I read the article and didn't understand it, hence my post. If you'd be kind enough to explain it then that would be appreciated.

Using "sound" on its own as a verb doesn't work in modern English. I don't think even a heavy goods poetic license permits that.

That sounds wrong to me.

I am not an authority on English, but using sound as a verb seems common, and idiomatic. Not sure where you got this idea.

Sound is usually found as a transitive verb "sound the alarm" or immediately followed by an adjective or adjective phrase "it sounds like it's coming from the attic".

It's almost never seen naked except when talking about "how something sounds" which follows from the latter usage above.

We're beyond grammar and in the weeds of idiomatic usage, but hopefully it's clear to English speakers that "it sounds" full stop is so eyebrow-raising that it should normally be avoided.

Unless you're being clever or meta, as the title here is, so it gets a pass in my opinion.

If it were written idiomatically, though, it'd be "images that make sounds".

I agree with you. I guess "sound on its own" was not the best explanation either, compared to the transitive one you provided.

Image is a verb here

> _makes a representation of the external form of_ that sound

And Sound is a verb here

> Images that _emit or cause to emit sound_

It's a punny title pointing out that it's both at once

Sound, as in "sound the alarm" or "the horn sounded", is a verb. The title literally means "images that make noise".

I'm a native english speaker and the title, using "sound" on its own as a verb, made immediate sense to me - images that [make] sound.