A modest proposal - Euphonogens

[Mr Wobble]

That is a fascinating trip report invert.

I'm very impressed that you've actually collected some quantitative data and it shows a pretty clear trend!

You obviously know a fair bit about signal processing and audio synthesis stuff - apart from your test progam, did you experiment with any other synthesized sounds? I find synthetically derived sound particularly conducive to euphonogenia, especially subtractive synthesis (a nice resonant filter sweeping through a harmonically rich sawtooth or PWM'd wave... mmmm) and clangerous FM sounds too.

FWIW, my cod theory for the particular synergy between synthetically derived sounds and some euphonogenics (in my case MDMA and LSD) is:

1. Synthetic sounds are arresting because the auditory system can't quite place them in a real world context - the aforementioned filter sweep and PWM doesn't sound quite like any real world process. So the brain, unable to conveniently file them away under the label 'X' or 'Y environmental' sound is stuck in analysis mode.

2. Synthetic sounds are closer to being mathematically ideal. In the example of the sawtooth wave the frequency and amplitude of the harmonics is derived from a simple formula (which I can't remember off the top of my head) and, as Liebniz said,

"Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting."

so perhaps the brain just has an affinity for patterns of a certain level of complexity, an affinity which becomes more pronounced under the influence of an enphonogen?

In contrast, 'real world' sounds are generally of high complexity often containing more enharmonic content. (Admittedly the signal processing within a synth will add enharmonic content, whether by dint of design, or by accident, but the proportion complex enharmonic content is usually less than that found in real world sounds).

 

[invert]

That is a fascinating trip report invert.

I'm very impressed that you've actually collected some quantitative data and it shows a pretty clear trend!

Thanks! It's been a while since I collected any data; been too busy with my 'proper' research work. Hopefully I'll return to it sometime in the not too distant.

You obviously know a fair bit about signal processing and audio synthesis stuff - apart from your test progam, did you experiment with any other synthesized sounds? I find synthetically derived sound particularly conducive to euphonogenia, especially subtractive synthesis (a nice resonant filter sweeping through a harmonically rich sawtooth or PWM'd wave... mmmm) and FM.

I'm not massively knowledgeable about signal processing, actually; I have recreational interests in maths, signal processing, and auditory perception, but no real expertise; my expertise is in the psychology of visual perception.

I never got beyond pure tones in this DiPT-research. I figured that, before I can usefully investigate complex tones, I should properly map out the dose/Hz relationship of pure tones at various frequencies and doses. I see this as a very long-term project. With the pure-tones experiment, I only ever collected data from myself and one other participant: the task was difficult, and virtually impossible for those with no familiarity with playing music and using note-names; and I guess most people (out of the few DiPT-users who were aware of the experiment) were reluctant to do dull psychophysics tasks while tripping. And I only collected data a few times from myself (the cognitive peak tended to distract me from the experiment, and the relatively long-lasting voice-distortion puts me off taking it if there's a chance I'll have to interact with my psychedelics-naive girlfriend in the near future, which there usually is).

My cod theory for the particular synergy between synthetically derived sounds and some euphonogenics (in my case MDMA and LSD) is:

1. Synthetic sounds are arresting because the auditory system can't quite place them in a real world context - the aforementioned filter sweep and PWM doesn't sound quite like any real world process. So the brain, unable to conveniently file them away under the label 'X' or 'Y environmental' sound is stuck in analysis mode.

2. Synthetic sounds are closer to being mathematically ideal. In the example of the sawtooth wave the frequency and amplitude of the harmonics is derived from a simple formula (which I can't remember off the top of my head) and, as Liebniz said,

"Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting."

So perhaps the brain just has an affinity for patterns of a certain level of complexity.

In contrast, 'real world' sounds are generally more complex and often contain more enharmonic content. (Admittedly the signal processing within a synth will add some enharmonic content, whether by dint of design, or by accident, but the enharmonic element is usually less obvious than that in real world sounds).

Plausible. And, tying this in with my experience of the beauty of full inharmonicity in DiPT, I'd suggest that this inharmonicity is more mathematically perfect (the distances between notes and the distances among harmonics are altered roughly equally) than partial DiPT-induced inharmonicity (where the distances between notes and distances among harmonics are altered differently) or any inharmonicity in the natural world.

