Abstract
A widespread view among philosophers and scientists is that recorded sounds and assisted hearing differ fundamentally from natural sounds and direct hearing. It is commonly claimed, for example, that the sounds we hear over the phone are not sounds emitted by the voice of our interlocutor, but the sounds reproduced by the phone’s loudspeaker. According to this view, hearing distant sounds through communication and audio equipment is at best indirect and at worst illusory. In what follows, I shall reject these claims and argue in favor of a transparent view of auditory media, including radio, telephone, phonograph, etc. According to this approach, the great gift of Scott de Martinville and Edison is not to have invented devices able to reproduce vanished sounds but rather to have created technological instruments literally able to store and transmit them to future and distant listeners.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Nudds 2010
Sounds can travel in space (i.e. ambulance) but contrarily to some medial theories they do not always travel.
The goal of this paper is not to defend a distal theory of sounds against the medial approach. As asserted above, I will presuppose that the distal approach to sound is correct and explore its consequences for a theory of recorded sounds. It is interesting, however, to note that medial theories of sounds, by identifying sounds with sound waves, cannot theoretically distinguish between hearing a sound directly and hearing a recorded sound. In both cases, what the listener is hearing are sound waves reaching his or her ears.
Elemans et al. (2015)
See Casati 2012
For some nice examples of binaural recordings, see https://binauralenthusiast.com/examples/.
Surprisingly, binaural recording is not a recent invention. In fact, in 1881, Clément Adler demonstrated a transmission system that allowed listeners to enjoy the opera binaurally by holding one receiver against each ear. This broadcasting system was later used in several European cities for transmitting opera performances and plays.
To take only a few examples: microscopes make germs appear bigger, telescopes make planets seem closer, mirrors make hands appear reversed, etc.
For similarities between photography and recorded sounds, see §6.
An audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction.
References
Arthadeva, M. (1960). Mirror images are physical objects: A reply to Mr. Armstrong, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 38(2), 160–162.
Chion, M. (1983). Guide des objets sonores : Pierre Schaeffer et la recherche musicale, Paris : Buchet/Chastel.
Casati, R. (2012). Illusions and epistemic innocence. In C. Calabi (Ed.), Perceptual Illusions. Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Palgrave MacMillan.
Casati, R., & Dokic, J. (1994). La philosophie du son. Nîmes: Chambon.
Casati, R., & J. Dokic. (2010) Sounds. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sounds/
Elemans, C. P. H., et al. (2015). Universal mechanisms of sound production and control in birds and mammals. Nature Communications, 6, 8978.
Genone, J. (2014). Appearance and illusion. Mind, 123(490), 339–376.
Heider, F. (1959). Thing and Medium. Psychological Issues, I, 1–34.
Kalderon M. (2015). Form without matter, Empedocles and Aristotle on color perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kalderon M. (2018). Aristotle on Transparency. In T. Crowther and C. Mac Cumhaill (Eds.), Perceptual Ephemera (pp. 219–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kulvicki, J. (2008). The nature of noise. Imprint, 8(11).
Leddington, J. (2014). What we hear. In R. Brown (Ed.), Consciousness inside and out: Phenomenology, neuroscience, and the nature of experience (pp. 321–334). Dordrecht: Springer.
Leddington, J. (2018). Sounds fully simplified. Analysis, pp., 1–9.
Massin, O. (2010). L'objectivité du toucher. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/3010474/Lobjectivite_du_toucher
Mizrahi, V. (2019). Mirrors and misleading appearances. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97(2), 354–367.
Nudds, M. (2010). What sounds are. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 5, pp. 279–302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Callaghan C. (2007). Sounds : A philosophical theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pasnau, R. (1999). What is sound? The Philosophical Quarterly, 49, 309–324.
Prinz, J. J. (2014). The conscious brain: How attention engenders experience. Oxford: University Press.
Walton, K. (1984). Transparent pictures: On the nature of photographic realism. Critical Inquiry, 11(2), 246–277.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mizrahi, V. Recorded Sounds and Auditory Media. Philosophia 48, 1551–1567 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00168-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00168-8