“ Hey , Bobby ! Can you please turn down your guitar amp over there ?!” The distal theory of sound illustrated via Bobby ’ s amp over there .
possible answers . We might summarize the wave theory as pointing out a disruption somewhere in the space in-between the sounding object and the listener , or the ‘ longitudinal compression waves in the air ’ which philosophers would label the medial theory of sound .
Sound might also be described as emanating from the location of its material source . If you think about how we often speak of sound , this might be a bit more obvious of an idea . “ Hey , Bobby ! Can you please turn down your guitar amp over there ?!” The ‘ over there ’ is doing the work here , pointing to what philosophers would call the distal theory of sound . Note that at least in this casual everyday example , we didn ’ t ask Bobby to reduce the amplitude of the waves that his guitar amp was creating in the space in-between the speaker and our ears ( medial ), but rather pointed ( perhaps literally ) to his amp ( distal ) as the object of the sound to adjust .
If Bobby ’ s amp was really starting to rock , we might plug or cover our ears . This starts to get at one other possible description / location of sound — at the ear of the hearer . Strictly speaking , this proximal theory of sound might include the ‘ inner sensations ’ we have of the sound and quickly starts to dive in other connected philosophical realms of Philosophy of Mind and perception , etc . The old ‘ if a tree falls in the forest ’ sort of question seems to be pushing on the idea of a proximal theory of sound - does a sound without a perceiver count as a sound ?
Of course , it could be that sound is devoid of spatial characteristics at all ( aspatial theory of sound ). This one is a little trickier to draw out without a bit more philosophical backstory , but the simplified version would posit that we incorrectly associate sounds with events occurring outside our body while they are actually effects within us . The philosopher D . L . C . Maclachlan sums up this idea in his 1989 book Philosophy of Perception as such : “[ A ] lthough the sounds we hear are just as much effects produced in us as are the pains produced by pins and mosquitoes , there is no variety in the location of these [ sounds ]. Because of the lack of contrast , we are not even aware that the sounds we hear are bodily sensations ” ( 31 ). This is a really fun idea to ponder as I ’ m adjusting the mix
and imagining the effects of those adjustments to be bodily sensations within each and every one of the congregants . Heavy .
I hope you ’ re still with me after dipping our toe into a much deeper world of Philosophy of Sound . I ’ ve only started to scratch the surface myself , but it has been eye-opening ( ear- opening ?) to play with these ideas and really hone in on how we speak about and interact with sound . As with much of philosophy , we started out with a simple question and ended up with … even more questions ! So , is sound distal , medial , proximal , aspatial ( or none of the above )? I ’ d love to hear your thoughts on the topic - shoot me a note over on LinkedIn . Stay tuned for updates down the road as I work on formulating an answer to just what ( and where !) the ‘ sound ’ part of ‘ sound engineer ’ may truly be .
Jeff Hawley A 20-year music industry veteran — equally at ease behind the console , playing bass guitar , leading marketing teams or designing award-winning audio products . He currently heads up the marketing for Allen & Heath in the US .