Category: Sound Design

This blog is the first of a two-part retrospective on the excursion that we, the first-year sound design students, took to Paris. The trip took place in March and centred around the IRCAM Forum Workshops, a week of presentations, workshops, and demonstrations hosted by IRCAM, a French institute for research in music and sound. The programme ran from Tuesday to Saturday across two venues. In this post, I will highlight two sessions that stood out to me from each location.

GRM Tools Atelier Workshop

Starting off with a workshop which took place at the IRCAM building (located alongside the Centre Pompidou on Place Igor Stravinsky), the presentation introduced GRM Tools Atelier, a modular real-time environment for sound processing and synthesis developed by INA GRM. The developers behind the project demonstrated it as a creative space where sound can be built, transformed, and explored through a network of connected modules. The main focus was on experimentation, encouraging users to discover new sounds by combining simple building blocks in somewhat unconventional ways.

For me, the highlight was seeing their comb filter both on its own and in combination with other modules. I was surprised by the variety of results that could be achieved with a simple sound synthesis concept and by the potential the plugin itself offered through additional controls such as harmonic manipulation, morphing, and interaction with other modules.

That being said, as a student, purchasing software like this is not always realistic, and in this case, I am not convinced owning the plugin itself is necessarily the most important takeaway. The principles demonstrated during the session can be applied using open-source platforms, like SuperCollider. Ultimately, the value I took from this session was less about the software itself and more about the ideas behind it. What initially appeared to be a presentation of a new tool was, from my perspective, a sound design lesson disguised as a software demonstration, and I am grateful for the experience, as it encouraged me to think about familiar processes in a broader creative context.

Demonstration of an Augmented Instrument

Also taking place at the IRCAM building, as part of Remix (an IRCAM showcase presenting the first results of several hybrid artistic research groups), the presentation by Katalin Koltai, a guitarist, researcher, and lecturer at the Royal Academy of Music in London, focused on the progress of her ongoing research into augmenting the classical guitar. In this context, “augmented” refers to a traditional acoustic instrument that has been enhanced with additional mechanical and/or electronic components to expand its sonic capabilities while maintaining the feel and playing techniques of the original instrument.

Their form of augmentation comes in the shape of the Open Frets Guitar, a prototype featuring a reconfigurable magnetic fretboard that allows the layout of the frets to be altered. This opens up possibilities for alternative tunings and microtonal performance, which stood out to me as I usually use non-standard tunings in my own guitar practice. Alongside this, the prototype featured the use of exciters, a type of electroacoustic transducer, used to make the strings and body of the guitar resonate.

The use of exciters also reminded me of a piece I made, 3.2.2024., for which I placed an exciter beneath the soundboard of a concert piano. The sound coming from the exciter was used to vibrate the body and strings of the piano, creating a natural filter whose strength depended on the amount of sustain pedal used. This practice is not new, but I personally enjoy seeing what others come up with and the different ways in which they enrich the sound. That was the general highlight of the presentation for me.

An Audiovisual Performance using Setar

Moving to the second location of the excursion, the transdisciplinary venue Centre des Arts in Enghien-les-Bains, a performance rather than a talk that stood out to me was Moving With Time by Seyed Ali Hosseini, a composer and researcher in electronic music; and Giuseppe Messineo, a composer and coder working with interactive audiovisual systems. The piece was an audiovisual real-time interaction performance exploring the evolving relationship between sound, image, and culture.

My highlight was definitely the beginning of the performance, which involved the use of the setar, a traditional Iranian lute, alongside vocal chops and visuals generated through TouchDesigner. Combined with the spatial audio setup, in which speakers were arranged in a circular formation, the performance created an atmosphere that was easy to become immersed in. As the piece progressed, so did the sound material and its context. As the name of the composition implies, it evolved over time, doing so by blending elements of electroacoustic music with a more dance-oriented approach.

Something I learned after reading more about the project was the use of concatenative synthesis, a type of synthesis that builds sounds by stitching together short samples from a larger sound database. Unlike granular synthesis, another sample-based technique that they used, concatenative synthesis allows recorded material to be analysed and reorganised based on specific characteristics rather than by manipulating small sound grains directly. The combination of these techniques allowed the original acoustic material to gradually transform into something much further removed from its source.

