When audio engineers are evaluating various sounds, what is it that they are analysing or comparing? If the answer were simply and literally just sound, how are we able to differentiate between different sounds? Individuals familiar with sound production would likely be inclined to simply call into focus knowledge of frequency and loudness to aid in delineating between sounds. This is a good place to begin moving away from a holistic view of sound, and brings us directly to further terms such as presence, mud or honk (frequency related), and loud and quiet (loudness perception related), etc. Yet beyond existing as what we may call subjective sound qualities - what are they? Notably, is there taxonomic category for subjective sound qualities to be placed within? I would propose that one potential answer to this question resides within ontology, that is, the study of what exists. Effingham states:

“[Ontologists] are not just interested in material objects, but interested in whether there are more things besides. […] things like numbers, properties, events, works of music, etc.” (2013, p2)

Of these five initial categories that Effingham offers (numbers, properties, etc), he provides two sur-categories, Concrete, and Abstract that they are contained within. Effingham provides non-exhaustive examples; with Concrete including, particles, people, buildings, stamps (generally, material objects) – and Abstracta including numbers, properties, possibilities, facts, and propositions (generally, that which does not interact with material objects) (2013, p3). Effingham clarifies the utility of these two categories, stating,

“Unlike the concrete, you won’t find abstracta anywhere. The number 4 isn’t down the back of your sofa […] the property being in pain [sic] can’t be found and picked up, taken home and sold on eBay.” (2013, p4)

Of these examples, the category of properties is clearly the leading contender for where terms like honk, mud and loud (etc) ontologically belong. Similar to Effingham’s example of the number four lacking a presence in time and space, you cannot touch nor hold quiet, honk or presence. This would allow us to categorise subjective sound qualities as compartmentalised properties which are instantiated (that is, to be represented by actual example) by various sounds (Effingham 2013, p9) – much like a table instantiates the property made of wood, or perhaps is brown.

Before moving on, we should briefly discuss the second category that Effingham discusses: concrete. Effingham states that “’Concrete’, then, generally includes everything that is inside space and time, and usually extends to things like events and places” (2013, p3). This description allows us to place sound in the concrete family, due to its interaction with material objects despite its intangible nature – which we can verify in a variety of ways. Viewing sound as something other than concrete may be akin to misclassifying air as abstracta just because we can’t discernibly touch it.

An instantiation within an instantiation

A key point regarding properties must be made before continuing; properties can, and often do, instantiate other properties. A simple example of this is the property being a human. Being a human, is a property that all humans instantiate – and so, we could reasonably deduce that being a human also instantiates the property being instantiated by 7.96 billion people (the current global population as of August 2022) (Effingham 2013, p9). The key point here, is that humans themselves do not instantiate the property being instantiated by 7.96 billion people – it is the property that all humankind collectively instantiates (being a human) which in turn instantiates this second property (see Figure 7).

While this may seem like a functionless example, it serves to showcase that properties are not always the ‘end of the chain’, they may each themselves be instantiated by, or themselves instantiate other properties: it can get complex. This will be touched upon later.

A Hierarchy of Properties

Having clarified the ontological distinctions between concrete sounds and their instantiated abstract properties – we are now able to establish a hierarchical framework for properties themselves. This will be aptly named the Hierarchy of Properties (HoP) and will function similarly to the HoT. The blank HoP present in Figure 8 would be populated with properties that audio engineers desire to be instantiated, with the most subjectively important properties being placed at the top, and the least subjectively important properties being placed at bottom. Figure 9 shows an example of a semi-populated HoP in a studio recording context. The structure of the HoP can, of course, be segmented to add extra columns and rows (e.g. Figure 10). Some differences between the HoP and HoT are clarified below.

Differences between HoT and HoP

Several distinctions from between the HoT and HoP which should be highlighted.

