From Cybernetics to Immersivity: Reframing Sound Space in Electroacoustic and Audiovisual Composition

From Cybernetics to Immersivity: Reframing Sound Space in Electroacoustic and Audiovisual Composition Paulo C. Chagas1[0000000317065508] and Ivana Petković Lozo2[0009000348473077] 1University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA [email protected] 2University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA [email protected] Abstract. This article examines the evolution of sound space in electroacoustic music from a theoretical and compositional perspective, with a focus on key works by Paulo C. Chagas. It transitions from early paradigms of musique concrète and elektronische Musik to immersive and telematic environments, articulating sound space as a relational, cognitive-affective field shaped by technologies, listening practices, and socio-political conditions. Drawing on theories of acoustemology, cybernetics, affect, and embodied cognition, the discussion encompasses the cybernetic spatial models of Migration and Projektion,theimmersive ambisonic environment of Pune Metamorphosis,andthetelematicfieldwork of Sound Imaginations.Electroacousticsoundspaceisnotconfined to technical or aesthetic dimensions; it constitutes a cognitive-affective and socio-political field in which composition unfolds as a mode of knowing, a practice of critique, and a poetics of presence. Keywords: Electroacoustic Music ·Sound Space ·Acoustemology ·Ambisonics ·Cybernetics ·Immersion ·Telematic Composition ·Paulo C. Chagas. 1Introduction–Sound,Space,andAcoustemology The experience of sound has always been inseparable from space, yet the notion of sound space in electroacoustic music has taken on new critical dimensions in recent decades. No longer constrained by architectural acoustics or stereo imaging, sound space emerges as a relational and dynamic field shaped by listening practices, compositional intent, technological affordances, and affective perception. This article explores this multidimensional concept by tracing its evolution from cybernetic spatial models to immersive compositional ecologies, with reference to a corpus of works developed across Paulo C. Chagas’ compositional practice. Georgina Born’s typology of musical space provides an essential entry point. In her analysis of music and sociality, she identifies three coexisting modalities of Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 391 2PauloC.ChagasandIvanaPetkovićLozo space: the phenomenological space of sound (as constituted by its material and perceptual properties), the social space of production and performance, and the relational or networked space shaped by technological mediation and cultural practice [4]. Electroacoustic music, particularly in its post-studio forms, complicates these categories. While much of the early discourse focused on spatialization in a technical sense—diffusion, localization, ambisonics—Born’s emphasis on relationality opens a broader horizon: sound space as a socio-technological construct shaped by interaction, contingency, and emergent systems. This relational view resonates with Steven Feld’s foundational notion of acoustemology—a term that fuses “acoustics” and “epistemology” to propose sound as a way of knowing [25]. Feld’s ethnographic work among the Kaluli of Papua New Guinea revealed how listening is embedded in place, time, and social ontology; rainforest sounds were not only ambient but epistemic—integral to cultural knowledge, orientation, and meaning-making [23,24]. Acoustemology thus emphasizes listening as a situated, embodied, and affectively charged activity. It challenges objectivist approaches to sound by foregrounding the experiential, intuitive, and even spiritual dimensions of auditory perception. Building on Feld, Tom Rice broadens acoustemology’s scope to include modern and technical soundscapes, from hospital acoustics to urban noise, suggesting that auditory knowledge continues to play a structuring role in contemporary life [34]. His work underscores how listening practices are culturally encoded and politically charged, and how the design of sound environments often reflects asymmetries of power, authority, and access. In parallel, Katherine Hayles offers a powerful framework for understanding listening through her concept of the cognitive nonconscious.Sheintroducesthe idea of cognitive assemblages:distributedsystemsinvolvinghumanandtechnical agents whose interaction patterns form a kind of ambient intelligence [30]. From this perspective, listening is not solely a conscious or subjective act; it also involves nonconscious processing—by both biological and machinic systems—situated within planetary-scale networks of cognition and control. This view aligns closely with recent developments in immersive and telematic composition, where signal processing, machine learning, and sensor networks participate in the generation and modulation of sound space. Drawing from these theoretical paradigms, we propose an understanding of sound space in