EEG Audio-Visual Performance on Pleasure

Lastly, I’d like to mention one more performance, which also took place at CDA, Liberated Frequencies by Keigo Yoshida, a Japanese artist and doctoral researcher whom I met during the forum week.

The performance was an audiovisual exploration of the relationship between artificial intelligence and human perception of sound. Alongside his assistant and narrator, Rinko Oka, they monitored brain activity using EEG sensors, a type of sensor used to record the electrical activity of the brain, and isolate brain waves related to pleasure. During the development process, Yoshida had previously tested his collaborator’s perception of different sounds, collecting responses to various sonic materials. These responses were then used alongside EEG during the performance, allowing the system to react to the collaborator’s auditory perception. The visuals were done in TouchDesigner.

I found the dialogue between the listener’s preferences and the system particularly interesting. Rather than moving towards comfort and familiarity, it deliberately generated a harsher soundscape, leaning on post-human-centred aesthetics in which human preference is no longer the only measure of value.

Sources:

This blog is a summary and review of Kevin Blackistone’s NIME paper, “Ultrasound Probe as Tool for Tangible Sound Performance Using Physically Sculpted Phantoms”. I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect, as my first association with the word “phantom” was more in line with some type of ghosting effect (a visual trailing artifact behind moving objects). What I was met with instead was a deep dive into medical imaging techniques, material exploration, and its sonification.

Core Concept: Medical Imaging Techniques

This paper documents a project centered around a standard handheld medical ultrasound probe. While I did get an ultrasound in the past myself, I didn’t know the technology behind it. After some research on the side, I have learned that this device is a type of transducer, transducers being devices that convert energy from one form to another (a category in which microphones and speakers also reside). It relies on the piezoelectric effect, which allows the probe’s crystals to vibrate and emit high-frequency sound waves, also known as ultrasound. As these sound waves travel or vibrate into the body, they reflect back to the device as echoes, which are then used to create a real-time visual interface. The NIME paper documents various movements when operating the probe and how they affect the resulting image.

While these devices are typically used on human tissue, medical training often relies on “phantoms,” which are opaque, dyed gelatin molds designed to mimic organic tissue, with the aim of helping students practice handling the probe and other sub-dermal (just beneath the skin) tools. Blackistone uses the ultrasonic medical probe in combination with DIY phantoms to create a physically expressive and sonic performance.

On DIY Phantom Design

The DIY phantoms used were composed of everyday food items such as tofu, grapes, orange peels, mushrooms, and even coffee grounds, with the aim of creating different membranes, materials, and surfaces, each of which reflects ultrasound differently, producing unique spectral characteristics once converted into sound via an additive synthesis approach. It is also a positive ethical choice to use organic matter, as it minimizes waste.

In my opinion, this approach of using DIY phantoms instead of human tissue is a clever choice, as it creates this playful and intuitive way of sculpting a soundscape, shaping the end results before they even hit an electronic translation process. It also shifts the focus to a more post-human-centered approach, in which the story isn’t as much on an individual as it is on Frankenstein-like phantoms.

If we were thinking in terms of musical instruments, the phantom in this case acts as the body of the instrument, and the probe as a tool for playing it.

On the Synthesis Approach

The paper outlines a sound synthesis framework that translates real-time ultrasound imagery into multi-spectral audio by mapping object depth (the distance from the probe’s surface) to frequency and pixel brightness (corresponding to material density) to amplitude. From my understanding, this is done via Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT) by sampling single or multiple vertical lines across the video stream. Each line is then mapped to a bank of individual frequency bins, without phase reconstruction or more advanced spectral processing. The result is a frame-by-frame additive synthesis. This approach is somewhat limiting, something the author openly acknowledges, as some of the phantom designs end up producing relatively similar soundscapes.

