A. ACOUSTIC - The Immersive Sound-Dimension that Realises the Score

The Acoustic dimension is the “real-world sonic field” in which a digital work is heard, felt and shaped. It is the bridge that turns abstract dimensions into a tangible soundscape for performers, audiences and the system itself.

By adapting Emmerson’s Local/Field/Stage metaphor (2014) into a more concrete acoustic domain, three inter related perspectives can be distinguished. In this adaptation the “Field” is the embodied, sensory dimension that surrounds and envelopes the performers; the “Local” is the immediate material conditions (room acoustics, speaker layout, performer positioning); the “Stage” is the public, audience facing layout. Using these perspective we can see that the Acoustic dimension sits at the intersection of space, material sound and technology.

Key Elements of the Acoustic Dimension

Emerging from the DigiScore corpus analysis, six interrelated ideas structure the dimension. 1) The acoustic environment functions as the principal compositional agent; sound-field design is as crucial as melody or rhythm 2) The Local/Field/Stage triad creates a constant negotiation between the inter-relationships and perspectives of sonic actants 3) Live instruments, electronics and ambient noises are dynamically balanced through real-time mixing and spatialisation, making the acoustic field a responsive participant 4) Venue-specific acoustics and individual performer sensitivities generate a unique “lexicon” for each performance, guaranteeing that no two realizations are acoustically identical 5) Breath, gesture, body posture and physiological sensors become control parameters that directly modulate reverberation, panning or timbre 6) The acoustic field supplies narrative metaphors (e.g. underwater, floating, forest) turning sound into a felt landscape.

Four patterns cut across this analyse. • First, acoustic immersion was treated as a compositional parameter comparable to timbre or rhythm. • Second, embodied spatial awareness makes breath, posture and body movement integral to shaping the dimension.  • Third, technology serves as a conduit that exposes and amplifies the acoustic field rather than as a decorative overlay. • Finally, variability (e.g. venue acoustics, environmental sounds, performer placement) is intentionally incorporated, ensuring each performance is a singular acoustic landscape.

Sub-field analyses

The Acoustic dimension of the PACMMAN framework captures the concrete sonic field in which a digital work is heard, felt and shaped, translating abstract meta-beliefs (such as journey, immersion and agency) into a lived soundscape that performers, audiences and the system co-create. To unpack this dimension, I employ an analytical framework built around the three recurrent concerns. The insights that follow present macro-level (World View / Emmerson’s Metaphor) and micro-level (Artistic, Aesthetic and Technical Beliefs) sub-analyses, showing how reverberation, spatialisation, venue characteristics, performer-specific sound lexicons, feedback loops and virtual geographic soundscapes function as compositional resources and interactive partners.

1. Acoustic Space as a Dynamic Compositional Agent The corpus shows that composers consistently re-positioned the acoustic field from a passive container to an active compositional partner. In rehearsal transcripts participants repeatedly describe how a “long decay” signals a sense of underwater depth, while a “tight” early-reflection pattern cues claustrophobic tension. These decisions were never made in a vacuum; they were calibrated against the idiosyncrasies of each venue. For example, the same piece performed in a concert hall versus an open-air pavilion required adaptive weighting of low-frequency room modes, turning ambient traffic noise into a foreground texture. Moreover, sensor-driven feedback loops allows the space itself to “respond”: a performer’s breath expands the reverberation tail, which in turn informs the next gestural choice. The resulting acoustic ecology creates a continuous dialogue between environment, technology and musicians, embodying the “journey” and “immersion” meta-beliefs that underlie the whole framework.

Key sub-themes • A1 – Immersive sound as a compositional agent. Reverberation, early-reflection patterns and spatialisation were treated as musical parameters (e.g. long decay = “depth”, tight early reflections = “tightness”). • A2 – Local <-> Stage tension. Performer-centred layouts (back-facing a projection) versus audience-centred speaker arrays created distinct auditory fields that disrupt conventional performer-audience hierarchies. • A3 – Site specificity & variability. Room modes, outdoor ambience, temperature-driven speed-of-sound changes and even passing traffic were harvested as compositional resources that the score absorbed. • A4 – Acoustic space as responsive agent. Microphones, body-mounted transducers and other sensor inputs fed processed sound back into the room (e.g. breath-triggered reverb expansion), granting the space agency to evolve material in real time.