electroacoustic music as a cognitive-affective field:adynamic and co-constructed territory where perception, emotion, memory, and materiality converge. This field is shaped by the spatial distribution of sound (ambisonics, diffusion), by compositional form (granular textures, feedback loops), and by the listener’s situatedness—whether in a concert hall, a telematic environment, or an immersive installation. In Paulo C. Chagas’ works—from Migration to Projektion,Pune Metamorphosis,andSound Imaginations—sound space functions not as a neutral container but as an active, transformative medium, revealing the resonant interplay between the self, the system, and the environment. In what follows, we trace the development of this conception through a sequence of compositional case studies and theoretical reflections. We begin by Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 392 From Cybernetics to Immersivity 3 revisiting early frameworks of spatial thinking in electroacoustic music [38,3,7], before moving on to more experimental articulations that reflect cybernetic, affective, and immersive paradigms. 2SpaceinElectroacousticMusic The electroacoustic paradigm represents a profound shift in the cultural, aesthetic, and technological foundations of music. It has expanded the field of musical creation by introducing a new set of tools—apparatuses—that transform sound perception and production. As Chagas writes [13,p.19],“Withtheelectroacoustic paradigm, we build the capacity to use apparatuses to produce and move sounds around spaces.” This paradigm is not merely a historical continuation of the instrumental or vocal traditions; it constitutes a new epistemological framework for thinking and composing with sound. Within this expanded paradigm, two foundational directions emerged after World War II: musique concrète in Paris and elektronische Musik in Cologne. Musique concrète,developedbyPierreSchaeffer,emphasizedtheuseofrecorded sounds from the acoustic environment. The tape recorder enabled the isolation of sound objects from their physical sources, allowing them to be manipulated as self-referential sonic materials. This approach was grounded in phenomenology, particularly Husserlian concepts of bracketing and perception, and it introduced the influential distinction between sound object and sound source [35]. On the other hand, elektronische Musik,centeredattheWDRStudioin Cologne, explored the generation of entirely new sounds using electronic oscillators, sine waves, and noise generators—tools not originally designed for music but repurposed as musical apparatuses. Composers such as Karlheinz Stockhausen constructed sounds from scratch, layering and organizing them through serial and mathematical principles. This school was marked by an aesthetic of purity and control, in contrast to the concrete tradition’s reliance on empirical discovery [39]. Despite their contrasting origins, these schools converged under the umbrella of the electroacoustic paradigm, which dissolves the strict opposition between found and synthetic sounds. What matters is no longer the origin of the sound, but its function within a creative system. The paradigm embraces both reduction and construction, analysis and synthesis. It recognizes that sound can be apprehended in its immediacy or reconstituted as part of a network of virtual relations. In this context, the practice of reduced listening (écoute réduite), championed by Schaeffer, is a cornerstone. It calls for a suspension of referential and causal associations, enabling a more abstract and focused attention on the sonic morphology—texture, duration, envelope, and spectral content. Reduced listening resonates with Denis Smalley’s theory of spectromorphology,whichprovides avocabularyfordescribingandanalyzingsoundshapesandgesturesfroma perceptual standpoint [38]. Both approaches prioritize the experience of sound over its source or meaning. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 393 4PauloC.ChagasandIvanaPetkovićLozo The electroacoustic paradigm not only integrates and transcends vocal and instrumental paradigms but also redefines the very ontology of sound in music. It inaugurates a field of sonic practice in which technological apparatuses are not merely tools but co-creators of meaning. In this framework, sound becomes amediumofthought,asiteofexploration,andamaterialoftransformation. Electroacoustic music thus emerges as a ‘laboratory’ of listening, invention, and aesthetic critique—an experimental form of life that reflects, challenges, and reshapes our relationship to sound, space, and technology. Continuing this exploration, we must consider the electroacoustic studio not merely as a neutral site of production, but as an active component of musical thought and spatial composition. The studio mediates the relationship between the composer, the machinery, and the emerging sonic material. As Chagas has argued elsewhere, electroacoustic music integrates two basic conceptions of sound space: (1) as an embodiment of performance and (2) as an