why does elasticity matter when dealing with sound waves?

Question

I know that 2 physical properties are needed for sound: mass and elasticity and I know why masss is need I'm just confused why elasticity is.

Answer 1

Mass without elasticity wouldn't vibrate. Examining a single cycle of vibration in detail, when you beat, compress or pluck a drumhead, air column or guitar string, you force it away from its at-rest state. It returns returns to rest position when the impact ends, and reaching that point with velocity it continues past it a nearly equal distance in the opposite direction, then reverses that motion and returns nearly to the initially forced position. This cycle repeats until the vibration energy is finally bled off by losses such as damping. The returning-to-rest parts of the cycle are due to elasticity, which is the property of tending to return to the undisturbed state. The continuing past rest parts are due to the inertia of the mass. The formula for the natural frequency of a simple spring-mass system is w = sqrt(k/m) rad/s, where k is the spring constant and m is mass.

Answer 2

The question is unsuitable: Frequency, the inverse of wavelength, has not something to do with the quantity of capability of a valid wave. A wave is defined in area via 3 properties: Frequency, Amplitude, and section Shift. each is autonomous of another. So, Amplitude could properly be something (huge or tiny) for any frequency. regularly nonetheless, bigger frequency waves attenuate swifter than low frequency waves (till in a vacuum), so all issues being equivalent in case you have a appropriate source, producing waves of all frequencies with the top same amplitude and you're measuring the amplitude of each frequency at remote from the source, the measured amplitude of the decrease frequency waves would be bigger than that of the intense frequency waves. it somewhat is reason you may purely somewhat hear the backside noise from autos that have their audio equipment cranked up loud whilst they're close by.