I'm wondering about alot of the 4 substituted Tryptamines and what the differences are. After reading Thikal it seems like shulgin thought alot of them weren't worth procuring or making over already available psilocybin/psilocin. Is 4-HO-MET that different to shrooms? It seems like at higher doses he couldn't distinguish between them and some like 4-ho-mipt were very potent in comparison to others. So I ask because alot more people have tried these substances since Shulgin wrote this and I'm wondering is the difference very noticable between the ones people like or not as much as you would think. Based on what I've heard 4-ho-met is really light in comparison to shrooms but shulgins thoughts were reflected in the exercept below.
"
This, and several other of these substituted hydroxy and methoxy tryptamines, had had
earlier evaluations, but the notes are not at hand and cannot be used. Much will have to come
back from memory, and there must be an appropriate fuzziness allowed for the concluded
generalization as to dose and duration. With this particular compound, some of the original
observations suggested that it was more potent than psilocin, certainly more dramatic. But at
the bottom line, I doubt that this ethyl homologue, or the isopropyl homologue 4-HO-DIPT for
that matter, could be distinguished from the methyl counterpart psilocin in any blind clinical
study.
What's to choose between them? From the view-point of synthesis, the cost and availability of
the secondary amine will certainly be a factor. Both methylethyl amine and
methylisopropylamine are available, but are quite expensive. Dimethylamine, on the other hand,
is dirt cheap but it is a recognized precursor to DMT and thus is difficult to find. In any events,
the dimethyl compound is widely available in the mycological arena, and I suspect it would be
simplest to stay with nature."
"
This, and several other of these substituted hydroxy and methoxy tryptamines, had had
earlier evaluations, but the notes are not at hand and cannot be used. Much will have to come
back from memory, and there must be an appropriate fuzziness allowed for the concluded
generalization as to dose and duration. With this particular compound, some of the original
observations suggested that it was more potent than psilocin, certainly more dramatic. But at
the bottom line, I doubt that this ethyl homologue, or the isopropyl homologue 4-HO-DIPT for
that matter, could be distinguished from the methyl counterpart psilocin in any blind clinical
study.
What's to choose between them? From the view-point of synthesis, the cost and availability of
the secondary amine will certainly be a factor. Both methylethyl amine and
methylisopropylamine are available, but are quite expensive. Dimethylamine, on the other hand,
is dirt cheap but it is a recognized precursor to DMT and thus is difficult to find. In any events,
the dimethyl compound is widely available in the mycological arena, and I suspect it would be
simplest to stay with nature."
