Talk:Sound

Sound can be in object in space (like a vaccum) even though it cannot travel in a vaccum

While it is true sound cannot travel in a vaccum, I feel this statement slightly misleading. This is because light that is intense enough to exert a mechanical force on a object can, when pulsed, make a sound on any solid, liquid, gas, or plasma it comes in contact with even thought the light is in a vaccum. This is because pulsed aspect of the light causes the mechanical force exerted by the light on the object to vary even if it is just by a constant periodic force (or square wave of light). Thus an object in space can be affected by a sound wave from another distant object in space simply due to emission of electromagnetic radiation even though they are separated by a vaccum. A common example of this can be seen in the reference below as reported by Scientific American. Another more theoretical example is our sun. If you where to record the sound from an object orbiting very close to the sun (like a satellite) theoretically you would measure a very high pitched sound even though only light it hitting the object. Reference

Maris, Humphrey. "Picosecond ultrasonics." Scientific American 278, no. 1 (January 1998): 86. Environment Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 8, 2008).

130.207.38.33 (talk) 21:28, 8 [[October 2008 (UTC)

Are you objecting to "Sound cannot travel through vacuum."? If so, I don't see why. What would you propose saying instead? Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sound cannot travel through a vacuum" is still a correct statement; you might, however, argue that "The energy of sound in one medium cannot become acoustic energy in another which is separated from the first by a vacuum" would be an incorrect statement. Since the article did not say that, it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.186.45 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"sound means those vibrations composed of frequencies capable of being detected by ears.[1]"

In the article on the "tree falling in the woods" question, you contradict that statement. In that article it says:

"Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."

That is a quote from a scientist, which you quote in the "falling tree" article. The definition you use in the "sound" article is from a dictionary.

I agree with the science definition. Sound is not any waves "capable" of being heard, it is waves which are heard. As the scientists say. It is a totally human/animal concept. Just because a tree produces waves of energy, it doesn't produce sound.

Alan16 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Without ears, vibration is simply vibration. With ears, it's sound. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That is sort of my point. It is only sound when it is heard. That makes the opening sentence "sound means those vibrations composed of frequencies capable of being detected by ears.[1]" incorrect. Sound should surely be defined as be "vibrations composed of frequencies detected by ears." Not capable. It is only sound when ears hear it. It isn't sound, even if it is a vibration with a frequency between 20 and 20000 Hz. It is only sound when detected by ears. No? Alan16 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Go for it. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. I've done it. I think it sounds fine, but if you can think of a way to write it in a better fashion, change it. Thanks. Alan16 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit about how the vibration must be loud enough to be heard for it to be sound. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a minor mod to the wording, but I'm not at all sure I'm comfortable with the new definition. How about we bring some sources into the discussion, and try to go with an accepted definition? Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry people but I disagree. If you look at the definition it is:

  "capable of being detected by human organs of hearing"

The "tree falling in the woods" article has no reference so I can not read it. But to take a common sense scientific approach. If I take a microphone and a mile long mic cable and record a tree falling in the woods and I then play back the recording over a speaker how can the first set of vibrations in the air not be sound and the second be sound?

Scientific observation generally discounts observations that are dependent on the person making them. Observing sounds with the ear or a microphone makes no difference in the phenomena. One may be more accurate than the other, but they both observe the same phenomena. The scientific name of the phenomena is "sound" or "sound waves".

It is like saying that a light in the 625–740 nm wave length leaving a light bulb is only red when it hits your eyes. The light leaving the back of the bulb has no color. If I were to put a mirror behind the bulb, then the colorless light would magically become red simply because it changed direction and hit your eyes.

Taking the "vibrations composed of frequencies detected by ears" definition a bit farther it would bring up the question of who's ears? If you use my ears, the the frequency range of sound is only 20 Hz to 12 KHz. This frequency range is also common for people over 70. What about the rare few who can hear frequencies above 20 KHz? The "detected by ears" phrase is far to subjective to be useful in the first sentence of an encyclopedic definition of sound.

Finally if we allow the "detected by ears" phrase to stand it would validate the snake oil claims of the cable people who claim their audio, speaker, AC cables dramatically improve the sound of your stereo. How can you contradict the sales person who makes the claim? You can't hear what their ears are detecting, so their opinion observation is as valid as yours.

Robert.Harker (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You do highlight some facts that I thought about. The microphone thing especially. The "heard by ears" thing is perhaps not the right way of phrasing it, but I don't like capable, because I don't believe it is scientifically accurate.

And also, I disagree with your source. The only dictionaries I can find that definition in are wiktionary and American Heritage thing. The more reliable ones, like Merriam-Webster and the OED, do not include this definition.