As a counterexample to your idea, though: what of the exquisite beauty of the human voice (well, some human voices)? The tones of singing are complex, relatively inharmonic tones. ETA: Actually, I'm not sure that is a counterexample. Depends on how singing is perceived during euphonogenia.

 

[Mr Wobble]

I'd suggest that this inharmonicity is more mathematically perfect (the distances between notes and the distances among harmonics are altered roughly equally) than partial DiPT-induced inharmonicity (where the distances between notes and distances among harmonics are altered differently) or any inharmonicity in the natural world.

I wonder if this DiPT inharmonicity is anything to do with Frequency Shifting as opposed to Pitch Shifting - is that what you're getting at? In signal processing, as you're probably aware, a pitch shifter changes the pitch whilst preserving the harmonic relationship between the component frequencies - so doubling the pitch 100Hz becomes 200Hz, 1kHz becomes, 2kHz - everything within the signal shifts up an octave. With a frequency shifter each component frequency is shifted by a given amount, so a shift of 100Hz will change 100Hz to 200Hz (an octave), but 1kHz only becomes 1.1kHz (not an octave).

Pitch shifting is harmonic; frequency shifting is enharmonic (but, as you say, mathematically so!). Pitch shifting sounds a bit like ring modulation (Darleks) or kind of vocoderish (which you mention in that trip report).

As a counterexample to your idea, though: what of the exquisite beauty of the human voice (well, some human voices)? The tones of singing are complex, relatively inharmonic tones. ETA: Actually, I'm not sure that is a counterexample. Depends on how singing is perceived during euphonogenia.

I haven't got an answer to that except to say that the voice and the brain processes that deal with it are surely very complex and likely to share a great deal of crossover with areas of the brain that deal with sound, music, emotion, meaning etc. and so it's perhaps unsurprising that the human voice is likely to have a considerable impact upon someone in an enhanced state.

And, of course, all kinds of musical experience can be enhanced by euphonogen, there just seems to be a real synergy between synthetically derived sounds and the euphonogens that I know well, particularly MDMA. And then there's the obvious link between MDMA and Dance Music, many of the sub genres of which are synth driven.

And I did say that mine was just a cod theory

 

[invert]

I wonder if this DiPT inharmonicity is anything to do with Frequency Shifting as opposed to Pitch Shifting - is that what you're getting at? In signal processing, as you're probably aware, a pitch shifter changes the pitch whilst preserving the harmonic relationship between the component frequencies - so doubling the pitch 100Hz becomes 200Hz, 1kHz becomes, 2kHz - everything within the signal shifts up an octave. With a frequency shifter each component frequency is shifted by a given amount, so a shift of 100Hz will change 100Hz to 200Hz (an octave), but 1kHz only becomes 1.1kHz (not an octave).

Pitch shifting is harmonic; frequency shifting is enharmonic (but, as you say, mathematically so!). Pitch shifting sounds a bit like ring modulation (Darleks) or kind of vocoderish (which you mention in that trip report).

That's certainly possible, although - from informal playing around on the piano - I had the impression, if I recall correctly, that the biggest pitch shifts were in the middle of the piano range, with smaller pitch shifts both at the lower and the higher ends. If there were a frequency shift, one would expect the largest pitch shifts at the low end of the piano. But I never managed to collect reliable experimental data on low and high pure tones during my last splurge of DiPT investigation, so I can't be sure.

I'd note that the middle range of the piano is the range that I'd expect is most precisely represented in the human brain: I'd guess that most of the important sounds we have to deal with (not least the human voice) are in that range. I don't know this for sure, but I'm sure there's research on this. If this is so, I wonder if that would explain why the shift is greater there (if it really is).

I haven't got an answer to that except to say that the voice and the brain processes that deal with it are surely very complex and likely to share a great deal of crossover with areas of the brain that deal with sound, music, emotion, meaning etc. and so it's perhaps unsurprising that the human voice is likely to have a considerable impact upon someone in an enhanced state.

True, the voice is probably special, much as the face is special in visual processing.