embodiment of composition [7,p.189]. In the first model—linked to musique concrète and the tradition of the loudspeaker orchestra—spatialization is performed live, assigning sound channels to speaker positions in real-time. Here, the loudspeaker functions analogously to a performer, and each concert becomes a unique spatial interpretation. This notion reinforces the aesthetic of space as gesture, where spatial decisions are temporal, contingent, and irreproducible. The variability of loudspeaker configurations from one venue to another introduces a spatial multiplicity, producing a different sonic image with each realization. In contrast, the second model arises from the serialist tradition of elektronische Musik,inwhichspacebecomesacompositionalparameter—designed, encoded, and fixed within the multichannel tape. Spatial form is treated algorithmically, in line with other parameters such as pitch or rhythm. In this view, sound synthesis and spatial position are intrinsically correlated, and space can function as a structuring principle akin to musical form. This mode of thinking was enabled by technological advances such as the four-track recorder and quadraphonic speaker arrays, which allowed composers to assign sounds to specific positions and simulate movement across the spatial field. As space became a parametric dimension, electroacoustic music acquired a new tactile quality: sound was no longer simply heard, but perceived as occupying a physical position—a sonic body with boundaries and orientation. This phenomenological shift reframed the experience of electroacoustic music. Space, like timbre, became a semiotic and perceptual vector for meaning, grounding the experience of listening in embodied spatial memory. The studio, therefore, is not only a site of production but also a conceptual instrument—a resonant chamber where compositional ideas are shaped by the materiality of space, apparatuses, and feedback loops. As Chagas later developed through the notion of circular sound space, this perspective emphasizes movement, rotation, and the recursive shaping of spatial relationships within an immersive listening field [7]. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 394 From Cybernetics to Immersivity 5 3CircularSoundSpace:Migration (1995–97) The composition of sound space has evolved alongside technological advances that have enabled the creation, manipulation, and projection of sound in multiple dimensions. As explained by Chagas in Circular Sound Space [7], the multitrack tape recorder played a foundational role in establishing electroacoustic music as a multilayered medium capable of spatial articulation. This development laid the groundwork for complex sound environments where the spatial location, movement, and layering of sounds became compositional resources. The WDR Electronic Studio in Cologne became a benchmark for spatial composition in the 1950s. It offered both the technological infrastructure and the architectural design necessary for advanced electroacoustic experimentation. A landmark in spatial music created at WDR is Karlheinz Stockhausen’s Kontakte (1958–60), one of the most emblematic quadraphonic works of the twentieth century. The studio featured a Rotationstisch, a mechanical rotating table used to spin loudspeakers and project sounds dynamically through a four-speaker array—an analog precursor to algorithmic sound movement. This concept was further developed in Oktophonie (1991), where Stockhausen expanded the four-channel format into an eight-channel immersive environment. These works redefined sound projection as an essential compositional parameter and established WDR’s studio as a crucible for innovative spatial music. With the emergence of digital tools, these principles were significantly expanded. As described in Circular Sound Space [7], the introduction of Pro Tools and the multichannel capabilities of hard disk recording enabled composers to access, arrange, and transform multiple sound channels in highly flexible ways. Hybrid workflows combining analog tools such as the EMS Synthi 100 with digital environments like Max enabled the programming of complex spatial gestures and the real-time control of twelve-channel diffusion systems. Migration: 12 channel electronic music (1995-97) [5]wascomposedinthis context. It is performed for an audience surrounded by a circle of 12 loudspeakers, arranged in a manner similar to the numerals of a virtual analog clock. This spatial configuration reflects the architecture of the main production room at the WDR Studio, where a ring of 12 ceiling-mounted speakers provided an immersive listening environment. This setting was instrumental in defining the core spatial ideas of the composition, as Chagas worked there as Sound Director and Composer-in-Residence from 1990 to 1999. The artistic concept of Migration is inspired by Jorge Luis Borges’ short story “The Library of Babel,” which imagines an infinite labyrinth of hexagonal rooms. This metaphor became the conceptual and poetic basis for a