My first thought after reading up on ultrasound probes was to make a more straightforward synthesis approach of taking the ultrasound echo, shifting it to the audible range, applying an amplitude curve accounting for human hearing, and listening to the results. Then, I would probably build some type of detection tool for different shapes to trigger different types of sound events. From there, it could be combined with the already established idea of taking the depth and density values for some other sound parameters.

This focus on mapping dynamic frequency curves brought me back to the author’s brief, separate quick mention of the app SPEAR (an application for audio analysis, editing, and synthesis), which I would like to quickly mention as I tried using it in the past. My idea was to analyze audio samples via the software and reconstruct them via additive synthesis in SuperCollider (a platform and programming language for audio synthesis). Such an approach, however, proved more finicky than I initially expected, with the number of various sinusoidal frequencies needed to get a hint of the original sample being larger than anticipated. If I were to try again, I would also take into consideration the varying amplitude of the frequencies over time, which would be achieved by putting the needed values in arrays read as values for ADSR (attack, delay, sustain, release) envelopes.

Final thoughts

I enjoyed reading about this project. I was particularly drawn to the sculptural aspect and design choices which were taken when tackling the DIY phantoms. The project works well for a performance, as it has an anchoring point most of us would be able to understand, that being the live visual representation of the scan in combination with the exploration and manipulation of the chosen phantoms. If this were developed further, I would be interested in what other synthesis methods they would come up with, or in what way they could enrich the possibilities of the current setup.

Sources:

Hôtel de la Marine

IRCAM was beautiful and of course it was interesting to see, but if I am honest, it was not my favourite sound-related experience in Paris. I actually liked the Hôtel de la Marine audio guide more than many of the things I saw at IRCAM. That surprised me a little, but it was simply a stronger experience for me.

The best part was not that the system was technically revolutionary. It was more about the taste and the artistic decisions. The way it told the history of the building, the atmosphere it created, and the attention in the sound design felt like a very well-made audio drama.

Walking through those old corridors while listening to the history of the place was genuinely impressive. You feel the building as something that has changed over centuries, not just as a museum room with objects inside. Hearing the stories while standing in those spaces made me feel closer to the history of Paris and to the people who had passed through that building. That part was honestly beautiful.

What I liked most was the artistic side of the audio guide. The voices, timing, background sounds and atmosphere worked together very well. It showed the history of Paris, the history of the hotel, and the way time changed the city in a way that felt natural and cinematic. For me, this was much more memorable than a lot of more “high-tech” things that try too hard but do not really create an emotional experience.

Of course, the system was not perfect. There were some headphone bugs and trigger problems. Sometimes xa sound started between rooms, and sometimes something did not trigger at all. But honestly, with such a large programmed system, I can understand that this happens. It was annoying in the moment, but it did not destroy the experience for me.

One detail I really liked was the headphone design. They did not fully close my ears. They stayed a few centimetres away from them, and I think this was a very smart choice. It made the sound feel less isolated and more connected to the actual room. The recorded sound and the real acoustic space could exist together, which made the atmosphere more believable.

There were also some interactive installations inside, but they did not interest me that much. They were fine, but compared to the audio guide they felt a bit bland. For me, the real strength of the visit was not the interactive technology. It was the combination of place, history, narration and sound design. That is what stayed with me.

At the beginning of this semester, I set out to answer a question that seemed surprisingly simple: How can an interactive web application support sound designers in learning and exploring ear candy techniques?

Looking back, I realized that answering this question required much more than building a website. It involved researching a concept that is rarely defined in academic literature, analyzing practitioner knowledge, designing an educational prototype, and overcoming numerous technical challenges along the way.

Although the current version of the website is still an offline prototype, it represents an important first step toward making ear candy techniques more accessible, particularly for beginners.

Balancing Research and Development

One of the biggest challenges throughout the project was balancing theoretical research with technical implementation.

Developing an interactive audio application for the browser proved to be more time-consuming than I had initially expected. A significant amount of time was spent solving technical problems related to browser audio processing, user interaction, and debugging.

As a result, less time was available for literature research and user evaluation than originally planned. While this shifted the focus of the project toward implementation at certain stages, regular discussions with my supervisor helped ensure that the underlying research question remained the central priority.

