Hi, I would like to submit to this call for contributions.
~~~
We are looking for artistic research contributions that investigate speculative approaches to sound synthesis, computation, and music technology. These contributions should explore aesthetic positions that offer alternative perspectives to standardized ways of thinking and creating. Speculation as an artistic practice is understood as a situated oscillation between experience and imagination, bringing forth new forms of knowledge and opening up to new kinds of aesthetic thinking.
At the core of this speculative oscillation is the question of how computational technologies’ generative potential can be made aesthetically experienceable and productive. The symposium aims to unite speculative approaches that make computational processes perceptible and address the tension between contingency and control in artistic practice. What are the implications of considering sound synthesis as a form of composition and musical composition as a form of sound synthesis? What are the specific potentials of sound as a trace of computation and as a perceptual object in this constellation of technology and aesthetics?
~~~
Here my detailed overview of the project:
~~~
Detailed Overview of the Project: the submission is related to introduce the reader to an acousmatic music composition I wrote called “Campi Instabili”, where I used an outer-radiating spherical loudspeakers array, called S.T.One, that is based on tetrahedral geometry. The tetrahedron is 3-simplex, such that is the simplest approximation to the sphere in R3. This allows to explore low-order Ambisonics usage in an outer-radiating spherical loudspeakers array. Indeed, it is possible to have a zeroth order Ambisonics reproduction while reproducing the same sound on the four loudspeakers at the same time. Also, it is possible to have a first order Ambisonics reproduction. Moreover, the tetrahedron is symmetric, favoring geometrical consideration and reasoning. Finally, loudspeakers are well-distanced, such that the cross-talk cancellation and effect are minimized. In particular, in this piece I developed a custom granular synthesis, done directly in conjunction with the spherical loudspeakers array itself. Indeed, developing such technique allows me to write directly for this hardware, making it custom and allowing patterns directly thought for the such a combination of loudspeakers. Indeed, a more traditional approach is based on reason in Ambisonics order, and to compose with them. On the contrary, traditional speaker arrays, if based on Ambisonics paradigm, are in a inner perspective, i.e., the listener is in the center of the focus. Outer-radiating paradigm is based on setting the loudspeaker on the center, like it should happen in a traditional concert with an instrumentalist. Moreover, this approach binds the instrument, in this case the outer-radiating loudspeakers array, to the space and its acoustics, while a traditional approach, like an Ambisonics dome, tends to minimize the role of the room, while recreating an virtual acoustical environment. Often the space where High-Order Ambisonics loudspeakers arrays are located can be acoustically treated, to further minimize the effect of the acoustical space. On the contrary, such an approach tends to bind the loudspeaker to the room's acoustics. This approach provides a more robust foundation on focusing on relationship between loudspeakers, and not to polar pattern. The granular synthesis is based only on synthetic material, in particular on sinusoidal wave. This allows to consider relationship between loudspeakers directly as difference in phases between sinosoidal waves, and avoiding to create first order Ambisonics while reproducing the sound in two loudspeakers countephase respect the other two. Indeed, the counterphase is giving as a temporal consequence giving by a difference in phase between a wave and another one, or differently stated between its delayed version. The piece explores a pre-performance in which using a listening-based tuning phase the interpreter can set the proper frequencies the piece will use. This is done by listening how the room responses to some low-order propagation of sound, while propagating some sinousoidal tone in zeroth order Ambisonics and first order Ambisonics. During the composition phase, I noted that a little variation in frequency can have huge different in acoustic response, mainly related to creation of standing waves and reverberation. Indeed, the piece is composed mainly of sinusoidal synthetic waves, such that a fine tune is important to find if a specific frequency improves the general perception of the space, like improving the clarity in some granular passages, or improving sound localization by sounds that are concentrated in a given part of the room due to the standing waves. Indeed, the interpreter has to listen particular except of the piece that are based on these specifics, to clear the compositional underpinnings. Even the position of the spherical loudspekears array has to be find by the interpreter, while I provided some guidance in the score. Actually, the decision-making process is guided by listening some piece's passages at different frequencies in a given range, to maximize the dialogue the piece tries to have between the loudspeakers and the space. Criteria are listening-based, such that granular passages that acts as "pizzicato" have to be clearly intelligible, while a section at the end of the piece, where granular synthesis is used a modulation to create complex spectra, has to resonate such to create strong localized reverbs, due to the standing waves. There is no programmatic real-time intervention of the interpreter, and even the source code is thought as a renderer. Indeed, after the interpreter tuned the settings, he can render the entire piece. The rendered piece is compliant with an A-Format version, that can be directly played on the S.T.One, without any kind of further conversion. Render takes approximately 30 seconds on my PC (Aspire 5), and even a subset of the different movements that structure the piece can be rendered. All the piece’s software has been written by me in C++, using only a well-known library for handling the file audio creation (the library is libsndfile). The C++ source code includes both the score and the granular synthesis. It is structured as a main file, where the score is located, and additional files, one for each class that will handle a different task. The paradigm is object oriented, and also libsndfile has been incorporated in a given class that handles the creation of the wav file. The granulator, i.e., the synthetizer of the granular synthesis, is contained in a specific class. The score lies in the main, and it follows the settings and general parameters of the piece. The granulator has a "process" method, that the synthesis happens and