In North America, everything is different from Europe. Well, not everything, perhaps, but the variance between the continents certainly affects all walks of life, sometimes leading to mutual overestimation. For immigrants from Europe, America was the ‘Land of Opportunity’; conversely, to name but one example, training in Germany or Austria was virtually compulsory for American pianists for quite a while.1 It was argued that Germany was simply the best place to get to know the music of important composers from there, to be able to work with famous academic teachers and possibly to perform on German concert stages.2
Prejudices were just as widespread: for instance, anti-American reservations abounded in the German-speaking musical world around 1900, as witnessed by the project “You play exactly as if you came from America.”3 Perhaps there is more than just anecdotal evidence in the question (which I was asked privately in connection with my research trip to the United States of America) as to whether there is any concert life at all in the USA. Despite such biases, there is a rich cultural exchange between the continents: ideas and approaches were and are carried back and forth by travelers; they are modified, reshaped, and adapted to the respective circumstances and necessities. This gives rise to networks and discourses that tell us a lot about life and ways of thinking on both sides of the ‘Great Pond’. North America and Europe certainly attract each other but also tend toward mutual critical examination. This is evidenced by cultural transfer research, which no longer assumes a “cultural divide” between the continents, focusing instead on the internal dynamics of reception processes between different cultural areas.4
At the same time – and this brings us to the topic of the present study – these debates, discourses and (constantly changing) approaches cannot fail but influence the people who are exposed to them. As will be shown, they shape and form habitus and cultural capital.5 This also applies to myself: only the “Cultural Data Analysis” research project6 (to be described in the following) made me realize how ingrained the German approaches and attitudes had become to me, initially partially blinding me to the conditions in North America.
I first realized that all of this also applies to the sound recording of classical music in a conversation with Prof. Martha de Francisco,7 a sound engineer at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, which I conducted online on May 20, 2020. She made me aware that the expectation of beautiful sound in a concert hall with great acoustics was not a given but a European tradition. In America, there simply aren’t that many concert halls of this quality. She put it rather vividly:
The role that’s played by culture and music in Germany, the many concerts, the concert halls for 1000 or 2000 people, and so on – in the US, it’s sport that plays this role! People like their sports. Sports events have up to 40.000 visitors in the US.
Still, North America does have a rich cultural life and also – as I learned from my internships in Canada and the USA – a wide range of opportunities to train as a recording engineer and gain professional experience in this field. However, while dictionaries translate Tonmeister as “sound or recording engineer,” the education is not actually identical.8 As Martha de Francisco put it with only a little overstatement: “The concept of the Tonmeister is very German.”9 As a graduate of the Sound Recording MA program at McGill University who also holds a German Tonmeister degree told me,10 this not only applies to the training but also influences the sound engineer’s habitus and self-image. Conversations with producers trained in Great Britain also helped me realize the extent of the differences between the German idea of the Tonmeister (similar to the British concept of the sound producer) and its North American counterpart, the recording engineer.
Clearly, the artwork that is an audio file does not exist in a vacuum but is shaped by cultural circumstances. It therefore seemed productive to think outside the German ‘box’ and the local customs of sound recording, to explore and document the unwritten rules that guide the actions of Tonmeisters, sound producers, and recording engineers. This was the main goal of the DFG research project “Cultural Data Analysis” (Kulturdatenanalyse) based at the Audio Communication Department of the TU Berlin, whose results are to be described in the following.
To render these results accessible to English-speaking readers, I have opted for the following procedure: the introductory chapter and the final one (“Summary and outlook”) are presented in both German and English. All other chapters (in German) are preceded by an English abstract.11
***
As the title of my previous project, “The Recording Studio as a Discursive Space” (Das Tonstudio als diskursiver Raum),12 suggests, it was dedicated to the recording studio as a social space. This, I studied so on the basis of sixteen participatory observations, conducted in Germany at various broadcasting companies, a recording label, and at the Berlin University of the Arts (as a guest in the recording studio and in Tonmeister training). The first social aspect I discovered is common to all forms of communication: it is a matter of power structures, of exploring knowledge and experience. Second, sound recording is part of an overall cultural process, which makes it a productive subject for overarching considerations. This process not only investigates the ‘truth’ of a given artwork but also the creation of sound and the authenticity of the artist. Arguably, it produces both sound and authenticity. Thus, it lets us observe the process of doing technology, i.e. the negotiation of the relationship between technology and humanity.
