The Myth of Perfect Fidelity

Chapter 1 gives a brief history of the noise of sound media from the late nineteenth to the late twentieth century, tracing the development of different concepts of noise in dialogue with and reaction to ever more complex and sophisticated technologies. It explores the many ways in which inventors, engineers, producers, and musicians have sought to prevent, reduce, and eliminate this noise. The chapter thereby draws the contours of a myth of perfect fidelity or the idea that reproduced sound can in principle be separated from the noise of the medium and complete similitude between original and copy can be achieved. This myth is illustrated by two examples of noise-related technologies: Dolby analog noise reduction, which actively reduces the noise of sound media, and the counterintuitive practice of “dithering” in digital recording, by means of which small amounts of random noise are introduced to reduce digitization errors.

Ideal and Technical Filters

Chapter 3 shows how the logic of noise reduction is anchored in historical discourses on sound and technology, taking a closer look at the development, from the early nineteenth century onward, of some of the most important concepts in physical acoustics and sound engineering. First, it discusses two uncertainty principles fundamental to information theory and communication engineering, which entail compromises that limit the accuracy of any reproduction. Second, it focuses on the mathematical principles of Fourier analysis, which gave rise to the now-familiar representation of sound in terms of a “spectrum” of singular frequencies or “sine waves.” The chapter thereby explores the difference between a timeless, mathematical plane of the ideal filter in which clear, noiseless reproduction always seems possible, and a physical domain of technical filters in which transience and noise haunt every transmission. The contrast between the two, in turn, highlights the important relation between noise and time.

Time and Transience

Chapter 4 develops a detailed conceptual analysis of the interrelation between noise and time, to better grasp what it would mean to replace the myth of perfect fidelity with the idea of a noise resonance of sound media. It does so on the basis of a more philosophical reading of the contrast between ideal filters, exemplified by the timeless figure of the sine wave, and the inherently temporal nature of all technological filters. The chapter thereby shows that, contrary to the timeless clarity and purity assumed by the myth of perfect fidelity, the noise resonance of sound media acknowledges the inherently temporal nature of technological operations and the inevitable introduction of noise. As it shapes all recorded sound and music, noise thereby defines the listener’s experience of the multilayered temporality of technologically reproduced sound, emphasizing both its inherent pastness and its continuous flow through the present.

Conclusion

The conclusion takes stock of the way in which the media technological sound of the “other music” makes sense to human listeners. This music, it is argued, appeals to listeners not despite but precisely because of the way in which it is shaped by the noise of sound media: by all the disturbances, distortions, and interferences added by the transmission channels through which it travels. The book therefore closes with a brief exploration of the “other music,” using the music of Venezuelan electronic musician Arca as its final example. The fluidity and openness of her noisy, unpredictable music exemplifies the continuous trade-off between control and contingency that defines the operations of technical media. It is a fitting example of the way in which the noise of sound media, produced on the basis of the logic of filtering, is key to the continuous back-and-forth, or noise resonance, between music and listener.

Introduction

The introduction discusses the tightly interwoven relation between noise, sound, and media and explains why studying the noise of sound media from a media theoretical perspective offers novel ways to rethink the “sound” specific to sound media. After briefly assessing some relevant recent literature, it describes three distinct but historically interrelated concepts of noise: the sonic, physical, and communicational concepts that developed in the context of, respectively, sound and music, physics and engineering, and information and communication theory. By subsequently introducing the book’s main concepts—the myth of perfect fidelity, the logic of noise reduction, the noise resonance of sound media, and the logic of filtering—the introduction explains how a media archaeology analysis of noise can enrich the understanding of the ways in which sound technologies over the past one hundred forty years have shaped the sound of music.

The Logic of Noise Reduction

Chapter 2 explores the conceptual implications of the myth of perfect fidelity by further analyzing the two case studies introduced in chapter 1. While analog noise reduction and the addition of “dither”-noise in the digital domain at first seem diametrically opposed (reducing and adding noise, respectively), closer analysis shows that they both serve to conceal the physical influence of the medium on the reproduced sound. Following a conceptual logic of noise reduction, they strive to achieve the most accurate copy of the “original” sound. Information theory has shown, however, that this influence of media technological transmission channels on the output signal is inevitable, because the physical limitations of the medium cannot be fully overcome. The chapter therefore suggests replacing the myth of perfect fidelity with the competing concept of a noise resonance of sound media, to account for the fact that noise, distortion, and randomness unavoidably shape all reproduced sound.

The Logic of Filtering

Chapter 5 introduces the logic of filtering as the conceptual framework underpinning the noise resonance of sound media. On the basis of the analysis of the noise of sound media developed in the previous chapters, it shows how this logic does away with the idea that technical media should ideally leave no trace of what occurs between sender and receiver. It thereby denounces the fallacy that the reproduction is an incomplete version of some “original.” Instead of taking the input or output of the transmission as the primary point of reference, the logic of filtering emphasizes the crucial importance of all the physical processes that happen in between. By acknowledging that the noise of sound media inherently shapes the sound of recorded music, it thereby shows how the noise resonance of sound media ultimately precipitated the emergence of a new, media technological musical sensibility: an “other music.”