I did a quick search and couldn't find anything else on the subject so here goes...

Please remove this if it breaks any rules but I think it could be interesting.


A lot of people i'd say love to have a joint or two and sit back and listen to music (I certainly do!). I'm curious as to whether being stoned affects lossy artifact ABX tests or not. Do you think you can hear better? What about other drugs?

Maybe you become less sensitive to pre-echo due to temporary short-term memory impairment

I'd be interested - please post some results. I think concentration will be impaired on THC so it will probably affect a listening test negatively rather than what is 'expected' (enhanced hearing).

loophole,

Indeed, as an established forum member you should be able to provide us some valid test results. How about selecting a couple samples that are difficult to distinguish and posting ABX logs before and after taking the substance? Remember to include exact substance usage details so others can try to reproduce your results.




Edit: removed a redundant word.

All in science's name!!!!

I can already see switches to select psymodel:

-weed_psymodel (add some rasta sound)
-cocaine_psymodel (push the groove, speed it up)
-smack_psymodel (just turn off the music, who cares - saves some bits, too

Haha, I'm the worst person to do an ABX test, 128k AAC is transparent to me and I don't have any nice headphones anyway.

I'm also curious. Might give it a whirl... anecdotally, i'd say that weed tends to make it easier to focus on particular instruments and such. I've noticed things in music that otherwise i'd have missed. This is just a concentration thing though; not the same as psychoacoustics.

I'm also not much of an ABXer though... anyone with golden ears feel like doing some science?

Please refraise:
Anyone with golden ears and drugs feel like doing some science?

This thread got me to laughing, albeit it has its "serious scientific merits."

@Ivan
You had me rolling after reading the psymodel w/descriptions.

Exactly, that’s what makes difference between hearing and listening. While hearing is analyzing of music (and sounds in general) on syntaxes’ level, listening includes analysis of music semantics (creation of what the music means for the person according to his individual abilities and previous experience). So in altered states of consciousness a person usually creates different meanings, interprets sounds in a different way.

Talking about ABXing, I’m pretty sure it is not possible at all (under weed at least) because the process needs concentration of memory and attention which is hardly possible in the case, you know .

Anyway volunteers are invited. Also uploading of some stuff in UPLOADS section would be helpful .

Let's try this: if it makes you smarter, why do they call it "dope?" Jamaica is famous for the amount of weed smoked. How many Nobel prize winners have come fraom Jamaica? How many people who have accomplished anything have come from Jamaica, other than musicians, just so we do not lump them in with "accomplished folk"?

Name one reputable study anywhere indicating weed makes you smarter. Not too hard to find the ones which indicate memory impairment, inability to focus, etc., along with the accompanying impression of the smokers that they really have a handle on it, this time. Yeah right.

Been there; done that; got the T-shirt; got the scarf. Gave it up.

I already know from personal experience that stimulant medication (prescription amphetamines) increases auditory perception as well as the frequencies one can hear. When I was on medication I could regularly hear an "ultrasonic" pest control device that is supposed to be outside of human hearing. It was quite aggravating to say the least when I could hear a droning high frequency pulse every time I went into the kitchen. This disappeared within a few days of stopping the medication and returned whenever taking it again.

Also from personal experience, I would imagine marijuana hampers you're ability to ABX despite the increase in pleasure from the music. Even if the drug itself had no effect smoking effects your sinuses in a negative manner. Anyone who has gotten high while having a cold would know what I'm talking about. To clarify, THC is actually stimulating your brain (despite the relaxation it's not a depressant). However as it seems to make sounds more apparent and brighter it also muddies your perception when trying to hear multiple sounds at once (something you'd have to do to ABX actual music). For instance getting high in the woods surrounded by chirping crickets you'll tend to hear a few of them really clearly while all the others are almost bleached out into the background.

That reminds me...Some live sound guys I know would always say that if the live mix is really bassey, the front-of-house engineer is probably stoned, if the highs are blaring, then he's probably on coke.

Wanna do a 16 trials ABX ?