circular, endless, and non-hierarchical sound space. The notion of “migration” also serves as a metaphor for the constant displacement and spectral transformation of sound material through the loudspeaker constellation. The concept of circular sound space in Migration is founded on the correlation of spectral transformation with spatial diffusion, as Chagas describes: “the concept of circular sound space develops a 12-channel polyphony by correlating Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 395 6PauloC.ChagasandIvanaPetkovićLozo spectral transformation to sound spatialization” [9, p. 180]. The spatial design is structured around two fundamental principles: 1. Decomposition in static sound spaces –Spectralcomponentsareseparated and assigned to specific speaker locations or geometric constellations involving 3, 4, 6, or 12 channels. 2. Movement in dynamic sound spaces –Soundsrotateandmovebetween speakers in patterned ways, forming sonic trajectories that create polygons such as hexagons, triangles, squares, or twelve-sided rings. The 12-channel configuration is sometimes conceived as two interlocking hexagons—a spatial metaphor inspired by Jorge Luis Borges’ short story “The Library of Babel”, in which hexagonal rooms extend infinitely in all directions, forming a structure of recursive and labyrinthine architecture. This conception informed both the compositional and spatial strategies of the piece, allowing the geometric logic of rotation to be metaphorically aligned with a broader epistemic vision. This approach is visually represented in Figure 1, which illustrates the dual-hexagon configuration and its rotational trajectories within the circular sound field. Fig. 1. Dual-hexagon spatial design in Migration,showing12-channelspeakerconfiguration and geometric rotation system. Special attention was given to different types of rotation: in-phase rotation, where all spectral components circulate together; counter-rotation, in which parts move in opposite directions; and irregular, fragmented rotations that produce sudden shifts and asymmetries [9, p. 181]. These operations were programmed using Max to control real-time displacements and modulation parameters, often driven by algorithmic sequences or spatial envelopes. As summarized in Chagas’ book Unsayable Music, “The audience is enveloped by a virtual polyphony of twelve channels, organized as spatial patterns and trajectories that generate sound masses and textures, comparable to moving Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 396 From Cybernetics to Immersivity 7 constellations” [9,p.181].Theresultingspacesupportsbothanalyticallistening—through decomposition—and affective immersion—through rotational flux and spectral transformation. 4 Cybernetic Circularity: Projektion (2000) The piece Projektion: 12 channel electronic music (2000) [6]exploresthenotion of circularity as a cybernetic principle of composition, rooted in analog-era thinking about rotation, feedback loops, temporal modulation, and automated rotation. Its aesthetic is inspired by concepts from systems theory and secondorder cybernetics—particularly Heinz von Foerster’s notion of non-trivial machines [27]andNiklasLuhmann’stheoryofautopoieticsystems[32]. The origin of the piece was entirely accidental. During the experimental phase of Migration in 1995, a computer crash occurred while loading a sample of a female voice. Instead of rebooting, the system looped a short fragment—approximately 100 milliseconds—ten times per second. Rather than discard this failure, Chagas routed the audio into the 12-channel analog-digital spatialization system developed in the WDR studio with sound engineer Volker Müller. The interaction between the sample and the spatial envelopes, which were set to 72 milliseconds, created a rhythmic misalignment. The result was a perceptual interplay of accentuation, rotation, and instability that the composer immediately recorded in Pro Tools. The resulting spatialization system—illustrated in Figure 2—relied on 12 VCA channels that functioned as time windows. These were modulated using Max patches and controlled rotation in a clockwise direction. The envelope of each window, derived from the Synthi 100 and converted to MIDI, determined amplitude variation across channels, creating a sense of continuous spatial movement. The rotation system became a sonic “machine,” simulating constant circular displacement while introducing micro-instabilities between the loop length and the envelope window. Projektion was not conceived as a conventional electroacoustic composition but as an evolving structure of algorithmic transformations. The original loopbased recording became the “Urstruktur”—a raw twelve-track texture that was subjected to five additional processing methods: Feedback, Delay, SinusFilter, ChaosFilter, and SinusFilterEnd [11]. Each transformation was algorithmically programmed and applied simultaneously across all twelve tracks without the use of montage. The result was six mixed structures (Projektion 01–06), each building different layers of spectral and spatial polyphony. For instance, the feedback transformation was implemented using Pro Tools buses that looped each output into the next, completing a cycle from channel 12 back to 1. A short impulse inserted into the loop triggered twelve-channel spatial feedback. These loops generated harmonic overtones and rhythmic pulses that diverged from the original loop, forming a complex timbral architecture. The delay structure, on the other hand, introduced temporal shifts based on logarithmic scaling of delay times—from 12.5 ms upward—modulated in realtime using Pro Tools automation. