In order to complete a rigorous analysis of the perception process, we must include all indexical features into the role of indicative fields. One of the most important poietic processes that Smalley omits from his outline of the fields is the role of the studio tool. If we view the studio tool as mediator between source sound and abstract sound, we must regard it as being an 'instrument' or sounding model in its own right. Merely because a physical gesture does not result in the resonating of a particular material body does not mean that source-bonding does not occur; indeed for those listeners who are au fait with the technological aspect, this source-bonding may be as strong as any traditional instrumental recognition. Smalley touches on this in his more recent article "Spectromorphology: explaining sound-shapes":
The composer, or other listeners conversant with technology and techniques, cannot easily brush aside a particular listening mode which I call technological listening... Many methods and devices easily impose their own spectromorphological character and clichés on the music. Ideally the technology should be transparent, or at least, the music needs to be composed in such a way that the qualities of its invention override any tendency to listen primarily in a technological manner.
It is my contention that such
'technological listening' is hardly different from another
culturally-specific information that may be derived from a
spectromorphological analysis. Such an approach is hardly done at
will; the listener conversant with the technology will recognise a
particular process whether he or she likes it or not. The composer
has to be aware of the side-effects of the digital process. Not only
the composer, of course, but the programmer needs to be constantly
revising his or her algorithms with an ear to audible and aesthetical
purity. It must be remembered that if a process sounds clichéd
to a technological ear then there may be an equally valid
spectromorphological basis for this reaction.