returns the memory to be provided to the writer class, i.e., the class where libsndfile lies. The granulator has several setter method, such that several parameters of the synthesis can be specified. In particular, some of these are specifically devoted to the integration with the tetrahedral geometry. The granulator acts enveloping with a specific curve a fragment of a sinusoidal wave. The main characteristics on which to focus for the integration with the tetrahedral geometry is the phase, intended as the fraction of the period where the sinusoidal wave will be read. In this way, polar pattern are created directly from the relashionship between the four loudspeakers, and not a general feature of the spherical loudspeaker arrays. Moreover, this allows also for mixtur of different phases that are not a linear combination between a sinusoidal wave rendered at a zeroth order Ambisonics and one at the first order Ambisonics. Using an outward-radiating spherical loudspeaker arrays allows to have a 3D directivity, i.e., the sound can propagate in each direction at the same. The main change is that such direction can have relashionship between each other, and the usage of a compact array mimics a sphere that propagates 3D sound. The relashionship can be related to the different sources, like emanating different sound materials for each loudspeakers, or like in this case can be the same material with a different phase, such that the relashionship between loudspeakers is phase-based, such that different polar pattern can be created while synthetising the same material. Another useful parameters is that several curves are integrated as envelope and they can be mixed. Especially when the grain is short, just to say in the order of some milliseconds (e.g., 5 ms), the granular synthesis create complex spectra while acting as a modulation. For this reason, a fine control over the envelope allows to access to different harmonic spectral combination of the resultant synthetic material. At the beginning of the main, the interpreter finds the settings to be adjusted during the tuning phase. After the build process, done using a provided Makefile, the program renders directly the wav file. The piece tries to create an interaction with the room itself, exploring the spatial perception of the room and answering to the question "what if" the loudspeakers is a traditional instrumentalist. For this reason, compositionally I wrote the piece while thinking to compose for a string instrument, and acting like a traditional acoustic composition. On the other hand, I treat the loudspeaker as an instrument(alist), in the definition provided by Giorgio Netti in one of this masterclass, as a "tool to investigate the space". The idea of a pre-performance tuning comes to me from Gerard Grisey. Indeed, for the premiere of one of this pieces from the cycle "Les espaces acoustiques", during the rehearsal at Villa Medici (Rome), he asked to the ensemble to play the piece slowly than the expected in the score, because the room was so much reverberant. For this reason, I started asking myself why an acousmatic piece can not exhibit a behavior like this one, to adapt to some acoustical properties of the piece itself. Indeed, if the instrument(alist) was a traditional one, it should be perfectly fine to perform such a simple task. This approach underlines the usage of the loudspeaker arrays as an unique instrument, on the contrary of the traditional acousmatic approach to think about loudspeakers as a reproduction tool. In this sense, the loudspeaker arrays is not a (reproduction) tool, but is the tool, within which investigate the space and create relashionship. This approach provides an active and central role to the loudspeaker and to interpreter, that is responsible for a correct tuning phase. The project expand the traditional boundaries of acousmatic music because it tries to focus on specific relationship between a loudspeaker that can propagate 3D sound, the room, and compositional strategies that tend to bind these aspects. Indeed, music technologies, i.e., custom-developed granular synthesis, has been written specifically to maximize these relationships, while providing a vivid space perception. The piece aims to make experiential my compositional interest in space, intended as the place where a continuity between all the structure's addends of the piece in an ecosystemic view exist. This means that from the elements that compose the live execution, i.e., from the composer, to the interpreter, to the audience, the room, the loudspeakers, ... are bind together, to form a structure, understood as the total is more than the sum of the parts. What bind together these elements is the continuity given, in my compositional view, by the space as common element. This approach tries to emphatize the the relashionship between the different elements of the acoustical ecosystem and it underlines the continuity between each other, favoring similarities instead of differences. In this sense, not only the interpreter, but also the audience is crucial, while acting as an active component of the piece. Indeed, each different position in the space is acoustically different, because none of the positions is traversed in the exact same way by the acoustical waves. This simple statement is crucial, and is an underpinning of the piece. Indeed, such a compositional awareness, matured in the time of the composition, has been explicitly considered during the writing of the piece. The realization that no listening point is acoustically the same as another one made me consider that all listening points have the same value, as in each point unique acoustic phenomena occur which can become unrepeatable, and that therefore the common factor what links the various points is listening, understood as a horizontal experience, and therefore every "listening listener" can experience the nature of the piece, while realizing the physical instability of the acoustical field where he is. The challenges I encountered were mainly technical, i.e., a correct implementation of a software part respect to the hardware components. During live execution, the difficulties are mainly provided to the interaction with the interpreter, within which I have to create a proper communication to ensure that a correct tuning is performed. Moreover, the execution of the pieces in different acoustical spaces is crucial, because some corrections can be performed even in the future while approaching a space that can escape from the provided framework. 
~~~
This is the structure of the contribution: introduction, conceptual background and theoretical underpinnings, design and development, aesthetic consideration, analysis and discussion, future perspective, conclusion. I would craft the chapter “future perspective”: which are the topics you think an interested reader would like to read in such a chapter?