And this is not all: by focusing on the participants’ linguistic actions as well as on the emergence and significance of technical sound aesthetics we can see the creative processes involved in sound recording and the cooperation between the participants. Further discourse-analytical steps describe the process of assigning meaning. The final chapter considers the phenomenon of sound recording from the outside, asking how all these discourses, assumptions, and attributions are viewed by the public and the press.13 This exploration made very clear that classical sound recording is not some closed-off space revolving exclusively around itself, the musical work, and/or the artist. On the contrary, the sound recording of classical music is subject to and participates in aesthetic and social changes. Some of these are due to the constantly evolving technical possibilities of music recording, but most are created by the people involved, who in turn participate in the general social discourse and incorporate their (changing) aesthetics into their sound recording philosophy.
Against this background, the Cultural Data Analysis project is concerned with the influence of the sound producers’ and musicians’ cultural habitus on the resulting sound recording. As the previous project suggests, German Tonmeisters have accumulated a great deal of symbolic capital: unlike any other professional group involved in sound recording, they enjoy direct contact with the artists. In Germany, the discursive setting establishes the Tonmeister as the one in charge and the contact person for all those involved – a key actor in the sound recording process.14 Indeed, a German Tonmeister can be recognized by their behavior towards the musicians: is he or she willing and able to work with the musicians on an equal footing, and do the musicians recognize this right? Conversely, does he or she identify as an ‘engineer’?
As indicated above, this discursivity becomes particularly clear if one takes a look beyond the German sound recording conditions. To put it another way, the habitus of sound creators remains invisible as long as we consider only one cultural sphere and only one set of customs among engineers and musicians in sound recording (such as the German variety). The habitus – and indeed, the very fact that sound professionals have their special habitus – is revealed when one leaves this cultural sphere and looks beyond it, for instance, into the English-speaking world. Only when we examine the Tonmeister / producer / recording engineer comparatively and consider the role of training, professional experience, and the concrete established process in sound recording (including collaboration with the musicians), can we comprehensively envision the self-images of the various professional groups in the sound recording process.
In the following, we will explore the profession as a social construct: a part of becoming a ‘sound engineer’ or ‘sound producer’ lies in confronting the expectations and tasks placed upon one. In line with historical and also praxeographic technological anthropology,15 this view assumes “that people, discourses or things do not have a static ‘essence’ but only become what they are in ‘social practice.’”16 The present study aims to render this fact visible in the context of musicology.
The previous project also showed that the behavior of musicians in the classical sound recording process may be to a large degree based on habitus. During my practical observations, I was struck by how comparatively ‘unemancipated’ German artists seemed in their collaboration with the Tonmeister (meaning ‘The Master of Tone,’ the very word suggests dominance) never taking the control(s) into their own hands, indeed apparently not permitted to do that, unlike their colleagues in pop music production. This fits in with the existence of a professional magazine for pop musicians (Sound & Recording. Praxismagazin für Musiker) – and the absence of a comparable venue for classical music. Classical musicians in Germany thus appear fully dependent on the support and advice of technicians.
Is this a German specialty? A consequence of the training of musicians and Tonmeister? Comparative research in other English-speaking countries promises to shed more light on the emergence of cultural practices in this respect, too. Valuable work has been done in adjacent areas: pop producers have been considered separately;17 producers of pop, rock, and classical music have been compared with each other;18 and live productions of the various genres have been described as social systems.19 However, international procedures within the genre of classical music have never been considered comparatively. Thus, it seems profitable to explore the habit(u)s and practices of Tonmeister / producers / recording engineers and musicians working in classical music in order to better understand production processes. To meaningfully analyze the role of Tonmeister/producers in the recording process and the role played by technology, we need to consider international procedures.
On this basis, the Cultural Data Analysis project aims to find out the possible consequences for the work concept established in classical sound recording and historical musicology: is this concept perhaps about to dissolve? In the interviews I conducted, German Tonmeisters and sound engineers always emphasized their desire to serve the musical work and the artist. The aim, they said, was to present the work appropriately, thus helping the artist in their individual expression. At the same time, my practical observations in Germany show: all the engineers involved know that personal interaction with the musicians along with the process of production and post-production provides them with massive influence on the musical work, the sound recording process, and, most importantly, the resulting sound. Technically, they are greatly supported in this by the possibilities of multi-track recording, which has been a matter of course in classical sound recording for years. However, in contrast to pop music production, where overdubbing and the associated work of the producer is clearly named, in classical music mentioning it still seems taboo.
