Quote from: Akuostophile on 21 April, 2007, 04:50:33 PMActually, my reply was to FloggedSynapse - as you can tell from the quotes. And the links do apply to the question.GraceWhile it is true that neither book deals specifically with the effects of psy. drugs(sic) on hearing, they are 2 examples of research that has studied the effects of a large number of psychoactive molecular groupings - on the human organismbtw.... no where did I state that those links were to the full texts (they both run close to 1000 pages) - I was merely pointing them out as avenues of further reading.
Actually, my reply was to FloggedSynapse - as you can tell from the quotes. And the links do apply to the question.Grace
Marihuana has been said to improve hearing. Two earlier studies have supported this contention. In this investigation, marihuana or placebo cigarettes were randomly smoked by 30 subjects, 15 in each group. Before and after smoking, batteries of standard audiological tests were carried out; pure tone threshold (air and bone conduction), speech reception threshold, speech discrimination at most comfortable level, and relative acoustic impedance measurements including middle ear pressure, stapedial reflexes, compliance, tympanic mobility, and Eustachian tube function. A comparison of pre and post smoking auditory test scores did not demonstrate any significant change in auditory function in the marihuana or placebo group. However, as all subjects had normal hearing and maximum speech discrimination scores pre-smoking, it can only be concluded that smoking marihuana did not worsen the hearing--the experiments were not designed to see whether it would improve hearing.
I could have written some of those accounts in the texts myself!
A physician friend of mine has expressed it using a neurological vocabulary: "If it [the drug] delayed only the neural response to a stimulus, then pitch might have been shifted down, and yet harmony between notes should have been preserved. A variable delay related to the pitch of the stimulus would produce the disharmony but would not explain the preservation of normal relationship between single tones. It seems clear that this compound affects the auditory processing centers in the brain in a complex way which deserves further scientific study. The lack of significant toxic effects should make this compound useful for further studies."
As I already stated in this thread, amongst the substance I have already experiment, mdma and mda gave me the stronger improvement. In order to be sure I wasn't "hallucinating", I verified this with abx test. I was able to easily distinguish a certain number of mp3 (aps) with the original wav. I failed to reproduce the same performance under normal circumstances.
Perhaps new psychoacoustic models can be created to fulfill the needs of those on psychotropics.<runs away>
The test-methodology is valid, but its conclusions are based on flawed logic. What you verified is only, that you could distinguish a "lossy psychoacoustically compressed" music file via substances, but not without. This does NOT automatically mean an "improvement" in hearing. What it verifies, is that your hearing changes. This could be due to overall improvement, or just due to shifting.
Why? Well, take this hypothetical scenario: we compress a file psychoacoustically in a way, which throws away all information....- Lyx
Well one can say that the accumulation of both experiences is somehow an improvement. As you can state that you have a better perception of an object with two different angles rather than one.
rebinator, I think most readers would appreciate a citation or empirical evidence (see ToS#8, whose conditions you accepted upon registering) for your claim that vast improvements of hearing and awareness attend the psychelic experience, especially as you deemed these phenomena significant enough to bump a topic after almost 50 months…I imagine it’s natural that you would think/feel/whatever that things were different, given that the drugs are by definition mind-altering, but subjective experience of one person is of no indication or use to others. And, as ToS#8 makes clear, Hydrogenaudio eschews such anecdotal evidence in order to maintain discussion that is evidence-based and trustworthy for readers who may be easily led; this puts it in contrast to many other audio-based websites, and for the better I would say.
if it was important for me to "prove a claim", as you so put it, I would probably put up a Sibelius or Reason based transcription of a song with and without.