appraisal of other -sonic- components that are not reductible to the former. As soon as the call is in the air, it doesn't belong to the frog that produced it anymore.

No matter how good they can be, recordings cannot replace the 'real' experience.

Different microphones 'hear' so differently that they can be considered as a first transformational step with more dramatic consequences than, for example, a further re-equalization of the recordings in the studio. Even although we don't substract or add anything we cannot avoid having a version of what we consider as reality.

Although I appreciate very much the multitude of new sound nuances and the 'spaceness' provided by these technological developments, I don't have a special interest in pursuing 'realism'. Moreover, I believe these techniques actually work through hyper-realism

Now that we have digital recording technology (with all its concomitant sound quality improvements) we can realize more straightforwardly that the microphones are -they always have been- our basic interfaces in our attempt at aprehending the sonic world around us, and also that they are non-neutral interfaces.

the armchair environmental movement'

There is another seemingly unavoidable obstacle in this attempt at portraying aural reality: sound editing. Whereas the 'microphone interface' transfigures the spatial and material characteristics of sound, editing affects its temporality.

As I see it, this is a futile attempt to reproduce the world, that tends to become a kind of commodity directed to sofisticated entertainment or other forms of pragmatism. In its essence, a modern consequence of the same kind of mentality that long ago led to the creation of zoos.

We are much less inert for transciption and reproduction than the machines we have supposedly invented for these purposes. Compared to a microphone, we can either have a much more striking perception of such a human sonic intrusion or not perceive it at all.

Do we always realize that there's some distant traffic noise when our perception is focused on an insect call?

I don't believe in such a thing as an 'objective' aprehension of the sonic realiy

Not only do different people listen differently, but also the very temporality of our presence in a place is a form of editing.

Our idea of the sonic realiy, even our fantasy about it, is the sonic reality each one of us has.

I claim for the right to be 'unrealistic'

In the case of the 'Acoustic Ecology movement', although the scope of its activities is larger and there is a greater focus on descriptive aspects of sound itself (see, e.g., ref. 18), its approach essentially relies upon a representational / relational conception, sometimes also leading to 'encourage listeners to visit the place' (19).

I'm thus straightforwardly attaching to the original 'sound object' concept of P. Schaeffer and his idea of 'reduced listening'

The richness of this sound matter in nature is astonishing, but to appreciate it in depth we have to face the challenge of profound listening. We have to shift the focus of our attention and understanding from representation to being

When the representational / relational level is emphasized, sounds acquire a restricted meaning or a goal, and this inner world is dissipated.

Environmental acousmatics. The hidden cicada paradox Acousmatics, or the rupture of the visual cause-effect connection between the sound sources and the sounds themselves (22), can contribute significantly to the 'blindness' of profound listening. La Selva, as most tropical rain forests, constitutes a strong paradigm of something we could call 'environmental acousmatics'.

What I find remarkably striking is how the comprehension of virtually all approaches to nature sound recording is so rarely referred to the sonic matter they are supposedly dealing with, but rather to whatever other non-sonic elements of the experience of the -thus documented- place.

In my conception, the essence of sound recording is not that of documenting or representing a much richer and more significant world, but a way to focus on and access the inner world of sounds.

What I'm defending here is the transcendental dimension of the sound matter by itself.

A non-bucolic broad-band world Another widespread conception about nature sound environments regards them as 'quiet places', peaceful islands of quietude in a sea of rushing, noisy man-driven habitats.

As I see it, this certainly contributes to expand our aural understanding of nature, not denying quietude, but embracing a more complete conception

when our listening move away from any pragmatic representational 'use', and I claim for the right to do so with freedom (28).

I also defend the preservation and enhancement of the diversity of man-made sound environments and devices. The value we assign to sound environments is a complex issue we shouldn't simplify; under some circumstances, nature can also be considered as an intrusion in environments dominated by man-made sounds. In this sense, my approach is as futurist as it is environmentalist, or, in broader terms, independent of these categorizations.

I think it's a sad simplification to restrict ourselves to this traditional concept to 'find' music in nature.

I don't subscribe the coupling of nature to these schemes, by way of -for example- a search for melodic patterns, comparisons between animal sounds and musical instruments, or 'complementing' nature sounds with 'musical' ones (5, 25, 26). To me, a waterfall is as musical as a birdsong.

music is an aesthetic (in its widest sense) perception / understanding / conception of sound. It's our decision -subjective, intentional, non-universal, not necessarily permanent- what converts nature sounds into music.

sonic homogeneization, thus pursuing the conservation of sound diversity in the world.

To me, attaining this musical state requires a profound listening, an immersion into the inside of the sound matter.