So what can we say about the concept of the producer and the concept of the musical work if we don’t restrict our considerations to Germany? The Cultural Data Analysis project will use comparative analysis to trace the emergence of the artwork concept established in German musicology and sound recording. Has the wall of sound (i.e. independent artistic creativity of the producer at the mixing console), familiar from popular music and associated with Phil Spector’s work, perhaps long since arrived in classical music production? Perchance even in Germany? Is it just that in Germany, the subject is unmentionable – perhaps due to the habitus of the local engineers? To explore these questions, I undertook two extensive observations in Canada and the USA, discussing matters with North American and British sound professionals. This practical work was supplemented by extensive research, both online and in the generally accessible literature.
As mentioned before, the Cultural Data Analysis research project relates to a previous one, namely “The Recording Studio as a Discursive Space.” Connecting the research results is a crucial task of the present publication. Moreover, only a systematic comparison of these results enables the study to generalize rather than merely providing some individual observations. As outlined above, an international comparison between Germany and North America promises deep insights into the production cultures, communication strategies, and discourses on both continents. In contrast to the previous project, which aimed to understand the principles guiding the participants’ actions, the current data (collected in North America and processed with the help of digital tools) enables a comparison of the recording philosophies of German, British and North American sound engineers. This comparison will show that the aesthetics of sound design consists not only of technical and artistic decisions. Rather, the habitus of all those involved plays a crucial role in both the concrete procedure and the resulting sound. At the same time, we shall be able to compare the differences in discourse on music and interpretation between North American, British and German Tonmeisters / sound engineers and musicians.
The observations from Germany and North America are intended to show that traditions of thought and interpretation play a role in the production process, contributing to the definition of concepts like ‘musical work’ and ‘producer.’ To visualize and analyze the production processes and the data obtained in the observations, innovative methods are required. Thus, the technical visibility of the musical work and the production process is also a relevant matter. Correspondingly, the Cultural Data Analysis project aims to provide methods and modes that show the processes of music making and music production as a doing and a social practice.
A further aim of the previous project, “The Recording Studio as a Discursive Space,” was to show how the discursive space of the recording studio integrates human and non-human actors – thus revealing the analytical potential of the latter, i.e., the technology used in the recording studio. This approach made clear that the microphone is not merely the most important tool in sound recording but a key representation of the relationship between man and machine as equally important players in the recording process. The microphone can thus be described as the decisive interface at which the doing of being a sound engineer and the doing of being a musician20 are manifested visibly and audibly. Building on these findings, the Cultural Data Analysis project aims to extend the research to other technical tools in the sound recording process (namely the mixing console and talkback) and to ask how these are used and how they influence the relations between man and machine.
***
To sum up: on the basis of production observations, the Cultural Data Analysis project is to investigate the (presumably different) communicative and technical processes involved in sound recording, asking what the differences mean for the sound engineers’ and the artists’ self-image. Moreover, the project also aims to explore the consequences of the Tonmeister’s specific music-cultural capital for the concept of the musical work established in classical sound recording and historical musicology. In terms of discourse analysis, all of this still seems to belong to the realm of the unspeakable. The goal is to get to the bottom of this.
To regard the sound recording as a shared work, sui generis, of the musician(s) and the engineer means to gain a method for productively describing the creative process of sound recording, i.e., the formation of a musical work by means of sound technologies.21
The overarching aim of the Cultural Data Analysis research project is to take a further step in studying doing sound in connection with sound recording. History of technology, knowledge, and media are to be linked, and strategies of sonic knowledge production are to be revealed. In short, “Cultural Data Analysis” focuses on the central concept of work and production in classical music from a cultural and historical perspective, while at the same time improving the technical visibility of the research results.
***
In the following, you will find a chapter-by-chapter summary.