And, of course, all kinds of musical experience can be enhanced by euphonogen, there just seems to be a real synergy between synthetically derived sounds and the euphonogens that I know well, particularly MDMA. And then there's the obvious link between MDMA and Dance Music, many of the sub genres of which are synth driven.

And I did say that mine was just a cod theory

It's an interesting idea, and potentially testable. It's more salmon than cod, I'd say.

 

[Mr Wobble]

I had the impression, if I recall correctly, that the biggest pitch shifts were in the middle of the piano range, with smaller pitch shifts both at the lower and the higher ends. If there were a frequency shift, one would expect the largest pitch shifts at the low end of the piano.

Frequency dependant frequency shifting then? That is strange (and very interesting). If it is frequency shifting, (rather than pitch dependant pitch shifting) pure sine waves would be shifted (dependant upon frequency), but still sound like pure sine waves, pitched up or down. Whereas the effect upon an audio signal consisting of a fundamental plus one or more harmonics, would be to differentially shift the fundamental and harmonics (according to their different frequencies) so that the original harmonic relationship would be changed. Furthermore, the degree of harmonic displacement would differ dependant upon the pitch of the audio signal.

It sounds like such a distinct phenomena that it maybe it needs its own name - I wonder if there's there's snappy word can be made out of whatever Ancient Greek for warped is +phonogenia?

 

[tathra]

i thought this thread was going to be about eating babies

i found DiPT made it impossible to appreciate (or even listen to) music. DPT[+K] was almost impossible to enjoy without music though.

mdxx, mescaline, and most of the 2c series enhanced music appreciation for sure. ayahuasca enhanced music appreciation as well, but i cant remember if any other tryptamines did a good job of that.

 

[invert]

i thought this thread was going to be about eating babies

LOL, yeah I was disappointed at the lack of biting anti-imperialist satire.

Frequency dependant frequency shifting then? That is strange (and very interesting). If it is frequency shifting, (rather than pitch dependant pitch shifting) pure sine waves would be shifted (dependant upon frequency), but still sound like pure sine waves, pitched up or down. Whereas the effect upon an audio signal consisting of a fundamental plus one or more harmonics would be to differentially shift the fundamental and harmonics (according to their different frequencies) so that the original harmonic relationship would be changed, and furthermore the degree of harmonic displacement would differ dependant upon the pitch of the audio signal.

Indeed, and that's my experience of it; that pure sine tones have no timbral distortion (unlike complex tones). They remain pure sine waves, shifted downwards (it's always downwards, at least for as long as it remains possible to determine: at very high doses, stuff gets a bit too loopy and changeable over time).

ETA: If I recall rightly, timbral distortion is least noticeable with fairly high-frequency sounds. Which is consistent with it being a simple frequency-shift, isn't it? Because at high frequencies a shift in each of the harmonics by a given number of Hz will have less of an impact on harmonics ratios than at low frequencies. So maybe your frequency-shift hypothesis is right, and it's just poor pitch-perception at low frequencies that gives the impression of a smaller shift.

Damn, DiPT is fascinating stuff. I really ought to get back into experimenting with it.

Re: the frequency-dependence.. an alternative explanation is that frequency perception is sufficiently vague at high and low frequencies, that I'm just less able to detect the frequency shift. If neurons that are most sensitive to middling frequencies (say 220 Hz to 880 Hz) tend also to have more narrow distributions (i.e. they respond more selectively to a narrow range of frequencies close to their main frequency), which I think they do, then a change in the centre of that distribution will be more perceptible than an equivalent change in the centre of a more broadly spread distribution. That may be all that's going on there. I just need to collect a lot of quantitative experimental data in the low and high regions, to get a handle on whether there's less of a shift in those regions, or just more variability in my perception. I will do that one day. By the way, if you (or anyone!) have access to DiPT and want to run the experiment, you're very welcome to. Let me know and I'll forward you a copy of the experimental program.

It sounds like such a distinct phenomena that it maybe it needs its own name - I wonder if there's there's snappy word can be made out of whatever Ancient Greek for warped is +phonogenia?

