Compositional Strategies to Create Experiences of Imaginary Spaces through Headphone Listening

Compositional Strategies to Create Experiences of Imaginary Spaces through Headphone Listening Fatma Neval Tarım1[0000000210989372] Istanbul Technical University, Macka Istanbul 34357, TR https://www.nevaltarimworks.com/ [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. The study aims to find effective compositional strategies for creating experiences of imaginary spaces through headphone listening, which can be used as a descriptive tool during composing. The compositional strategies are discussed under the framework, structured as four interrelated elements: composing the narrative, environment, movement, and structure. The study will begin by identifying different types of imaginary spaces evoked by sound compositions, investigating compatible software instruments for enhancing spatial imagery through headphones. This study is an example of the use of headphones in electroacoustic spatial music, with the aim of creating more accessible and affordable immersive listening experiences. Is it possible to direct each listener’s spatial imagination at a significant level? Do the differences in spatial thinking ability and spatial vocabulary extent of the listener influence their experience? To answer these questions, a methodology was developed consisting of a theoretical foundation (descriptive tool), a practical implementation (composition) and the observation of users’ experiences through surveys (listening experiment). The composition created using this tool was evaluated in controlled sessions with participants trained in sound and/or spatial design. Listeners provided yes/no responses, scaled ratings, and open-ended comments. In the first stage, they listened with eyes closed to assess general impressions; in the second, they detailed spatial and compositional elements. Three-stage interviews yielded both quantitative and qualitative insights. Results show that the composition successfully generated immersive and spatially rich experiences. Overall, the findings support the effectiveness of the proposed strategies and validate the research method’s capacity to measure the perceptibility of abstract spatial works. Keywords: imaginary space ·perception of space ·spatial audio ·sound art ·headphone listening ·electroacoustic music. All rights remain with the authors under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Proc. of the 17th Int. Symposium on Computer Music Multidisciplinary Research, London, United Kingdom, 2025 Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 359 N. Tarim 1Introduction How do listeners perceive spaces, whether physical or imaginary? Although our perception of space is multisensory and dominated by vision, the contribution of listening is undeniable. Pallasmaa (2005) emphasizes that hearing plays a fundamental role in structuring and articulating our experience of space. Sound provides the temporal continuum that gives visual impressions coherence and vitality; without it, spatial perception loses its sense of continuity and life (p. 49). The study’s main goal, in its simplest form, is to develop a spatial experience that is guided only by hearing, like virtual reality (VR) but only for the ears. There is no doubt that electroacoustic music1has the potential to stimulate the mind of the listener to imagine spaces. There are imaginary spaces in the listener’s mind that evoke and change with listening to the compositions. As Andean (2016) puts it, these spaces have unstable features: “...as a stream of spaces...telling a story of imaginative, constantly shifting spaces.” (p. 198). According to the previous investigation, there is no artistic approach to binaural audio in electroacoustic music. Therefore, the aim is to use it to create spatial experiences and propose a new application area for binaural audio that goes beyond games, VR, and other entertainment areas. Also, there are few applications for narrative spatialization in headphone listening as opposed to multiple loudspeaker setups. Binaural audio technology2,perceptualspatialaudio format for headphones, however, can provide more accessible and affordable immersive listening experiences, thus my research aims to explore ways to build these experiences by presenting detailed built environments, fluidity in spatial changes, and holistic narratives. The main research question is: What are effective compositional tools and strategies for creating an experience of a journey into imaginary spaces through headphone listening? The questions then follow: Are these imaginary spaces perceptible to each listener? Is it possible to direct the spatial imagination of each listener to a significant level? Do differences in spatial thinking ability and the extent of spatial vocabulary of the listener influence their experience? To answer these questions, a methodology was developed consisting of a theoretical foundation with the conceptual framework forming a descriptive tool (a review and compilation of previous studies and new suggestions), a practical implementation (a composition entitled SPATCHES), and observation of the user experiences through qualitative surveys (listening experiment). 1“Music in which electronic technology, now primarily computer-based, is used to access, generate, explore and configure sound materials, and in which loudspeakers are the prime medium of transmission.” (Emmerson & Smalley, 2008, p. 1). 2“Binaural audio reproduction techniques take advantage of the human natural spatial auditory cues to recreate a virtual auditory environment through headphones or loudspeakers that emulate headphone reproduction.” (Geluso & Roginska, 2017, p. 3). Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 360 Compositional Strategies to Create Experiences of Imaginary Spaces 2DescriptiveTool The inductive approach was used to review all the compositional strategies and create a framework considering their role in the construction of the spatial experience. The framework is structured as four interrelated elements: composing the narrative, environment, motion, and structure. Each element is interconnected and individually important as Bateson (1979) notes that: The aggregate is something more than the sum of the parts because the combining of the parts is not a simple adding but it is the nature of multiplication or fractionation or the creation of a logical product. A momentary gleam of enlightenment. (Bateson, 1979, as cited in Doombusch, 2006, p. 2) The first element, the narrative, provides relationships and continuum between each sound unit on different scales to enhance the listeners’ engagement with the composition. The second element, the environment provides a detailed and well-defined environment with interactivity in perspective and depth for the sense of being in an all-encompassing bigger place (urban scale/outdoor). The third element, the motion provides mobility of the listener and surroundings (object scale). The fourth element, the structure provides the creation of geometrical structures and spatial narrative for the sense of being in smaller enclosed spaces (building scale/indoor). Table 1 presents a comprehensive overview of the roles of each element and the corresponding domains of referential studies. Table 1. Interrelated Elements, Roles, and Referential Areas Element Roles and Referential Areas Narrative -relationships and continuity between each sound unit in different scales -sense of engagement for the listener #electroacoustic music Environment -detailed setting with variety in perspective and depth -sense of being in places, with depth, and interactivity -outdoor/urban scale #soundscape #soundwalk Motion -mobility of the listener and surroundings -sense of motion and mobility -object scale #electroacoustic music #soundwalk Structure -setting the spatial properties (corners, boundaries, size, gaps, materials, and units.) -creating geometrical structures -creating spatial impressions (entering the space, transformation of the space, overlapping of the different spaces, crossing rooms, etc.) -sense of being in spaces, plasticity, and transition. -indoor/building scale #sound sculpture #electroacoustic music Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 361 N. Tarim 3 Composition SPATCHES was composed as the practical outcome of the research and served as atooltoevaluatetheuserexperienceregardingtheeffectivenessofthestrategies and tools developed throughout the theoretical study. The sounds were recorded in the author’s grandmother’s village and in her deteriorating house, which the author never had the chance to experience (see Fig. 1). The goal was to document and transform this house through sound, creating a memory in a place previously unfamiliar. This link contains the audio. (https://youtu.be/PPh3Yc4Oc30) Everyday household objects and materials (such as light switches, curtains, doors, walls, and windows) were recorded using a Zoom H6 digital sound recorder with two angled cardioid microphones (90 degrees) in stereo format. Two channels were generally used, while only one was used when necessary. All sound scenes were reproduced through binaural processing in Ableton Live 10.1.1, a digital audio workstation (DAW) for music creation and performance (Ableton, 2025), using the Envelop for Live (E4L) plug-in, an open-source toolkit for spatial audio production (Envelop, 2025). The output was binaural, with static rendering and no head tracking. Fig. 1. Recording environment (The author’s grandmother’s village house) After testing several plug-ins, including SPAT, Anaglyph, and dearVR PRO by Sennheiser, E4L was selected as the most suitable tool for its accessibility and comprehensive features. The narrative aimed to sustain emotional engagement rather than full comprehension, while spatial impressions and strategies (Table 2) were designed for clear perception, as illustrated in the author’s graphic score. (see Fig. 2). Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 362 Compositional Strategies to Create Experiences of Imaginary Spaces Fig. 2. Graphic score of SPATCHES Table 2. Scenes and spatial impressions used in SPATCHES Scenes Spatial Impressions and Strategies Scene 1: The Village -Composing the Environment (locating the objects, [00’:00”-00’:10”] living things, incidents in the environment) -getting closer to the enclosed space -entering the space -blending interior and outdoor Scene 2: The House -Composing the Structure (setting the corners, boundaries, [00’:10”- 01’:12”] size, gaps, materials, units, objects.) -pinpointing corners (momentary sounds) -scanning surfaces -filling the entire volume of a space -Composing the Motion (mobility of the objects and listener) -standing still and observing the surroundings in the space -wandering in the space -being aware of other rooms in the space -crossing rooms in the space -blending different rooms -blending different times (memories and present) Scene 3: The Leakages -transformation of the space [01’:12”- 01’:50’] -sudden change of the space Scene 4: The Dispersion -overlapping of the different spaces [01’:50”- 02’:40”] Scene 5: The Demolition -the collapse of the space [02’:40”- 03’:11”] Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 363 N. Tarim 4ListeningExperiment The listening experiments