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 397 8PauloC.ChagasandIvanaPetkovićLozo Each of the six 12-channel layers was later combined in two different formats: 1. Projektion 12-channel electronic music,afixed-mediapiecemixingalllayers into a unified 72-track composition (17:28). 2. Projektion 12-channel sound installation,aninfiniteloopthatsequentially presents the six layers as an immersive sonic environment (104:48). Ultimately, Projektion enacts the principle of cybernetic circularity—an ongoing re-entry of system output into system input that shapes perception through recursive variation. As Luhmann and von Foerster have emphasized, such systems are non-trivial: they evolve through internal complexity rather than external commands. The sonic result is an autopoietic polyphony—a space that listens to itself and alters its course through repetition, displacement, and feedback. Fig. 2. Diagram of the 12-channel spatialization and rotation system in Projektion, showing loop playback, amplitude envelopes, Max control patches, and speaker layout. Drawing by Volker Müller (See [11]). 5EmbodiedViolence:Sound,Torture,andAffectinThe Refrigerator (2014) The electroacoustic paradigm not only extends the sonic possibilities of music but also uncovers the darker dimensions of sound’s material power. Among its most disturbing manifestations is the use of sound as a weapon—an instrument of torture, control, and dehumanization. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 398 From Cybernetics to Immersivity 9 In this context, sound ceases to be a communicative or aesthetic medium and becomes a spatial force that vibrates the body, invades subjectivity, and obliterates the distinction between inner and outer worlds. As Georgina Born [4] has argued, sound space is inherently social, relational, and embedded in systems of power that shape perception and bodily experience. In Sound, Truth, and Paradigm, Paulo C. Chagas frames this within the “vibration-centered model” of the electroacoustic paradigm: “The practice of torture using sound and music shows that within the electroacoustic paradigm exists avibration-centeredmodelthatproducesthepresenceofaubiquitous,invisible vibrating power, eliminating subjectivity” [13, p. 22]. This insight resonates with Suzanne Cusick’s work on sonic torture in U.S. military detention centers. Her notion of an “acoustemology of detention” describes how sound is used not simply to hurt but to destroy the conditions of personhood [22]. Such deformations of relationality—where one’s voice, silence, and interiority are colonized—represent asonicannihilationofsubjectivity. As Cusick notes, loud music and other manipulations of the acoustic environments “disrupted prisoners” use of hearing and vocalization both to locate themselves in intelligible worlds and to create relationships with those worlds” [22, p. 276]. This destruction is not metaphorical but physiological: vibration invades the body from within, establishing a totalizing acoustical regime in which the prisoner is rendered vulnerable, isolated, and voiceless. Paulo C. Chagas’ digital oratorio The Refrigerator (2014) [8]emergesfrom this intersection of personal history and sonic critique. The piece reflects on his own experience as a 17-year-old political prisoner in Brazil. Arrested in 1971 during the military dictatorship, he was confined in a torture chamber known as the geladeira [refrigerator]—a small, acoustically isolated room plunged in darkness and freezing air.3Different kinds of noises and sounds—howling oscillators, rumbling generators, distorted radio signals, motorcycle-like sounds—shot from loudspeakers, invisible behind the walls. The electronic sounds filled the dark space and overwhelmed his body for three long days [12]. The refrigerator was designed not to leave marks. Its cruelty was its invisibility. Sound violated the body and mind with no visible trace of damage, performing what Cusick describes as an “ultimate violence” that “blasts away all sense of privacy, leaving in its place a feeling of paradoxically unprivate isolation” [22, p. 276]. The oratorio stages this traumatic experience as a multidimensional composition for singers, ensemble, live-electronics, and visual projection, tran3The use of acoustically isolated, freezing rooms—commonly referred to as “refrigerators”—was a form of sensory deprivation and psychological torture documented in Brazil during