I think the real problem lies, in that, in my opinion, the definition is that sound is only sound after it has been through the ears. That is not well worded, but I hope you get the idea. I'm trying to say that if a tree falls in a wood, it doesn't make it sound. It instead makes vibrations which the ear picks up as sound. Also, I could argue that a microphone doesn't pick up sound, it picks up the vibrations. It only becomes sound when we listen to it through some headphones on a computer etc.

The reason I talked about the "tree falling in the woods" article, is because it quotes and references an article in a scientific journal, where the American Institute of Scientists said it is not sound until heard through ears, and then sent through nerves, etc etc.

To sum up, I think it would be wrong to say "vibrations which are capable of being detected by human hearing organs" (paraphrased). It is misleading. It suggest that a tree falling in a wood creates sound, when I, and the AIS, argue that it does not. It instead creates waves, which after going through ears become sound.

Like many I think the edit I made is probably not really a good first encyclopaedic line, but I also think a change from what it was is neccesary. A consensus needs to be reached. *EDIT* Just correcting spelling mistakes.Alan16 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Any vibration that might be heard by an organism which is able to sense sound IS sound... it doesn't matter if it's out on the polar icecap with nobody to hear it. It's sound by concept... it can be discussed as sound that might have been heard. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That is what I, and my sources, disagree with. According to the American Institute of Scientists, vibrations at the polar icecap only become sound when they are interpreted in that way by the ears/brain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but sound is in the form of waves. Now I believe they are not labelled sound, and light waves light. They are just waves. They become sound when the human ear interprets them. I think that it would therefore be bad practice to call it sound, in the assumption that it is sound we would have heard. Alan16 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Many sources define sound one way or the other. Here's one that explicitly acknowledges both. We should use both, too. Dicklyon (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as we make both sides clear. I think that was the biggest problem, when I original asked about changing it. I don't think it was particullarly clear. Alan16 (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

sound vibrates through the air and walls and gas and basikly everything i ont know that much about sound —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.104.254 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiAudio ext. link

I'm not reverting for now, but I do feel that this link is noteworthy enough to include. I would oppose using it on pages like "Music" or "Amplifier", but it seems natural to have it here. What do you people think? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "noteworthy" is among the criteria in the policy at WP:EL. It suggests we might want to link things with content that can't easily be included here (I don't think that's the case here); and suggests avoiding open wikis. Comment relative to those, please? Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy is perhaps a poor word to express my thoughts. Consider criterion 4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." That would be the "for" argument. The "against" argument is anti-criterion 12 "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.", but the provision "except those..." definitely applies here. WikiAudio is an active wiki, and is an actual go-to source for audio related stuff.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the site helping our readers. The first page I came to showed a prominent search cell within which to type something... it said What Would You Like To Know?. I thought for a second about what one of our readers here on this page might be curious about and typed in "speed of sound". What I got was a list of articles having nothing to do with the answer: "Wow and flutter measurement", "Melodyne 3.2.2: Tools", "Wireless microphone", "Pitch control", etc. This was not at all reassuring. I scrolled down the list to the 18th entry and found Delay which I figured might have the answer. The speed of sound was not presented there but it had a rough thumbnail estimate useful for live sound engineers, one which I recognized from the Delay (audio effect) article here. Reading deeper, I was surprised to see my own wording within the straight delay section at WikiAudio; apparently, its text was taken from the article here. I see no reason why we need to have an external link which mirrors text found here. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of '20 Hz and 20,000 Hz'

Hi. I just wonder how accurate "For humans, hearing is limited to frequencies between about 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz (20 kHz), …" is? Which age does this generally apply for? I can hear frequencies between ~20 Hz and 20,800 Hz, and I am 19 years old. So I can't imagine it to be the limit as widest in a life time.

//Andrée —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.240.95 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is more a general statement, and could probably do with editing to show this. I'll make the change see the response. Alan16 ^talk 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The low frequency limit isn't tied to aging. Just about everybody can hear 20 Hz if it's loud enough; and further increases in sound pressure allow the listener to sense down to about 12 Hz. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See Olson, Harry F. (1967). Music, Physics and Engineering. Dover Publications. pp. 248–251. ISBN 0486217698..

Do you think this should be put in the article, because I think it only says that the upper limit is tied to ageing. Alan16 ^talk 14:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure! We should define both ends of the range. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm correcting my 16 to 12 Hz per Olson. I guess it's been too long since I looked at that page. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, well I'll change the bottom range to 12Hz and site your source. Ok? Alan16 ^talk 21:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sound is vibration transmitted through…"

I think "Sound is vibration" should be rephrased as "Sound is a traveling wave which is an oscillation of pressure", as in the article Hertz.