Chapter I opens by presenting the current state of research on the aesthetics of sound recording, subdivided into two areas: production cultures and the technical visibility of the data obtained. The next section of this first chapter presents my sources, which as derived from practical observations in Germany and North America. The third section deals with the methods of data collection and analysis that I used to access the sources, highlighting the use of MaxQDA software in data analysis. The final section of Chapter I explores the limitations of MaxQDA, main among them the software’s system-related ‘blindness’ to the meanings of terms assigned by the speakers. Likewise, the human being is not a transparent object of investigation: all utterances require interpretation. Therefore, I conclude by outlining alternative technical aids that might help process these aspects, both available ones and such that might still need to be developed.
Chapter II forms the core of the Cultural Data Analysis project. To subdivide the many points of view, it consists of three sections. The first one, “Occupations and Vocational Training in Central Europe and North America,” uses my participatory observations to show that the field of sound recording already proves to be a discourse space with regard to the vocational training found there. As shall be shown, this stage offers itself for a fruitful initial cultural data analysis. To illustrate the differences, the various academic and non-academic training courses and the different attitudes to non-academic knowledge acquisition in the field of sound in Germany, elsewhere in Central Europe, and in North America are considered separately. Furthermore, I analyze the distributions of tasks and roles in sound-related professions, which differ considerably between the continents, partially due to the different expectations of the musicians. These in turn are influenced not least by the requirements of the labor market.
With the section “Recording Philosophies in Germany and North America in Comparison,” Chapter II delves deeper into the evaluation of the observations in Eastern Canada and the USA. For maximum clarity, this evaluation takes place in four stages. First, I consider the recording situation itself: What happens in the recording studio in concrete terms? What aesthetic and technical goals are being pursued and how? Then, the listening sessions as I experienced them in the USA are described and compared to those in German studios, followed by descriptions of patch sessions and, finally, of some aspects of post-production. The analysis is always comparative, aiming to highlight the differences. To explore the role of habitus in the production process, the concluding third section of this chapter (“Communication in the Production Process”) shows the crucial role of spoken communication in the recording process and provides a qualitative content analysis using MaxQDA software, concentrating on the technical visibility of the musical work and the recording process. The aim is to detect and render technically visible the semantic and pragmatic content of the relevant utterances. Thus, I compare communication strategies of Tonmeisters / sound engineers and musicians in Germany and North America during the production process. The aim is to find out how their habitus manifests itself in conversation, using the technical possibilities of MaxQDA. At the same time, I intend to show which discourses on music and interpretation are typical for North American sound engineers, British producers, and German Tonmeisters, as well as for musicians from these countries.
Part II of this monograph focuses on more in-depth discourse-analytical questions: Chapter III is entitled “Man and Machine.” The previous chapters have shown that people involved in sound recording are considerably influenced not only by their training and professional activity but also by the existence and development of technology. There is still more to be discovered about the relations of man and machine in sound recording – which is what this chapter sets out to do. It considers the recording studio as a habitus, a space of possibility, and a space of power, pays particular attention to the women behind the stage, and finally enters the cockpit of the spaceship that is a recording studio.
In the concluding Chapter IV, I summarize the most important results from my observations in Eastern Canada and the USA in comparison with my previous research findings from Germany and situate them within my overarching discourse-analytical considerations. The chapter is divided into the sections “Professional Training,” “Aims of Sound Recording/Recording Philosophy” and “Communication.” An extended outlook section (“The Limits of Discourse”) explores the possible consequences of the Tonmeister’s music-cultural capital for the concept of the musical work established in classical sound recording and historical musicology. Do contemporary production cultures need to distance this concept from the traditional notion of a notated score? Or is the concept perhaps unchangeable but must remain as it is, perhaps because of the available vocabulary, which favors seeing over hearing? Or is this privileging merely Western? Would questions about the concept of the musical work be answered differently if we considered other parts of the world? This issue will be discussed in the section “Can Language Structure Cognition?” Final system-theoretical considerations (with reference to Niklas Luhmann) speculate about a sociologically founded description of the relations between works of art and their social environment, possibly transcending the system-related limitations of MaxQDA and similar technical procedures for analyzing communication in the sound recording process.
***
First and foremost, I would like to thank my co-applicant, Prof. Dr. Stefan Weinzierl, for his support in preparing and implementing the building blocks of this research project. Just like “The Recording Studio as a Discursive Space”, the Cultural Data Analysis project was conducted at the Department of Audio Communication at the TU Berlin.