A Concept That Continues to Evolve

Another important realization was that ear candy is not a clearly defined concept.

Throughout my research, I encountered many different interpretations, both in academic literature and among music producers. Depending on the musical genre, artistic intention, or personal listening preferences, different techniques may be perceived as ear candy.

For that reason, the definition proposed within this project should not be understood as definitive. Instead, it serves as a practical framework that supported the development of the website and may evolve through future research and feedback.

Looking Ahead

The website is still under active development, and several ideas remain for future iterations.

Planned improvements include expanding the range of interactive modules by adding techniques such as chorus, layering, and granular synthesis. In addition, further work will focus on improving the stability and consistency of the application.

Another important next step will be evaluating the educational value of the website with a broader group of participants. Future testing is planned with both sound designers and people without prior experience in music production, using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to better understand how users interact with the platform and whether it supports learning.

Final Thoughts

This project began with curiosity about a term that appeared frequently in conversations about music production but was rarely explained in detail.

Over the course of the semester, that curiosity developed into a research project, an interactive prototype, and a deeper exploration of how sound designers learn and experiment with creative techniques.

While the project is far from finished, it has established a foundation for future development and further research into the concept of ear candy. I hope that future versions of the website will continue to evolve as both an educational resource and a place where users can explore sound design through experimentation.

Throughout this blog series, I’ve mentioned the interactive sound design website I started to develop during the semester. What I haven’t talked about yet is how I actually built it.And I did that with the help of AI. While large language models made the development process much more accessible, I quickly realized that they are far away from a “one-click solution.” They are more like collaborative tools which require the constant feedback, experimentation with prompts, and refinement by a human.

Choosing the Right Technology

Before I started coding, I researched different technologies for implementing interactive audio on the web. One option I considered was WebPd, which allows Pure Data patches to run in the browser. However, I found that WebPd currently supports only a limited number of Pure Data objects, making it unsuitable for the complexity of my project. Additionally, AI models generally struggled to generate reliable Pure Data code, and learning enough WebPd from scratch within a single semester would not have been realistic.

Because of these limitations, I decided to build the project using Tone.js, a JavaScript library specifically designed for creating interactive audio applications in the browser.

Why I Switched from ChatGPT to Perplexity

At the beginning of the project, I experimented with both ChatGPT and Perplexity for coding assistance. After trying different prompts, I noticed that Perplexity consistently generated more useful code for my project. It also asked more relevant follow-up questions whenever my requests were ambiguous, which often resulted in solutions that matched my intentions more closely.

For this reason, I primarily used Perplexity as my coding assistant throughout the project.

AI Does Not Eliminate the Work

Although AI significantly lowered the barrier to building the website, the overall development process remained very time-consuming.

One of the biggest challenges was debugging. Since I do not have extensive web development experience, I often could not identify the source of an error myself. Instead, I had to carefully describe the problem to the AI, explain the expected behavior in detail, and repeatedly refine my prompts until the generated solution actually worked. In many cases, fixing one issue introduced new bugs somewhere else, leading to an iterative cycle of testing, explaining, and regenerating code.

There are probably AI models that would have performed better for this specific task, but I still consider the experience a valuable learning opportunity. Throughout the semester, I became much better at writing precise prompts and understanding how to communicate technical problems effectively.

Example Prompts

Some of the prompts I used during development are:

• “I want to build a reverb with Tone.js that reacts to audio input and can be controlled with two sliders. The first slider should control the reverb tail length, and the second should function as a dry/wet control. Please generate a complete HTML page.”
• “The reverb tail is not behaving correctly. What do I need to change? The displayed tail length does not match the actual reverb tail.” (followed by the relevant code)
• “Please add an information option to all effect settings. I would like a small ‘?’ icon that users can hover over to display information about the respective effect.”
• “The code does not work. The sound does not change regardless of how the sliders are adjusted.”

Often, the AI only generated the specific code sections that needed to be modified. When the required changes became too extensive, I simply asked it to regenerate the entire updated code block instead, which made it much easier to replace large sections without introducing additional errors.