2. Performer-Centred Acoustic Personalisation & Interaction Micro-level data highlights a shifted from a monolithic mix by a single composer to a highly individualized acoustic fabric distributed across all actants. For example, sound engineers were repeatedly quoted as “co-composers,” adjusting levels on the fly to preserve the interplay between live timbres and processed sound. Performers reported that their individual “sound lexicon” (e.g. the frequencies that sit best in their ears, the spatial cues that align with their body geometry) must be explicitly mapped, otherwise intelligibility suffers. Positional effects are not regarded as flaws; rather, composers designed passages that exploited the reduced spatial movement of a backstage player or the expanded stereo field of a centre-stage violinist. The most vivid evidence comes from the use of contact-mic feedback loops: squeals and resonances were not treated as accidents but as deliberately scripted timbral events that enrich the texture. Together these practices demonstrated how the acoustic dimension was negotiated in real time, allowing each performer to shape and be shaped by the surrounding sound field.

Key sub-themes • A5 – Balancing live and electronic sound. Real-time mixing of acoustic instruments, live electronics, synthesizers and natural room tone required the sound engineer to act as a co-creator rather than a technician. • A6 – Performer-specific sound lexicons. Each musician’s hearing profile, aesthetic preference and body shape shapes frequency-band amplification and spatial mapping, producing personalised sonic vocabularies. • A7 – Spatialisation shaped by positioning. Front, centre or backstage placement yields uneven spatial movement, which were deliberately employed as a compositional resource. • A8 – Feedback loops & contact-mic resonance. Contact microphones and floor transducers generated controlled feedback (e.g. squeals) that become intentional textures within the acoustic environment.

3. Spatial Narrative and Virtual Topography The corpus reveals that composers treated the acoustic field as a cartographic canvas on which narrative journeys were plotted. By defining virtual zones (e.g. coral reefs with shimmering high-frequency diffusion, storm tunnels with rolling low-frequency rumble) musicians were given a spatial script that they could physically traverse. The immersive parameters that conveyed depth doubled as waypoints: a sudden increase in early reflections signals entry into a “cave” region, while a diffused, long decay marked an open “sea” expanse. Crucially, site-specific quirks are not obstacles; a reflective balcony might become the “cliff edge” of a virtual mountain and a carpeted floor that deadens low frequencies can be mapped to a “muddy lagoon”. The tension between performer-centred and audience-centred speaker layouts further delineated the map, creating asymmetrical auditory perspectives that reinforce the sense of discovery. In this way, the acoustic dimension supplies the narrative spine of the work, converting abstract meta-beliefs of, say, journey and immersion into concrete, navigable sound-spaces.

Key sub-themes • A9 – Virtual geographic soundscapes. The score partitions the acoustic field into regions (“coral reef”, “storm tunnel”, etc.) each with distinct spatial texture; performers physically navigate these terrains. • A10 – Immersive sound as a compositional agent. The same reverberation- and spatial-design strategies that create depth also serve to cue narrative landmarks. • A11 – Site specificity & variability. Local acoustic anomalies (e.g. a reflective wall or a low-frequency bass trap) are mapped onto virtual regions, turning constraints into story elements. • A12 – Audience <-> Musician tension. The placement of speakers and projections defines the borders of each virtual region, shaping how performers and audiences experience the “map.”

Take-aways

The Acoustic dimension of the PACMMAN framework does more than describe how sound is produced and perceived; it provides concrete, practice-oriented guidance for digital musicking. By treating room acoustics, speaker layout and spatialisation as compositional resources rather than technical afterthoughts, students, teachers/ensemble leaders and researchers can each adopt specific strategies to shape the sonic field, balance live and electronic sources and analyse the interplay of space, technology and embodiment.