the military dictatorship. This technique was part of a broader repertoire of coercive methods disseminated globally through U.S. military and intelligence training programs during the Cold War, including those described in CIA interrogation manuals and taught at the School of the Americas. For comprehensive documentation, see McCoy (2006) and Rejali (2007). References: McCoy, Alfred W. A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006. Rejali, Darius. Torture and Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 399 16 Paulo C. Chagas and Ivana PetkovićLozo studio constructs to immersive, distributed, and relational environments. From the cybernetic feedback systems in Projektion [6]totheaffectiveruptureof The Refrigerator [8], and from the immersive spatiality of Pune Metamorphosis [15]totheglobalpolyphonyofSound Imaginations [20], each work examined contributes to a redefinition of what it means to compose, listen, and be present in sound. As argued in Section 8, From Cybernetics to Immersivity: Paradigm Shifts in Sound Space,thistransformationisnotonlyaestheticbutparadigmatic.Kittler reminds us that cybernetics emerged from war, from the attempt to calculate signals against noise, integrating humans into feedback loops of prediction and control [31]. This paradigm shifted the foundations of communication away from interpretation and hermeneutics, recasting humans as machine-objects in probabilistic systems. Today, however, we inhabit a different state: that of immersivity. Here, space is no longer external but enveloping; it integrates the physical and the virtual, conscious and nonconscious processes, what Hayles describes as cognitive assemblages [30]. Immersivity thus names not only a spatial experience but a new condition of subjectivity, in which human beings, machines, and environments form interdependent systems of resonance and control. This recognition raises urgent political and ethical choices.AsSection5 showed, the same vibrational logics that can annihilate subjectivity through torture or surveillance also sustain intimacy, creativity, and collective presence. Algorithmic listening, AI-driven monitoring, and sonic crowd-control technologies demonstrate how immersion can be weaponized, transforming listening into asiteofgovernance.Yetimmersivepracticescanalsogeneratecounter-spaces— fields of resistance, care, and solidarity—where sound is a medium of encounter rather than domination. What emerges is a vision of sound space as a medium of encounter and decision:betweenselfandsystem,bodyandenvironment,memoryandtechnology. This conception aligns with contemporary theories of non-human cognition, affective resonance, and situated knowledge. In particular, the telematic paradigm opens a pathway toward collective sonic presence, challenging the boundaries of geography, identity, and authorship. In a time when technological mediation both fragments and connects, electroacoustic composition offers not only tools for aesthetic innovation but also frameworks for political reflection and ontological inquiry. To compose immersive sound space is to participate in shaping the conditions of perception, relation, and power. The choice is not whether immersion will define our present and future, but how it will be shaped—toward control and domination, or toward creativity, intimacy, and freedom. Acknowledgments. Grateful acknowledgment is extended to those whose dedication and artistry have shaped the works discussed in this research: to the late Volker Müller (1942–2021), whose lifelong devotion to the WDR Studio and sensitive ear accompanied the production of Migration and Projection; to Henrik von Coler, for his thoughtful leadership at the TU Studio and unwavering support for experimental exploration; to Konstantin Fontaine and Eren Utku, whose creative collaboration brought Pune Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 406 From Cybernetics to Immersivity 17 Metamorphosis into being through shared intuition and technical finesse; and to flutist Cássia Carrascoza, whose expressive presence and performative imagination breathed life into Sound Imaginations: Telematic Immersion.Theircontributions,eachintheir own way, resonate within the textures of this work. References 1. Attali, J.: Noise: The Political Economy of Music. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1985) 2. Baltazar, S.: Connecting the World Through Images and Sound. UC Riverside News (2020), https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/02/20/ connecting-world-through-images-and-sound,lastaccessed2025/09/04 3. Barrett, N.: Spatio-Musical Composition Strategies. Organised Sound 7(3), 313– 323 (2002) 4. Born, G.: Introduction: Music, Sound and Space: Transformations of Public and Private Experience. In: Born, G. (ed.) Music, Sound and Space: Transformations of Public and Private Experience, pp. 1–69. