

  2. The bass sound waves are slightly vibrating the walls themselves, and this is somehow producing sound waves in the air on the other side of the wall.

I have no clue if either are on the right track, and I'd really love to know!

share|improve this question
    
In addition to CarlBrannen's answer, there is always the possibility that your roommate was listening to a drum and bass track ! –  twistor59 Dec 10 '11 at 8:09

4 Answers 4

It's not so much that the bass frequencies go long distances as that the high frequencies get absorbed and don't.

Say that the dimensions of your room are 30 feet x 20 feet. Your room will be pretty good at scattering sound that has wavelength shorter (i.e. frequency higher) than $\lambda = 20$ feet. Since sound travels at around $c_s = 1000$ feet per second, this is frequency $f = 50\textrm{Hz}\;$: $$\lambda = c_s/f$$ $$ \textrm{20 feet = (1000 ft/sec) / (50 /sec)}$$ So you can expect that frequencies less than around 50Hz will escape your room better than the high frequencies.

When you see the sun go down the sky turns red because the red (low) frequencies get absorbed less than the blue (high). And as you'd guess, it's for the same reason. Except for things that are specially designed (or lucky), anything that absorbs a long wave length (low frequency) is big enough to also absorb the short wave lengths (high frequencies).

Of course, just as with colored glass, it's possible for matter to reverse the situation and have some low frequencies absorbed while the high frequencies penetrate. But it's not the way to bet.

share|improve this answer
    
Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I have trouble understanding your answer. You are not making any distinction between "absorbed" and "scattered". Are the high-frequency waves absorbed or scattered? I also don't get why low frequencies will get out of the room (whose room?) easier. –  Arnoques Dec 10 '11 at 9:20
    
When I've heard the neighbors stereo, it doesn't matter much if the highs are scattered or absorbed. In either case, I can't hear them and so they're not at all annoying. If they're scattered, you'll hear white noise which is not so bad. –  Carl Brannen Dec 10 '11 at 23:29
    
Low frequencies go around corners better than high frequencies. To see this, consider the low frequency limit. Say you open up an oxygen tank in your room. This will increase the pressure not only in your room but also through the whole house (as it escapes). –  Carl Brannen Dec 10 '11 at 23:30

There are two things at work here:

1) Scattering: The size of the particles in the walls etc. will determine what frequency they scatter. That is, if the size of the particles is larger than the wavelength, then those waves will be scattered. If on the other hand the particles are smaller than the wavelength then those waves will pass through without being scattered.

2) Resonance: The walls have their resonant frequencies and being large objects, these tend to be low frequencies. Therefore bass sound waves are better at triggering resonance in the walls, which helps their transmittance.

share|improve this answer

As sound makes a wall move, we know one half wave of sound has momentum. A 100 Hz sound wave typically has 10 times the momentum of a 1000 Hz sound wave. (Because the 100 Hz wave is 1000 Hz wave enlarged by factor of 10)

The wall moves 10 times faster and for a 10 times longer time, and the displacement of the wall is 100 times larger, when the frequency of sound is 10 times lower.

Ten times larger displacement at ten times lower frequency would produce equal pressure changes, but it was a 100 times larger displacement, which is a 10 times "too" large a diplacement.

share|improve this answer

The longer wavelengths aspect is still a little confusing without diagrams. I keep picturing a snake trying to slither between particles in a wall, and you'd think a smaller snake with shorter body ripples would have an easier time. But I do get it, overall.

A gut-level angle is that bass has more raw energy than higher frequencies and simply bullies its way through materials. If you move more air you move more total molecules.

Regardless of the science and acoustics, thousands of ghetto idiots are GLAD that bass transmits as far as it does! That's how they define their "territory."

share|improve this answer
    
This isn't really an answer - for instance, which of the two possible answer presented by the OP are you suggesting is true? It doesn't matter if you get it, we need to get it :-) (and why would bass have more raw energy - certainly not true for EM waves....) –  levitopher Jul 11 at 4:27
    
Well, bass amplification requires the most power from an amp, as we all know. It's intuitive that bass physically shaking a wall will pass its energy further than frequencies that make smaller molecular movements due to less "oomph." Liken it to an earthquake's low rumble vs the sound of a few boulders clanking down a hill. The earthquake moves a lot more mass. I think comments about "small particles" in the wall vs wavelengths are confusing, since you could go down to the atomic level with that angle. This is something that really needs diagrams or animations. –  Mic Fidelity Jul 11 at 22:10
    
I you tap on someone's door with one knuckle (mostly midrange) vs pounding with your whole fist (mostly bass) the knuckle-tap will barely move the door while the fist-slam will shake the whole frame and "bust through" to shake other walls (more energy delivered). Call that my ghetto explanation. I'll leave the details to others! –  Mic Fidelity Jul 11 at 22:18
    
Right but you're assuming the human ear is a good measuring device for energy or power. In fact, it's quite a bad measuring device (personal.cityu.edu.hk/~bsapplec/frequenc.htm). Like you I don't claim to know the answer, but you're appealing to arguments which are certainly not objective. Bass amps have more power (and require more energy) because the human ear is less sensitive to it, so they have to be loud so we can hear it. –  levitopher Jul 12 at 2:28

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.