Story in the Telegraph about a man recording the incessant barking of his neighbour's dog and playing it back to said neighbour at 3 in the morning:
The first thing that this raises is the spectre of sound weaponry. Monte Cazazza and Genesis P. Orridge gleefully tell stories about playing white noise and prepared recordings at maximum volume, agitating not only their audiences but also any unfortunate associates who might live in their area. The more sinister underbelly to these industrial music hikjinks is the reported use of amplifiers and high frequency static during certain riot situations. Crowd control , situation diffusion or provocation? Jack Sargeant discusses all this and more in an excellent article from the Fortean Times:
The above briefly mentions my personal favorite 'sound based artefact of ambiguous purpose', the Feraliminal Lycanthropizer. This was a strange resonance machine which generated noise and played recordings at varying frequencies and was said to be able to induce violent orgies.
Whether or not sound / infrasound weapons are widely used, the effect in this suburban vignette shows results similar to the majority of these urban myths: agitation, sleep deprivation and conflict. My question is, what did the dog think about all this? How did he react to the sound of his barking coming back to him in the middle of the night? His response should have been recorded. Forget the arguments between the neighbors, I want to know what the dog was trying to say in the first place and if something different was communicated to him from the early hours recording.
Crafty neighbour with the recording equipment: consult Burroughs' 'The Electronic Revolution' and find out what the dog has to say.