Prepare 16 joints

I can attest to that, having had various stimulants myself. I can recall in particular one time after a pretty big party I couldn't sleep (duh) so decided to listen to music on my iPod and was regularly getting annoyed by artifacting i'd never heard before. I think i become very sensitive to pre-echo and any type of smearing in that state. Of course, you'd never know if you imagined it or not unless you bothered to conduct some sort of formal test.

Who's the one saying it makes you smarter? I'm jut trying to figure out who you are arguing with here. Perhaps an imaginary friend the posts of whom only you can see?

Yeah honestly that's the second attempt at derailing i've seen here, this thread isn't about debating whether you should or you shouldn't do drugs, it's about how they affect hearing and perception.

I think this needs very careful and long practical examination

I could think of weed practically interfering with ability to judge, and especially with the problem of rating samples as the problem with short-term memory loss would be very prohibitive for a valid ABX test or MUSHRA codec ranking - probably leading to completely statistically insignificant results. ATH testing would be even harder, as it could probably happen a lot that the subject "hears" something that he actually doesn't - or what he heard 10 seconds ago

Dunno how much of the sound it could "reveal" that is not heard otherwise (or, better, not focused to) - but for sure it would interfere with the judgment quite a lot - how could someone rate something that he heard minute before while it evaporated out of his short-term memory storage apparatus

--

As for the other substances, medicine knows many of those that would in fact enhance ability to concentrate to, but apart from some scientific value in such tests, I see no other point, except to make something like:

"COKE-200+ Sound Amplifier, Optimized for Active DJ Perfectionist" ... hmm... that might sell, too

Since the topic doesn't really interest me, I haven't read through all the comments. If someone else has covered this already, then this is just a corroborating observation.

Having looked at this from the outside, I notice that pot users, both those who just listen and those who perform music, tend to very often get hung up on exceedingly simple repetitive patterns. They may think they are performing, or listening to, as the case may be, something really great, but to other it is just rather boring, going nowhere.

Yeah that happens with most drugs actually, you get caught up in some detail and forget about the big picture. (coding)

So, in order to test sources with small impairments you need either to increase your perceptual abilities with some training/dope or to amplify artifacts to some controlled extent. SoundExpert uses the second scenario. Sorry for this little self-advertising – can’t resist.

I've heard similar references at one of our local venues

I think one problem with ABXing stoned is that its all going to sound "good" albeit different but still "good"

These are good points... ideally we would only be testing a person's perception, not their (in)ability to perform the actual test. Additionally there is the issue of how to do this double-blind, since you will obviously know when you are stoned and when you are not.

I will ponder these issues and try to come up with a methodology.

So, what samples does the public wish to be tested? I'm willing to sacrifice my aversion to MaryJane and tomorrow, for the sake of science. <bg>
<edit: grammar>

how would the test need to be carried out? what bitrates, codecs, etc?

Dissapointed that this didnt get a go. I thought it was worth a test

I have seen a number of studies that indicate marijuana increases varibility in results. Some people get better reflexes, some get worse. Some have better problem solving skills, some worse.

I would bet that these change within the individual over time as well.

h

very good idea!

one problem remains: it is a problem with THC to correlate the strength of the "experience" ( ;-) ) with the amount of stuff being consumed. that varys from day to day IIRC. also it is very different from individual to individual.

I can't believe this thread is still alive

Tell us when you've come up with a suitable one. As neomoe said:

I guess 1 pot, 1 song, 1 session, per day. After enough rest. Hm... not that different with actual ABX-ing...

Edit: forgot a space. And no, I'm not under the influence!

I only got into Jack Johnson, Deep Purple and DSOTM while, erm, smoking. Wouldn't have listened to them otherwise but love them now. You definitely discern more detail in music while trousered.

Conversely there's tunes i've gone 'wow' to while under the influence and i've been utterly embarrassed to see the next day on my last.fm page.

There was a tune (whos name escapes me) that I swore had someone talking through it. 4 hours of solid verification was replaced by bewilderment when I was trying to prove it to a friend a couple of weeks later, this was one artifact that could only be ABX'd while hammered

EDIT: It was 'New Frontier' by Donald Fagen.