Conclusion

Using AI did not replace the programming process—it changed it. Rather than writing every line of code myself, I spent much of my time describing problems, evaluating generated solutions, testing them, and iterating until the desired functionality was achieved. The project showed me that AI is a powerful development assistant, especially for someone without extensive programming experience. At the same time, it also highlighted the importance of clear communication, critical evaluation of generated code, and patience during debugging. Working with AI allowed me to make an amount of progress on a project that would have been difficult to do within one semester on my own, while also teaching me valuable skills in prompting and problem-solving.

When starting this project, I assumed that defining ear candy would simply be a matter of reading enough books and journal articles. It didn’t take long to realize that things weren’t quite that simple.

Although ear candy is a term that appears constantly in music production tutorials and discussions among producers, it is surprisingly uncommon in academic literature. I found books on sound perception, spatial audio, emotional engagement, and sound design—but very few authors actually discussed ear candy itself.

That raised an interesting question: If most knowledge about ear candy is shared by practitioners, where can I look for reliable information?

Looking Beyond Academic Literature

Academic sources formed the foundation of my research. They provided valuable insights into topics such as listener engagement, spatialization, emotional resonance, and sound perception. However, they rarely addressed the specific language used by today’s music producers. That’s where practitioner knowledge became incredibly valuable.

Platforms like YouTube have become important spaces where musicians, producers, and sound designers exchange ideas, demonstrate workflows, and introduce terminology that often becomes part of everyday professional practice. While these videos are not peer-reviewed research, they offer a unique perspective on how concepts are actually understood and applied within the creative community.

Ignoring these sources would have meant overlooking a large part of the contemporary conversation surrounding ear candy.

Finding Patterns Instead of Following Opinions

Of course, using YouTube as a research source also requires critical thinking. Individual creators may have different workflows, artistic preferences, or definitions of the same concept. Rather than treating one video as an authoritative source, I looked for recurring patterns across multiple creators. Interestingly, despite their different backgrounds, several ideas appeared repeatedly.

Andrew Huang describes ear candy as additional musical details that go beyond the core elements of melody, harmony, and rhythm. Jono Buchanan compares ear candy to “Easter eggs” that reward listeners who return to a song multiple times. Axel Lundström, creator of the YouTube channel Synthet, defines ear candy as details that stand out and make a track more interesting.

Although each creator uses slightly different words, they all point toward a remarkably similar idea: ear candy consists of small sonic details that enrich the listening experience without becoming the central focus of a composition.

Finding these recurring themes gave me much more confidence than relying on a single definition.

Combining Theory and Practice

Rather than treating academic literature and practitioner knowledge as competing sources, I found that they complemented one another.

The academic literature helped explain why certain sounds feel engaging. Research on perception, emotion, contrast, and spatialization provided a theoretical framework for understanding listener engagement.

The practitioner sources, on the other hand, demonstrated how these ideas are translated into everyday production techniques. Reverb automation, delay throws, vocal chops, reverse effects, and layered textures appeared repeatedly across tutorials, giving me practical examples of concepts that the academic literature often discussed only in broader terms.

Together, these perspectives allowed me to develop a working definition of ear candy that was both theoretically informed and grounded in contemporary production practice.

A Different Kind of Research

This project reminded me that valuable knowledge doesn’t always exist in one place.

Books and journal articles remain essential for developing a theoretical understanding of sound design. At the same time, creative communities continuously develop new techniques, terminology, and workflows that often appear online long before they are discussed in academic publications.

Sometimes understanding a concept means listening not only to researchers, but also to the people who use it every day.

---

References

Buchanan, J. (2023, September 6). LOGIC PRO X – How to create Ear Candy Tricks. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klgexvg7Uks

Collins, K. (2020). Studying Sound: A Theory and Practice of Sound Design. MIT Press.

Høier, S. (2014). Surrounded by Ear Candy? Nordicom Review, 35(s1), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2014-0116

Huang, A. (2022, March 24). This always makes a huge improvement on any song. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q96csLYzPN8

Lundström, A. (2025, March 13). every trick to EAR CANDY. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqqKtwdHAGw

One of the first questions I had to answer when developing my website was surprisingly simple: Which ear candy techniques should I actually include?