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013) 5. Chagas, P.C.: Migration: 12 channel electronic music. SoundCloud audio (1995/97), https://on.soundcloud.com/AR475,lastaccessed2025/09/04 6. Chagas, P.C.: Projektion: 12 channel electronic music. SoundCloud audio (2000), https://on.soundcloud.com/eyK1Y,lastaccessed2025/09/04 7. Chagas, P.C.: Composition in Circular Sound Space: Migration 12-channel electronic music (1995–97). Organised Sound 13(3), 189–198 (2008) 8. Chagas, P.C.: The Refrigerator. YouTube video (2014), https://youtu.be/KH_ EnKIttHM,lastaccessed2025/09/04 9. Chagas, P.C.: Unsayable Music: Six Essays on Music Semiotics, Electroacoustic and Digital Music. Leuven University Press, Leuven (2014) 10. Chagas, P.C.: Sound Imaginations – Audiovisual Immersive Installation. YouTube video (2020), https://youtu.be/V_9VlC1sBgk,lastaccessed2025/09/04 11. Chagas, P.C.: Die kybernetische Zirkularität in der elektronischen Komposition. In: Zwischen Klängen und Apparaten: Zur Theorie und Praxis der elektronischen Musik, pp. 217–244. Rediroma-Verlag, Remscheid (2021) 12. Chagas, P.C.: Music, Torture and Absurdity in the Digital Oratorio The Refrigerator. In: Zwischen Klängen und Apparaten: Zur Theorie und Praxis der elektronischen Musik, pp. 249–271. Rediroma-Verlag, Remscheid (2021) 13. Chagas, P.C.: Sound, Truth, and Paradigm. In: Chagas, P.C., Wu, J.C. (eds.) Sounds from Within: Phenomenology and Practice, pp. 1–28. Springer Nature, Cham (2021) 14. Chagas, P.C.: I Hear You Breathe. YouTube video (2022/24), https://youtu.be/ dvnfGgKIlXE,lastaccessed2025/09/04 15. Chagas, P.C.: Pune Metamorphosis – video #1. YouTube video (2023), https: //youtu.be/qfd8vlReL3s,lastaccessed2025/09/04 16. Chagas, P.C.: Pune Metamorphosis – video #2. YouTube video (2023), https: //youtu.be/komEEb5o4VU,lastaccessed2025/09/04 17. Chagas, P.C.: Sound Imaginations: Listening Cultures and Audiovisual Immersion. Array pp. 59–76 (2023). https://doi.org/10.25370/array.v2023,lastaccessed 2025/09/04 Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 407 18 Paulo C. Chagas and Ivana PetkovićLozo 18. Chagas, P.C.: Pune metamorphosis: Shiva’s resonance. YouTube video (2024), https://youtu.be/r5_3q-VIuWs,lastaccessed2025/09/04 19. Chagas, P.C.: Audiovisual Immersion: Exploring Telematic Rituals. Journal SEAMUS 34(1-2), 22–32 (2025) 20. Chagas, P.C., Carrascoza, C.: Sound Imaginations: Telematic Immersion – Complete Film – Sequence 1. YouTube video (2024), https://youtu.be/x4QsFAx6Yy8, last accessed 2025/09/04 21. Chion, M.: Audio-Vision: Sound on Screen. Columbia University Press, New York (1994) 22. Cusick, S.G.: Towards an Acoustemology of Detention in the ‘Global War on Terror’. In: Bull, M. (ed.) The Auditory Culture Reader, 2nd ed., pp. 287–306. Routledge, London (2013) 23. Feld, S.: Waterfalls of Song: An Acoustemology of Place Resounding in Bosavi, Papua New Guinea. In: Feld, S., Basso, K.H. (eds.) Senses of Place, pp. 91–135. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe (1996) 24. Feld, S.: A Rainforest Acoustemology. In: Bull, M., Back, L. (eds.) The Auditory Culture Reader, pp. 223–239. Berg, Oxford and New York (2003) 25. Feld, S.: Acoustemology. In: Novak, D., Sakakeeny, M. (eds.) Keywords in Sound, pp. 12–22. Duke University Press, Durham (2015) 26. Flusser, V.: Into the Universe of Technical Images. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (2011) 27. von Foerster, H.: Understanding Understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition. Springer, New York (2003) 28. Han, B.C.: Vom Verschwinden der Rituale: Eine Topologie der Gegenwart. Ullstein, Berlin (2019) 29. Han, B.C.: Infokratie: Digitalisierung und die Krise der Demokratie. Matthes & Seitz, Berlin (2021) 30. Hayles, N.K.: Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2017) 31. Kittler, F.: Signal-Rausch-Abstand. In: Kittler, F. (ed.) Draculas Vermächtnis: Technische Schriften, pp. 161–181. Reclam, Leipzig (1993) 32. Luhmann, N.: Art as a Social System. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2000) 33. Nancy, J.L.: Listening. Fordham University Press, New York (2007) 34. Rice, T.: Sounding Bodies: Medical Diagnosis, Auscultation, and the Mobile Listener. Wiley, Oxford (2018) 35. Schaeffer, P.: Traité des objets musicaux. Le Seuil, Paris (1966) 36. Schulze, H.: Hörkulturen der Gegenwart. Eine Anthropologie in acht Hörweisen. Positionen 28(105), 15–18 (2015) 37. Shannon, C.E.: A Mathematical Theory of Communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27(379-423), 107–126 (1948) 38. Smalley, D.: Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-Shapes. Organised Sound 2(2), 107–126 (1997) 39. Stockhausen, K.: Momentform. In: Texte zur elektronischen und instrumentalen Musik I, pp. 189–210. DuMont, Cologne (1962) 40. Truax, B.: Real-Time Granular Synthesis with a Digital Signal Processor. Computer Music Journal 12(2), 14–26 (1988). https://doi.org/10.2307/3680071,last accessed 2025/09/04 41. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., Rosch, E.: The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1999) 42. Wiener, N.: Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1948) Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 408