— 85.225.240.26 (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the changes. Seems to be the right thing to do. Alan16 ^talk 21:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely the "right thing to do" is to find out what sound actually is by looking it up in a reliable reference such as one of the many standard textbooks on sound and then writing a reasonably correct definition? I think for 5 minutes a few years ago there was briefly a sensible one but it was soon lost due to the actions of the enthusiastic but ill educated. (Yes I know what sound is but I am not going to fix the page because I am not prepared to spend time defending it and I also use it, along with a few other pages, to monitor the state of wikipedia.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.127.77 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

the definition

Sound is a travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas,

can someone clarify whether the "which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas," refers to "travelling wave" or "sound" ?? if it refers to "travelling wave" , is it really necessary to mention that extra bit of info referring to something else here? (admittedly relevant from an angle, but still...) also it'd be great if someone could add commas indicating pauses and appropriate breaks in the definition --59.92.50.79 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

another thing... the last bit doesn't make tat great sense too - "or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations." - for one thing, tats straight outta the internet - basically this 'definition' is a mixture of definitions - not a bad thing, but we at wikipedia can do better i'm sure... and two, technically there isn't any prior reference to vibrations and even though one might presume to say oscillation of pressure refers to that, its not really right.

'official' scientific definitions are complex at times, but an analysis will show the definition to be logical and the words to have been placed with intent and with a definite purpose. there will be a correct amount of metering, something thats not really present here.. this one looks like somethin created outta spare parts, to put it bluntly.

i apologise if i've wounded the users who've worked hard to arrive at this definition after muddling thru expansive marshes of politics, ego fights, compromises etc (and no, i'm not being sarcastic)... but on analysin the thing, i felt it could've been know that it can be worded much much better... --59.92.50.79 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound is always produced by vibrating objects.

sounds can be produced accidentally as well a s deliberetaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.42.111 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If sounds are the waves, then we are systematically deceived as to the location and duration of sounds, yet, magically, we derive justified beliefs regarding the locations and durations of the sources of sounds from these false beliefs, which is nonsense. Waves necessarily move, yet, unless the source of the sound is moving, we do not experience the sound as if it were moving; if a sound is the wave, then when we hear it, it is right at our eardrum, yet we do not experience the sound as if it were at our eardrum unless the source is right at our eardrum. As to duration, if the sound is the wave itself, then it existed before we hear it and continues to exist after we hear it, but we don't experience it as if it existed before and after we hear it. Justified beliefs cannot be derived from non-veridical experiences, but we can have justified beliefs regarding the locations and durations of things from the sounds they make. On the contrary, sounds should be conceived of as the disturbance events which initiate the waves that carry the information from the source to our ears; under this conception, we are not systematically deceived as to their locations and durations. Infradead525 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I monitor a few articles now and again to track the state of wikipedia quality and this is a useful one. If you want to define sound then look it up in a text book about sound (there are thousands of them starting the century before last) and not a dictionary. Sound is not an oscillation of pressure even though sound waves involve oscillations of pressure. They are also rarely singular. If you wish to define sound as the audible component of acoustic waves then it would be better in the definition and not just the disambiguation even though it is rather doubtful definition.

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hearing at the speed of sound

If you are moving at or beyound the speed of sound, what do you hear?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.64.137 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 

About the intro to the article

The intro seems to suggest sound is only vibrations in the range of human hearing (approx. 20hz-20khz) but sound can be lower or higher than that (Elephants hear lower sounds, Dogs hears higher sounds, etc) EDIT: To be more clear, if sound is created out of the range of all living things present, the vibrations in the air still occur, thus sound is still there - it's just that it is not in the range of any human/animal present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.52.194 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sound is a particular auditory impression, per Merriam-Webster Online. Sound requires organs of hearing, and vibration to stimulate those organs. Any vibration outside the sensitivity of all living things is not sound, it is vibration. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

issue with the first citation

sorry to be bumping the rest of this page (if any of these conversations are still active) but the first citation refers to a dictionary and does not send you to the dictionary's webpage. if there is not a web page it then seems more appropriate to remove the hyperlink and cite it as a book as many other wiki pages do.

i'm wiki-incapable or i would make the changes myself, sorry guys :P

also, the definition could use some work. i just finished a chapter in my college physics class on sound and the wording of this wiki definition made my head spin. from browsing other threads in here it seems there was some partial editing to it or substituting or something along those lines and it seems worse for the wear. -Austin209.105.184.28 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

well, i just read more of this page, and there are serious contradictions to mainstream sound information. i understand that this doesnt make them wrong, but the sources these are cited to are poorly done. one source literally sends you to a google books page. another sends you to a page not related to its source. this article is fairly useless in this state, uncommon facts with poor citations = better off phoning a friend for quick reference. -Austin209.105.184.28 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The first cite turned into a dead link, as things are wont to do on the intertubes. I changed it into an archived version of the old link. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)