Since there is no universally accepted definition of ear candy, there also isn’t a definitive list of techniques that belong to it. During my research, I came across countless examples: vocal chops, reverse effects, layered textures, delay throws, risers, granular synthesis, creative automation, and many more. Obviously, it wasn’t possible to implement everything within a single semester.

Instead, I selected techniques that either appeared repeatedly in the literature on sound perception and engagement or were consistently highlighted by sound design practitioners as examples of ear candy.

Why Reverb?

Reverb was one of the easiest choices. Throughout my research, it repeatedly appeared as a technique that adds depth, space, and emotional impact to a sound. Even subtle adjustments can completely change how close, distant, or immersive a recording feels. Because the effect is immediately audible, it seemed like an ideal starting point for an interactive learning environment.

To keep the module approachable, I decided to focus on two essential parameters: the length of the reverb tail and the wet/dry balance. Rather than overwhelming users with dozens of controls, I wanted them to hear how just a few adjustments could dramatically transform a sound.

Why an Arpeggiator?

Unlike the reverb module, the arpeggiator wasn’t chosen because it appeared particularly often in the literature. Instead, it reflects my own listening experiences.

I noticed that arpeggiated patterns appear in many contemporary productions and often function as subtle but memorable musical details. They create movement and rhythmic variation without necessarily becoming the main focus of a composition.

Although an arpeggiator may not always be considered ear candy on its own, it demonstrates how relatively simple musical ideas can become much more engaging through variation and repetition.

Why Delay?

Delay was another technique that repeatedly appeared in tutorials and discussions surrounding ear candy. Creative delay throws, echoes, and rhythmic repetitions are often used to emphasize particular moments in a song without changing its overall structure.

I felt it was important to include a delay because it represents another commonly used production technique that encourages experimentation.

Looking Ahead

Several ideas had to be postponed simply because of time constraints.

Granular synthesis, layering demonstrations, and chorus effects are all techniques that I would like to explore in future versions of the website. I find granular synthesis fascinating in particular because of its ability to transform ordinary recordings into completely new textures and soundscapes.

Choosing what not to include was just as important as deciding what to build.

Rather than creating as many modules as possible, I wanted to develop a small collection of interactive examples that encourage curiosity and experimentation. I hope they provide a starting point for beginners to discover their own understanding of ear candy… one effect at a time.

If you ask yourself why some YouTube videos show up in the references of these blog posts, the next blog post will answer exactly that.

---

References

Buchanan, J. (2023, September 6). LOGIC PRO X – How to create Ear Candy Tricks. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klgexvg7Uks

Collins, K. (2020). Studying Sound: A Theory and Practice of Sound Design. MIT Press.

Huang, A. (2022, March 24). This always makes a huge improvement on any song. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q96csLYzPN8

Lundström, A. (2025, March 13). every trick to EAR CANDY. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqqKtwdHAGw

Roads, C. (2015). Composing Electronic Music: A New Aesthetic. Oxford University Press.

When people think about sound design, they often imagine complicated software, expensive microphones, or racks full of audio equipment. While these tools are certainly important, I’ve come to realize that one of the most valuable skills a sound designer can develop doesn’t require any equipment at all. It simply requires listening.

Throughout my research on ear candy, I noticed that many authors place a surprisingly strong emphasis on listening rather than producing. Before creating interesting sounds, we first have to notice them. That sounds obvious, but in our everyday lives we often treat sound as background information rather than something worth paying attention to.

So I went on a little side quest during this semester to gather some exercises that help sound designers learn how to listen differently. I did this not just for fun, but with the intention that I can include them in my ear candy website as content.

Listening Exercises That Changed My Perspective

I came across several listening exercises developed by researchers and practitioners in the field of sound design. Although each exercise has a different focus, they all encourage one essential skill: paying closer attention to the sounds that surround us every day.

Soundwalking (Westerkamp, 1974/2001)

One exercise that particularly caught my attention is Soundwalking, originally developed by Hildegard Westerkamp (1974/2001).