were conducted under COVID-19 conditions at the MIAM (Centre for Advanced Music Studies) Library, Istanbul Technical University, using studio headphones (Beyerdynamic DT-770 Pro, 80 ohm) and CD players (TASCAM CD-A500). To provide a controlled experiment, the test environment and equipment had to be the same for everyone. With this setup, up to four participants were able to listen simultaneously. All 22 participants, who were able to see the test environment, were categorized into four representative groups according to their backgrounds. Each group includes at least five participants as a combination of sound design and spatial design training. The listening groups and numbers of the participants are as follows: –subjects trained in spatial design: five respondents (22.73%), –subjects trained in sound design: six respondents (27.27%), –subjects trained both in spatial design and in sound design: six respondents (27.27%), –subjects trained neither in spatial design nor in sound design: five respondents (22.73%). The listening experiment consisted of three stages. The first stage included listening to the composition for the first time with eyes closed, followed by yes/no or scaling questions on the respondents’ general spatial impressions. The second stage involved listening to the composition for the second time with eyes open, having read the questions before listening intended to gather more details. The third stage, without listening, involved the respondents answering open-ended questions and providing general feedback. Limiting the respondent’s answer by yes/no and rating scale questions is awaytogathermorequantitativedata,andtoachievemorerevealingand meaningful results in perceptual experiments. Other studies of perceptual experiments, from Macedo (2014) and Fuentes & Schumacher (2017), were used as reference during the preparation of the questions, and the evaluation of the results. Percentages for each answer were calculated both for each listening group and for the total. In this way, both the general picture can be commented on and the situation within the group can be observed. Also, the differences between groups can be observed by making comparisons across the answers. The consistency of the answers was scaled according to the percentage of “yes” responses, or the sum of “strong” and “very strong” impressions for the rating scale questions. Results were marked as highly consistent when above 90%, very consistent between 80–90%, consistent between 70–80%, less consistent but still remarkable between 60–70%, not so remarkable between 50–60%, and not remarkable below 50%. Finally, a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the responses was made. 4.1 First Stage The first stage included the listening to the composition for the first time with eyes closed, focusing only on what they heard, before reading any questions. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 364 Compositional Strategies to Create Experiences of Imaginary Spaces They then answered the questions after the listening; yes/no questions or scaling questions on general impressions of imaginary spaces, spatial parameters, such as distance, direction, and motion. The first question of the first stage was rating scale question and intended to investigate whether the listeners had the impression of other places than the listening space, and the degree of their impressions by expecting them to rate them a scale from weak (1) to very strong (4). Table 3 summarizes the answers to the first question of the first stage. It shows spatial designers’ respondents had the strongest impression of other places, while sound designers is less consistent but still remarkable responses. Table 3. Answers to the first question of the first stage. (Have you had the impression of other places than the listening space? To what degree do you have the impression of other places?) Respondents Spatial designers Sound designer Both None 22 resp. 5resp.(22,73%) 6resp.(27,27%) 6resp.(27,27%)5resp.(22,73%) 4:very strong 5(100,00%) 1(16,67%) 4(66,67%) 4(80,00%) 3:strong -3(50,00%) 2(33,33%) 1(20,00%) 2:less strong -1(16,67%) - - 1:weak -1(16,67%) - - The first question also asked the participants to list the spaces they imagined while listening to the composition. Most listeners imagined similar indoor and outdoor spaces similar to those were intended. The answers show that the most common perceptions of space were produced by the referential sounds. Table 4 summarizes the respondents’ imaginary spaces. The answerss were grouped as five spaces: indoor/domestic spaces, indoor/workshop spaces, outdoor/urban spaces, outdoor/natural spaces, and surreal spaces. The most common answers for indoor/domestic spaces are either “house” or “cabin”, some respondents gave also material detail of their imaginary spaces “wooden house/cabin”. Other common answers regarding imaginary spaces are “workshop”, “street”, and “seashore”, all answers which were consistent with my expectations. Table 4. Answers to the first question of the first stage. Groups of spaces Answers Indoor/domestic spaces “house”,“wooden cabin”, “shelter”, “barn”, “corridor”, "old house hall", “a tiled room”,“attic,”, “stairs”. Indoor/workshop spaces “warehouse”, “factory”, “workshop”. Outdoor/urban spaces “street”, “marketplace”, “highway”, “train track”, “port”. Outdoor/natural spaces “seashore”, “under the water stream”, “under the cliffs”, “garden”, “desolate field”. Surreal spaces “very small space”, “inside the jar”, “inside the body”. