Re photography, I was thinking first of metol (1891) which (apart from its early confused history) up until about the 1960s was thought to contain paraphenylenediamene impurities sufficient to the be the cause of 'metol poisoning', the contact allergy that was noted in many users. It was thought by Grant Haist that modern metol does not contain this impurity and is not particularly allergenic. But that could mean that for the first 70 years of its use, there would be a solvent or fine grain effect from the ppd which would not exist in metol made later. As with so much in photographic engineering, there is no published proof. Re audio compression, I have often wondered about that. I would say it is only now that I am finally learning to use dynamics effectively in my own playing (classical piano). But I've always tended to work with German pianos made from 1890 to 1920, which tend to have the largest dynamic range. Also there is the fact that truly soft playing is hard to record, and often comes out louder than you are hearing live. But take everything together, and I believe you are right. One thing that makes it hard to discuss is the stark difference between analogue headroom (gentle and long) and digital headroom (sharp and short). My eyes were opened by a Horszowski recording where the phrases mostly follow a suggestion I heard Casals make, that, in most cases, when the phrase goes up, there should be a crescendo and when it goes down there should be a diminuendo.
I think playback of 24-bit digital sound with ≈100 dB dynamic range requires such a high level of hardware in the listening room to play quiet parts at a reasonable volume while avoiding distortion in the loud ones, that basically no reasonably priced system can do it properly (aside from good headphones if you give up on speakers). At this point I would be glad for a 20-30 dB compression option on playback.
This is absolutely true, but, I think it can apply to live music as well, in other words that there is more to the desire for compression than the technical parameters you describe. I was always fascinated by extremely soft sounds and I remember a teacher (Eugenia Monacelli) once saying 'You cannot play so softly as this, because in a hall nobody would hear it.' The only time I can remember actually hearing someone reputable doing this was Stokowski in the first movement of the Mahler 2nd. It was memorable but it was gimmicky too. A little known but wonderful composer called Terry Winter Owens often directed to hold the final note until all sound vibrations had ceased -- the drydown. But these are outliers. Is it possible that there is some kind of psychological (dis)stress in coping with large dynamic range? On softness and psychology, I once asked the acoustician Harold Burris-Meyer why he always spoke so softly. He replied, because it makes people pay attention. Finally, some music critic observed that pieces which end softly are never hugely popular. Is this really true? If so, why? And really finally, when I was listening to beloved Annie Fischer's Beethoven sonata cycle, I thought there was not enough dynamic range. True? Had she gone too far in self-compressing?
Fascinated by this post. I have used some of Fraterworks' raw materials and love them. And would gladly spend all I had on ordering more. It seems that there is the same issue in perfumery that there is to some extent in photographic chemistry, that improved methods of synthesis can sometimes lead to unwelcome results. And with restored audio and films, they are often so clean that the magic is simply not there. The modern version of 'Bird of Paradise' loses the poetic luminosity of the original film. The reconstructed soundtrack for 'City Lights' is missing some essential something, even if that something is just noise that, paradoxically, may help us reach towards the essence? Would love to hear your opinions of their raw materials and their bases. Some of the bases can be hard to find on their site.
Thank you Bill. Very interested in the photographic angle: which materials work better when impure? Halides? Developers? As for audio, I am convinced that compression was a good thing and better dynamic range has been a disaster for recorded music. Do tell!
Possibly one of my earliest, if not first ever, perfumery related memories is watching my maternal uncle (then in his early twenties - I was perhaps 4) splashing on some Brut apres-rasage from that classic badge-encrusted green bottle. To me it smelled like 70's earthly raw masculine power and terrifying extra-terrestrial alien all at the same time, and made my uncle seem virtually larger than life itself.
Re photography, I was thinking first of metol (1891) which (apart from its early confused history) up until about the 1960s was thought to contain paraphenylenediamene impurities sufficient to the be the cause of 'metol poisoning', the contact allergy that was noted in many users. It was thought by Grant Haist that modern metol does not contain this impurity and is not particularly allergenic. But that could mean that for the first 70 years of its use, there would be a solvent or fine grain effect from the ppd which would not exist in metol made later. As with so much in photographic engineering, there is no published proof. Re audio compression, I have often wondered about that. I would say it is only now that I am finally learning to use dynamics effectively in my own playing (classical piano). But I've always tended to work with German pianos made from 1890 to 1920, which tend to have the largest dynamic range. Also there is the fact that truly soft playing is hard to record, and often comes out louder than you are hearing live. But take everything together, and I believe you are right. One thing that makes it hard to discuss is the stark difference between analogue headroom (gentle and long) and digital headroom (sharp and short). My eyes were opened by a Horszowski recording where the phrases mostly follow a suggestion I heard Casals make, that, in most cases, when the phrase goes up, there should be a crescendo and when it goes down there should be a diminuendo.
I think playback of 24-bit digital sound with ≈100 dB dynamic range requires such a high level of hardware in the listening room to play quiet parts at a reasonable volume while avoiding distortion in the loud ones, that basically no reasonably priced system can do it properly (aside from good headphones if you give up on speakers). At this point I would be glad for a 20-30 dB compression option on playback.
This is absolutely true, but, I think it can apply to live music as well, in other words that there is more to the desire for compression than the technical parameters you describe. I was always fascinated by extremely soft sounds and I remember a teacher (Eugenia Monacelli) once saying 'You cannot play so softly as this, because in a hall nobody would hear it.' The only time I can remember actually hearing someone reputable doing this was Stokowski in the first movement of the Mahler 2nd. It was memorable but it was gimmicky too. A little known but wonderful composer called Terry Winter Owens often directed to hold the final note until all sound vibrations had ceased -- the drydown. But these are outliers. Is it possible that there is some kind of psychological (dis)stress in coping with large dynamic range? On softness and psychology, I once asked the acoustician Harold Burris-Meyer why he always spoke so softly. He replied, because it makes people pay attention. Finally, some music critic observed that pieces which end softly are never hugely popular. Is this really true? If so, why? And really finally, when I was listening to beloved Annie Fischer's Beethoven sonata cycle, I thought there was not enough dynamic range. True? Had she gone too far in self-compressing?
Fascinated by this post. I have used some of Fraterworks' raw materials and love them. And would gladly spend all I had on ordering more. It seems that there is the same issue in perfumery that there is to some extent in photographic chemistry, that improved methods of synthesis can sometimes lead to unwelcome results. And with restored audio and films, they are often so clean that the magic is simply not there. The modern version of 'Bird of Paradise' loses the poetic luminosity of the original film. The reconstructed soundtrack for 'City Lights' is missing some essential something, even if that something is just noise that, paradoxically, may help us reach towards the essence? Would love to hear your opinions of their raw materials and their bases. Some of the bases can be hard to find on their site.
Thank you Bill. Very interested in the photographic angle: which materials work better when impure? Halides? Developers? As for audio, I am convinced that compression was a good thing and better dynamic range has been a disaster for recorded music. Do tell!
Possibly one of my earliest, if not first ever, perfumery related memories is watching my maternal uncle (then in his early twenties - I was perhaps 4) splashing on some Brut apres-rasage from that classic badge-encrusted green bottle. To me it smelled like 70's earthly raw masculine power and terrifying extra-terrestrial alien all at the same time, and made my uncle seem virtually larger than life itself.
Love the description!
So, it's ok to put nitro musks on skin? The warning on their website sounds serious :)
No it's not OK.
Fraterworks has incredible ingredients for hobbiests. I particularly love the recreation of classic perfume bases he offers like Jasmine Blanc.