One could say xenophonogenia, I suppose? Meaning 'makes things sound foreign/alien'. But I'd just call it auditory psychedelia (or OEAs, for 'open ear audials'). I think there may be a lot in common between OEAs and OEVs ('open eye visuals'). Here's something I said about this recently:

Perhaps just because of the chemical relatedness of DPT and DiPT, I am struck particularly by the correspondence between the most prominent visual effects of DPT and the most prominent auditory effects of DiPT. Where DiPT produces a high-frequency sound overlaid over everything else, DPT (and other visual psychedelics, of course) has a high-spatial-frequency grid overlaid over everything else. Where DiPT produces frequency-modulation of perceived sounds (wobble in voices, 'vocoding' robot-sounds etc), DPT produces spatial-frequency-modulation of visual space. It suggests to me that there may be commonalities in how the brain processes auditory-frequency and visual-spatial-frequency.

On reflection, though, I'm wrong about the vocoding being due to FM, aren't I; because FM would affect pure sine tones as well as complex tones, right?

ETA: Having consulted a lexicon, there are a couple of other options for terms describing the tendency to cause sound to be warped: kamptophonogenesis and diastrephophonogenesis, neither of which really trip off the tongue. The latter also has connotations of perversion.

 

[Mr Wobble]

On reflection, though, I'm wrong about the vocoding being due to FM, aren't I; because FM would affect pure sine tones as well as complex tones, right?

Hmm, well any particular flavour of audio effect can, of course, be created in a number of ways - frequency shifting can sound like FM, which might sound like Vocoding, etc. Specifically FM adds harmonics ('sidebands' at freqs above and below the original signal), whereas freq. shifting changes the frequency and relationship between harmonics.

EDIT: To answer your question - yes FM would add harmonics to a pure sine. Freq Shifting can definitely produce metallic FM-like or Vocoderish tones when applied to a harmonically rich signal. Frequency shifters are often called Bode Filters - dunno why?

By the way, if you (or anyone!) have access to DiPT and want to run the experiment, you're very welcome to. Let me know and I'll forward you a copy of the experimental program.

Funnily enough , after reading this and the interesting reports in Erowid, I have had a quick look and found a supplier - not sure of DiPT's legal status here in Blighty?

 

[Vader]

^Class A, as are all the TiHKAL and PiHKAL drugs.

(b) any compound (not being a compound for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (a) above) structurally derived from tryptamine or from a ring-hydroxy tryptamine by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the sidechain with one or more alkyl substituents but no other substituent;

 

[Shambles]

^ Except for aMT which is still legal here for some reason. Can't remember offhand but I presume that one's in TIHKAL anyway. There may be the odd other exception but pretty sure DiPT is illegal round these UK parts

Illegal is sometimes more a state of mind though

 

[Mr Wobble]

Illegal is sometimes more a state of mind though

You took the thoughts right out of my state of mind!

 

[Mr Wobble]

diastrephophonogenesis [...] has connotations of perversion.

shame it's a bit unwieldy. I could think of a few uses for a word like that!

 

[Mr Wobble]

Oh and...

(b) any compound (not being a compound for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (a) above) structurally derived from tryptamine or from a ring-hydroxy tryptamine by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the sidechain with one or more alkyl substituents but no other substituent;

can't say I'm surprised, but c#*tsticks to that!

 

[Vader]

I'm surprised that alpha-methyl-tryptamine is legal, maybe the ADD bods can explain that one to us...

 

[Delsyd]

Im no ADD mod but i can quote one

As the bulbous one once said:

The controlled tryptamines are defined as 'tryptamines or ring hydroxy tryptamines formed by the substitution to any extent of an alkyl group into the siodechain nitrogen, but nowhere else' Later on it mentions any esters or ethers being controlled as well

With AMT there's nothing substituted into the sidecain nitrogen/amine function, so it's exempt. 'Catch all' is one of the most misleading terms to describe the 1977 Modification Order to the MoDA. With a little thought it'#s possible to produce loads of non controlled drugs that are all active. The mod. order only catches the highly popular ones.

 

[Vader]

Catch all' is one of the most misleading terms to describe the 1977 Modification Order to the MoDA

So true, if we think we've got it bad we should be grateful we don't live in the States. "Substantially similar", fuck that.

 

[Delsyd]

speaking of aMT. thats one of the drugs i find to be euphonogenic on a level with mdma

 

[Xorkoth]

Bump for prune