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 365 N. Tarim The second question of the first stage was rating scale question and intended to investigate whether the listeners perceived the spatial parameters (distance, direction, and motion), and the degree of their impressions by having them rate it on a scale from weak impression (1) to very strong impression (4). The most consistent answer is for the sounds moving in space. Distances had less consistent but still remarkable answers. Table 5 summarizes the answers to the second question of the first stage. Looking at all the groups for these three impressions, the most consistent affirmative answers are from the spatial designers’ group. Table 5. Answers to the second question of the first stage. (Have you had any impressions for the following spatial parameters?) Spatial Parameters Results Motion highly consistent Direction very consistent Distance less consistent, but still quite remarkable Moving objects highly consistent Being in motion not so remarkable The question examined whether the listeners had the impression of moving objects or of being in motion, and the degree of these impressions. The results indicate that the composition needs further development in terms of mobilizing the listener. Some respondents reported that they did not feel being in motion because, in the physical world, they were sitting still in a chair while listening. The test conditions and environment might also have influenced this outcome. 4.2 Second Stage The second stage involved listening to the composition for the second time with eyes open, having read the questions before listening. They then answered the questions during the listening, which are yes/no questions or scaling questions on more detailed impressions of the properties of the imaginary space, the way they experience the space, the way they perceive the space, and the elements of the composition. The first question of the second stage was a yes/no question which examined whether listeners perceived various spatial properties in Scene 2: The House [00’:10”–01’:12”]. Table 6 summarizes the results as size, materials, and life received highly consistent responses; boundaries were very consistent; while gaps, objects, and units were less consistent but still notable. The least consistent responses were related to corners and form (5.55%), likely due to the inclusion of two distinct properties in one question. Across groups, the highest consistency was observed among spatial designers and cross-disciplinary designers, followed by non-designers; the sound designers group showed less consistent but still noteworthy results. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 366 Compositional Strategies to Create Experiences of Imaginary Spaces The results suggest that listeners more consistently perceive basic and prominent spatial properties, such as size, materials, and life, while more complex or composite properties, like corners and form, are harder to evaluate reliably. Additionally, participants with design-related backgrounds demonstrated higher perceptual consistency, indicating that prior spatial training or experience enhances the ability to detect and interpret spatial cues in auditory compositions. Table 6. Answers to the first question of the second stage. (Have you had any impressions for the following properties of the space?) Spatial Properties Results Size (95.45%) Materials (wood, steel, glass) (95.45%) highly consistent Life (programme and users) (90.91%) Boundaries (surfaces such as: wall, floor, ceiling) (86.36%) very consistent Gaps and location of the gaps (door, window) (63.64%) less consistent, but still Objects and locations of the objects (furniture) (63.64%) quite remarkable Different units (rooms) (63.64%) Corners and form (54.55%) not so remarkable The second question of the second stage was yes/no question and intended to investigate whether the listeners had the possible spatial impressions across the scenes in the composition in Table 2 within each group. The results are compatible with my expectations, such as the most consistent answers are from the spatial design trained related groups. In general, the less consistent answers are for the impressions intended to be given less in the composition. Also, the impressions such as “sense of collapse of the space” and “sense of construction of the space” are the terms that can be subjective. Table 7 summarizes the consistency of spatial perception across the five scenes. In Scene 1: The Village [00’:00”–00’:10”], the sense of entering the space showed very consistent responses, while getting closer to the enclosed space was not so remarkable. In Scene 2: The House [00’:10”–01’:12”], observing the surroundings was very consistent, construction of the space was less remarkable, and wandering, awareness of other rooms, and crossing rooms were less consistent, but still quite remarkable. Scene 3: The Leakages [01’:12”–01’:50”] revealed highly consistent results for transformation and consistent results for sudden change. In Scene 4: The Dispersion [01’:50”–02’:40”], overlapping different spaces was very consistent, while in Scene 5: The Demolition [02’:40”–03’:11”], collapse of the space was not so remarkable. Among the five scenes, Scene 3: The Leakages was perceived most consistently, followed by Scene 1: The Village and Scene 4: The Dispersion, with Scene 2: The House showing moderate consistency, and Scene 5: The Demolition being the least consistently perceived. The third question of the second stage was a rating scale question and asked for observing the most noticeable element for each group according to its appearance in this composition. These elements are the keystones of the literature Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 367