I am also very grateful to Prof. Martha de Francisco (McGill University, Montreal/Canada). Not only did she issue me with a letter of intent that helped me receive DFG funding – without her excellent support, I wouldn’t have managed to complete the lengthy process required for my invitation as a guest researcher at McGill University in March 2023.
The collaboration with my colleagues at the Soundmirror recording company in Boston/USA was just as excellent. After an online conversation with the graduate Tonmeister Dirk Sobotka, I almost immediately received an invitation to observe their work in April 2023 (also submitted to the DFG as a letter of intent). I would like to thank the four colleagues from Soundmirror, whom I could accompany during two productions, and the local contacts (arranged by Dirk Sobotka) with whom I had the pleasure of cooperating during my observations: Rebecca Cain (Vice President of Orchestra Operations at the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra) and Steve Wenig (Vice President and General Manager at the Oregon Symphony).
I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Andreas Münzmay (Department of Musicology, Detmold/Paderborn), who supported our DFG proposal with his letter of intent as co-spokesman of Research Area 6, “Cultural Research Data Academy,” at the NFDI4Culture consortium.
I would like to thank all the participants in the production observations in Montreal, Pittsburgh, and Portland, for letting me look over their shoulder and for the wonderful conversations. Many thanks go out to my numerous interview partners for taking the time to talk to me.
For various reasons, it was not possible for me to spend time in the UK during my project. I am therefore especially grateful to my British colleague Robert Suff, who has worked for many years (among others) as a producer at the Swedish-based label BIS, for taking the time for a long online conversation in May 2024, in which he described his professional career and in particular his approach to sound recording in detail.
Dr. Russell Mason (Senior Lecturer in the Institute of Sound Recording (IoSR) at the University of Surrey/GB and Program Director for the Tonmeister program) kindly explained the conditions and requirements for studying to become a Tonmeister in Surrey in another lengthy online conversation on November 27, 2023. Prof. Scott Metcalfe (Director of Recording Arts and Sciences at the Peabody Institute of The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore/Virginia) also took the time to talk to me online on January 4, 2024, about the Tonmeister program at his institute. Thank you both!
I am grateful to Dr. Thorsten Trippel (course coordinator for Digital Linguistics / Text+ at IDS Mannheim) and Dr. Martha Stellmacher (NFDI4Culture / SLUB Dresden) for their advice and suggestions regarding the possibilities of automated meaning recognition.
This study would not be what it is without my lovely colleagues in Berlin who discussed it with me during research colloquia and informally, in particular: Dr. Oliver Schwab-Felisch, Prof. Dr. Heinz von Loesch, Dr. Steffen Lepa, and Meret Lu Stellbrink. The latter two also provided critical readings of chapters from this book, as did Helge Martensen from Hanover, Prof. Dr. Kilian Sprau from Berlin, and Frithjof Vollmer from Stuttgart. Many thanks!
Any errors or inaccuracies that remain are, of course, entirely my responsibility.
On a professional and personal level, I am very grateful to my husband Helge Martensen, who happens to be a graduated Tonmeister. Our conversations helped me greatly in understanding quite a few technical details of the sound recording process and managing those many excel tables.
I would like to thank Dr. Alexandra Berlina22 very much for the wonderful and professional translation of two chapters of this book into English and for the careful proofreading of the abstracts I prepared.
Finally, I thank Oliver Schubert, tour guide at the broadcasting center NDR Landesfunkhaus Hannover, whom I was allowed to accompany on two guided tours on February 16, 2024, recording original soundbites from the participants about their behind-the-scenes impressions of the broadcasting house (with their consent, of course) – and Anna-Sophie Börries from the same establishment for her kind and uncomplicated permission to take part in guest tours.
Without the generous funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG; project number: 419911712), the whole project would not have been possible. I would like to express my sincere gratitude for this.
Cf. for example Christiane Tewinkel, “Progress, Interrupted: American Students of Theodor Leschetizky in Vienna,” in: Journal of Austrian-American History, Volume 6, No. 2, 2022, pp. 136–152. As she writes, “(Austro-)German cultural hegemony was strong and, as Beth Abelson Macleod has argued with regard to the latter decades of the nineteenth century, ‘to be accepted as a serious American musician, one had to study for several years with an acknowledged European master, perform successfully in a European cultural center like Berlin or Vienna, and return with a sheaf of laudatory reviews which could then be used for publicity purposes’” (p. 140; with reference to Beth Abelson MacLeod, Women Performing Music: The Emergence of American Women as Instrumentalists and Conductors, Jefferson 2001, p. 25).
