[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Sep 1, 3:48=A0am, Edmund wrote:

Well I admit I am a bit rusty here, but are you saying the ultrasonic sou=
nd
of a bat requires more energy to produce then the 7 Hz sound of an elepha=
nt?

Only if they are of equal amplitude, which they aren't very likely to
be.

Looking at instruments too I see the same phenomenon, low frequencies req=
uire
more air to be moved and much bigger instruments en more power to drive t=
hese
instruments. In loudspeakers too, the bass is bigger and need far more en=
ergy
then a tweeter.

But the tweeters produce much less amplitude. Try to make a tweeter
of the same efficiency of a woofer play a high frequency at the same
amplitude and you require more energy to do it.

It's proven mathematically and by measurement, but It's also
intuitively straightforward. Amplitude is how "big" the swing from
positive to negative is. If the swings are the same size the
amplitudes are the same. But higher frequencies have to swing back
and forth much faster and produce more waves than the lower ones in
the same time period, and that requires more energy. Swing a stick
slowly and then increase the speed while keeping the swings at the
same length. The faster you swing the harder you will work.

It doesn't matter if it's sound or light or electricity, the higher
the frequency the more energy an equal amplitude of the wave carries
more energy. Period. Dictated by the laws of physics. Nothing you
can do about it.

Anyway it is not a problem to deliver the energy to drive a tweeter for t=
he
very high frequencies.

Well yes it is if you want to keep the amplitude constant. What
you'll actually do in that case is burn out the tweeter rather quickly
if you have enough power available.

I read about it and also that one younger man ( boy) scored a ten out
of ten and thus he was able to tell the difference.
Then people tell a lot of stories about high end and I like to hear
it for myself.

Unless you give a reference to a properly blinded or double blinded
study where this was shown, you are merely relating an anecdote.
Anecdotes ain't evidence.

Edmund