1. Like the HoT, the HoP is populated on a scenario basis, with properties that audio engineers desire to bring to the fold: or in other words, properties that audio engineers would like to be instantiated due to specific aims or goals in place. It is worth noting that this project is not aimed at justifying which properties are within a given HoP, but rather aims to contextualise chosen practices with reference to hierarchies ordered by perceived value (i.e. the HoP).
2. The top to bottom properties within the HoP are ‘symbolically placed’, with the most desired/important properties being placed at the top with the importance of properties decreasing as they descend the hierarchy. This is contrasted with the ‘structural placement’ of the HoT – wherein if tasks at the bottom of the hierarchy are not completed, the higher tasks become redundant; the pyramid collapses.
3. While the HoT is typically approached one task at a time, multiple properties within the HoP can simultaneously be instantiated by appropriate action at any given moment. This of course requires appropriate selection and application of techniques, knowledge, and practice etc. A simple example being the process of drinking a chocolate milkshake, which would bring about the instantiation of at least two properties at the same time, both of which may be desirable: drinking something cold and tasting something chocolate flavoured. Notably, if you instead chose to drink a strawberry milkshake, then you would not instantiate the property tasting something chocolate flavoured. Thus, choosing appropriate techniques and practices can result in the instantiation of multiple properties simultaneously.
4. The HoP can be approached and structured in any order at any level, contrasting the ascending approach that is practically required by the HoT. In essence, you are not required to focus upon properties in any specific order (e.g. top to bottom, bottom to top).

States of affairs

The final development moving from the base concepts of Figure 1 to the final model is that of outcomes. The philosophical concept of states of affairs (plural: SoAs, singular: SoA) will replace outcomes, with a SoA being defined as: a relationship between a concrete entity (something present within space and time: objects, individuals etc) and a property. Effingham provides two examples of SoAs (2013, p60),

• Bill Gates having invented Windows.
• The Empire State Building is 381 metres tall.

A third, an audio related SoA can also be constructed:

• The microphone is pointed directly down the trumpet’s bell.

All the above SoAs can be deconstructed into their two (entity/property) components:

Per Figure 11c, the ‘audio engineering SoA’ is a combination of an object relevant to a task, and a property. This is essential to our framework, as audio engineering properties – being abstract entities – do not exist within space and time without being instantiated by a concrete entity. Honk (as a property) has no material presence on its own. A SoA then, is not a causal relationship moving a given property from non-existence into existence – but instead can be considered an identification of an already existent relationship between a concrete entity and a property. While certain properties may be subjectively desired by engineers without an existence in space in time, with their materially linked manifestation (i.e. being instantiated) their value could be described as a ‘potential value’ – thus SoAs can be considered to realise the value of uninstantiated properties.

The SoA in Figure 11c is a relationship between a microphone and pointed directly down a trumpet’s bell, yet pointed directly down a trumpet’s bell (as you may anticipate) is not the ‘end of the chain’ – this initial property instantiates other properties which we may value or desire. For example, if a HoP - Figure 12a - represents an idealised HoP that engineers wish to pursue, then Figure 12b could reflect a SoA which instantiates four properties helping to achieve (as closely as possible) said HoP. It may be reasonable that a given HoP is populated with properties which engineers place upmost, and idealised, value upon. Yet when attempting to instantiate these properties in concrete entities, engineers may have to settle for properties which are evaluatively ‘less good’ (in a given dimension): which often occurs due to compromises of practicality (even at the highest echelons of live sound engineering, see Savage 2019). This can be seen when comparing Figure 12a and 12b: is loud as is present in 12a, is only closely achieved in 12b by can be gained louder without feedback.

Final model

With SoAs now introduced, a final model overview can be seen in Figure 13. This model adds to the four areas discussed previously, placing two rough distinctions of knowledge and two steps of property/task selection. These additions are merely to provide clarity upon the overall process of filtering ‘holistic knowledge’ to specific task/property choice. This model has been titled ‘a simplified model of creating states of affairs’ due to its culmination in creating a SoA. This culmination, as discussed earlier, allows for the value of properties to be examined. With the foundational concepts of the final model explored, concepts of value and how they function in the overall model will be discussed.

‍