Veronika Keller, “Transatlantic connections: US-American music students at German conservatories, 1843–1918” in: Musica Paedagogia Pilsnensis, 1/2021, pp. 81–88.
DFG project “‘You play exactly as if you came from America.’ Transatlantische Beziehungen und anti-amerikanische Vorbehalte im Musikleben des Deutschen Kaiserreichs und der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie 1880–1915“; applicant: Christiane Tewinkel, carried out by Marten Noorduin; project number: 441570120; https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/441570120; 6.8.2024.
Cf. for example: Matthias Middell, “Kulturtransfer, Transferts culturels”, Version: 1.0, in: Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte, 28.01.2016; http://docupedia.de/zg/middell_kulturtransfer_v1_de_2016; 6.10.2024.
On these terms, see section ‘State of research’.
DFG project “Kulturdatenanalyse von Produktionskulturen in der klassischen Musik”; applicants: Stefan Weinzierl, Karin Martensen; Project number: 419911712; https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/419911712; 8.6.2024.
Martha de Francisco graduated as a Diplom-Tonmeister in Detmold and has been an associate professor in sound recording at McGill University since 2003. Previously, she was a producer and recording engineer for the Philipps label in Europe for many years (see https://www.mcgill.ca/music/martha-de-francisco for more details and her biography; 8.6.2024).
See for more details chapter ‘Careers and professional training in Central Europe and North America’.
Both quotations come from an online conversation with Martha de Francisco on May, 20, 2020.
Interview from December 11, 2020. I have granted my interviewee anonymity at his request.
Reference should also be made to my essay “Communication in the Sound Recording Process: an International Comparison” (will appear in: Music & Musical Performance: An International Journal, 9/2025), in which the research project “Cultural Data Analysis” is presented in excerpts.
Karin Martensen, Das Tonstudio als diskursiver Raum. Theorie, ästhetisches Konzept und praktische Umsetzung in der klassischen Tonaufnahme, Würzburg 2022.
Ibid.
Cf. Martensen, Das Tonstudio als diskursiver Raum, the chapter entitled ‘Entstehung und Verwertung musikkulturellen Kapitals im Diskursraum Tonaufnahme’.
Concept by Martina Heßler, Kevin Liggieri, “Einleitung: Technikanthropologie im digitalen Zeitalter”, in: Heßler, Liggieri (eds.), Technikanthropologie, Baden-Baden 2020, p. 11–29, cit. p. 15.
Ibid.
Roland Huschner, “[…] if it would be me producing the song …” Eine Studie zu den Prozessen in Tonstudios der populären Musikproduktion, PhD thesis, Humboldt Universität Berlin 2016.
Cf. Tuomas Auvinen, “Differences and Similarities in the Role and Creative Agency of Producers in Pop, Rock and Classical”, in: Jan-Olof Gullö, Shara Rambarran, Katia Isakoff (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Art of Record Production Conference Mono: Stereo: Multi, Stockholm: Royal College of Music (KMH) & Art of Record Production, 2019, pp. 1–18.
Cf. for example Andy Battentier, A Sociology of Sound Technicians. Making the Show Go on, Wiesbaden 2021.
Cf. on these terms: David Waldecker (“Raum und Technik im Tonstudio. Eine Ethnographie von Wissenskulturen”, in: Bernd Brabec de Mori u.a. (eds.), Auditive Wissenskulturen. Das Wissen klanglicher Praxis, Wiesbaden 2018, pp. 381–398, cit. p. 384). What is meant by this is “that the studio situation turns musicians into musicians and engineers into engineers by offering them the opportunity to present and produce themselves as such.” (ibid.)
Cf. on this term Friedrich Kittler, Aufschreibesysteme 1800/1900, Munich, 1985; id., Grammophon, Film, Typewriter, Berlin 1986. See also: Karin Martensen, “Soundtechnologien – sichtbar gemacht. Softwaregestützte Inhaltsanalyse von Rezeptionsdokumenten mit MaxQDA,” in: Julian Caskel, Frithjof Vollmer, Thomas Wozonig (eds.), Softwaregestützte Interpretationsforschung: Grundsätze, Desiderate und Grenzen, Würzburg 2023, pp. 373–392.