The concept is surprisingly simple: Go for a walk without listening to music or podcasts and focus entirely on your acoustic surroundings.

How does the city centre sound compared to a park? How do your footsteps change when walking across concrete, gravel, or grass? How long does a clap echo inside a tunnel compared to an open street?

Instead of treating these sounds as background noise, the exercise encourages us to experience them as meaningful elements of the surrounding soundscape.

I really like this exercise because it transforms something we already do every day into an opportunity for creative inspiration. You don’t need any equipment, just curiosity and a willingness to listen.

Reduced Listening (Écoute Réduite) (Schaeffer, 1966, as cited in Roads, 2015)

Another concept (that changed the way I actually think about sound) is Reduced Listening, or écoute réduite, introduced by Pierre Schaeffer.

Normally, when we hear a sound, our brain immediately tries to identify its source.

“That’s a car.”

“Someone closed a door.”

“A bird is singing.”

Reduced Listening asks us to temporarily ignore those associations and instead focus purely on the sound itself.

Is it bright or dark?

Smooth or rough?

Continuous or rhythmic?

How does it change over time?

At first, this felt surprisingly difficult. Our brains naturally want to classify sounds as quickly as possible. However, by focusing solely on a sound’s acoustic properties, we begin noticing details that would otherwise remain hidden.

Five Minutes of Listening (Collins, 2020)

Not every exercise has to be elaborate. Karen Collins (2020) describes a simple daily listening practice: spend five minutes sitting in one place and write down every sound you notice.

No phone. No music. No distractions. Just listen.

At first, the list is usually quite short. But after a minute or two, more and more sounds begin to emerge. Air conditioning systems, distant conversations, birds, footsteps, traffic, wind, electrical hums, or the subtle creaking of furniture.

Even if the environment hasn’t changed, your attention might have. I think that’s what makes this exercise so powerful. It reminds us that listening isn’t just passive, but that it is a skill that improves with practice.

Sound Charades (Collins, 2020)

Another exercise suggested by Collins (2020) is Sound Charades. For this one you will need a second person.

Instead of describing what produces a sound, participants may only describe its acoustic qualities while another person tries to identify the source.

For example, instead of saying “It sounds like footsteps,” you might describe the sound as rhythmic, short, rough, and slightly hollow.

This encourages us to think less about the object itself and more about the sound’s actual characteristics. This exercise can turn into a valuable habit for anyone working creatively with audio.

Everything Makes Sound (Viers, 2008)

Perhaps my favorite exercise and something I use quite often comes from Ric Viers (2008).

His idea is wonderfully simple: take an ordinary recording and transform it into something completely different through digital processing. A cat’s meow might become a science-fiction sound effect. Rice being poured into a bowl could evolve into an eerie cinematic texture. A chair scraping across the floor might turn into an atmospheric transition.

The point isn’t necessarily to use these sounds exactly as they were recorded. Instead, they become raw material, starting points for creative exploration so to say.

Rather than asking “Where can I find interesting sounds?” I now find myself asking:

“What interesting sound might already be hiding inside this ordinary one?”

Listening Comes Before Designing

When I first started this project, I assumed that learning sound design mostly meant learning techniques. But before we can create engaging sounds, we have to become more aware of the sonic world around us. The more carefully we listen, the more ideas we discover and the more possibilities we have when we finally sit down to create.

Perhaps becoming a better sound designer doesn’t always start with opening a DAW.

Sometimes it starts by taking off your headphones.

In the next post, I’ll explain how I chose the effects I will represent on the ear candy website.

---

References

Collins, K. (2020). Studying Sound: A Theory and Practice of Sound Design. MIT Press.

Roads, C. (2015). Composing Electronic Music: A New Aesthetic. Oxford University Press.

Schafer, R. M. (1992). The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. Destiny Books.

Viers, R. (2008). The Sound Effects Bible. Michael Wiese Productions.

Westerkamp, H. (2001). Soundwalking. (Original work published 1974). https://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio-webdav/WSP_Doc/Booklets/SHWesterkamp.pdf