CommentStreams:Bc6958de61a7cae34e81b8920d6c7b94

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your text—it's both well-written and exceptionally clear! I was particularly impressed by how you balanced such denseness with clarity (a hard tightrope to walk). Your exploration of ‘noise’—its absence, its relationship to signal-to-noise, and its connection to ‘ambience as distance’—is both intriguing and original. Given the brevity of the piece (1000 words), I understand that some details and descriptions had to be omitted. However, I wonder how you conceptualize and historicize this notion of "ambience." Including a definition or a citation related to your use of this term could add depth and context to your theory.

I also found your reflections on the ‘everydayness’ of ANC particularly compelling. They brought to mind Henri Lefebvre’s rhythmanalysis and Deleuze and Guattari’s discussions of rhythm. Both explore the monotony, urban hum, and constancy embedded in everyday experiences. Are these frameworks part of your consideration? If not, they might offer useful parallels to expand on this theme.

Regarding your discussion of ‘noise as othered sound’ and the violence inherent in its reconfiguration within the ‘(hereto)normative’ soundscape, I feel this concept could benefit from more explicit articulation. Specifically, the connection to ‘probability’ is somewhat underdeveloped at present. With that being said, your phrasing of ‘pre-predetermined’ is very clever and shows promise in helping to encapsulate this complexity. Clarifying this could strengthen your engagement with Simondon’s notions of transduction and individuation—a section I found particularly informative and thought-provoking.

On a related note, I would suggest adding citations for terms like ‘simulacrum’ (for readers who may not be familiar) and ‘alienation.’ For the latter, references to thinkers like Max Weber or Yuk Hui could be helpful. These additions could ensure accessibility while encouraging readers to explore these ideas further. Your linkage of ‘alienation’ to noise is highly promising, and I would encourage a deeper exploration of this connection.

Finally, I noticed a potential tension in your framing of Simondon’s induction as a ‘unidirectional process’ generating ‘plausible realities’ of non-heterogeneity. You contrast this with the ANC algorithm’s creation of ‘non-noise’—a pre-predetermined and virtual reality—arguing that it induces a heteronormative and fixed sound environment. This raises intriguing questions about how induction and the virtual relate to the infinite potential of non-heterogeneous realities. Untangling this tension could yield rich theoretical insights and further enhance your argument.

Overall, your examination of induction and reduction, signal and noise, and the reframing of sonic desire is fascinating. I especially appreciate how you categorize the ‘absence of sound’ as an emergent concept shaped by the recognition of undesired sounds and their transformation into ‘new sound.’ This reminded me of Gordon Pask’s 'To Evolve an Ear' experiment, where electrochemical devices with emergent sensory capabilities were used to distinguish between environmental stimuli.

P.S. Although not directly related to your text, I highly recommend 'Hungry Listening' by Dylan Robinson (https://www.upress.umn.edu/9781517907693/hungry-listening/). Robinson critiques the (colonial) archivist’s insatiable desire to collect more sounds (‘hungry listening’) and advocates for ‘non-listening’ as an act of radical respect and solidarity with Indigenous communities. While it takes an inverse approach, I think its themes resonate with your exploration of sonic frameworks and could inspire further insights.

Thank you for sharing your work—it was a pleasure to read, and I look forward to seeing how these ideas develop!