One night about a million years ago, I did too much acid and listened to Echoes from Pink Floyd's Meddle on headphones. For the next hour or so, I couldn't couldn't couldn't talk talk talk properly properly properly. I don't think any ABX results I would have produced would have been much use use use.

It seems that there might really be a drug that works on auditory perception. Its an experimental psychoactive substance called DIPT. From one report, it might be fun to listen to Type O Negative on this thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diisopropyltryptamine

http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=2930

By the way - there are numerous chemical substances that could seriously impair human auditory system and that has been scientifically proven (so no need for volunteers to damage their ears

These substances are called ototoxic

Eg. Streptomycin (antibiotic) which could cause permanent non-reversible hearing damage, or drugs that cause temporary hearing loss, like acetylsalicylic acid widely known as Aspirin.

There are some more substances, that would fall into the category probably implied here - such as some opiate pain-killers, that are also linkened to hearing loss but without wide scientific agreement.

Sooo... medicines cause damage to your hearing,
While drugs cause enhancement to your hearing?

... *ponders* ...

... okay I'm in! Who will supply the needed, uh, 'materials' for the listening test?

I updated the wiki link so hopefully you didn't order the wrong gear yet !

Does it have aphrodysiac effect?

I can offer about 40 years experience in this field and it seems to me that hash(and even more so acid) is the equivalent of adding further prcessing after the sound has hit your ears. It can act as a filter that singles out individual instruments/voices or an enhancer that draws in other senses and emotions.
No matter - what you hear is changed, but rarely I would say in a way that is repeatable, so I guess this rules out any form of useful ABX results.

There are many who have 'come to' while enjoying a glorious piece of music, only to find they have been listening to the traffic going by for the last half hour .

UJ

After reading over this, while under the influence, I've concluded (scientificly) that it would be rather hard to conduct an ABX while under the influence due to short term memory loss and general laziness. I know this is true cuz I took philosphy in college.

However, I've also drawn the conclusion that weed is the best DSP available, its compadible with all major platforms, light on the resources, fully user adjustable, and even works on non digital audio!

Amen, brothah

Haha, been there done that. It's a very, very silly substance. Basically, it made everything sound sort of bassy and a little more removed. Not particularly great for music, but it was hoot hearing people's voices distorted to hell and still feeling sober otherwise.

thought the same, guess it doesn't matter which drug you take, it will almost never be reproducable.



Well, I truely enjoy Noise (music), it's very relaxing to me and my ears, even if it is often not very different from traffic noise or a vacuum cleaner, so I can understand that. On the other hand I just hate the noise of vacuum cleaners or the highway a few hundret meters away. Well, I guess it comes down to the noise itself, the volume and the situation

I created a topic about that few years ago.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....49&hl=cannabis#

From my personal experience the best audio enhancer is mdma (xtc) combined with cannabis. The last time I have done it, I was able to easily abx mp3 (aps) and wav on several tracks. It was impossible to abx it under normal circumstances. For me, a long session (more than 12 hours) in the studio for mixing also increases my audio perception for several hours. Sometimes it's annoying because I can't stop listen to the music without analysing it (even in a bar or a restaurant, …).
Anyway, for me the "best" way to easily get into the music is definitely to smoke a joint.
I guess Garf will ask us to provide doping tests in order to validate abx now

I'm wondering, wouldn't any upper like amphetamine actually increase concentration and thus also the ability to "hear" better? In a way it's the same as doing anything else (drawing, math, programming), it takes a bit of concentration & focus...

IMHO I don't think mdma would be that great for your actual concentration to the music.. It just makes you float away on top of the melody or bass line.. Probably get lost in your ABX test.. Actually, I think most psychedelic substances will have this effect, including N2O, shrooms, acid, and various others.. Weed/Hash is a weird one though, it really depends on your state of mind at the time. It can beef you up or slow you down, so if you were to ABX you'd have to do it as fast as possible in the same state before it changes.

Kinda confession post here...
For me mdma makes me hear very clearly and not at all flowing on the music (actually, mdma is derived from amphetamine). You have to use it sparingly (less than 8 times on a year).
Weed (and not every person can feel this effect) help me to isolate each element; again the trick being to don't overdo it (well much than 8 times a year).
Mushrooms and acid don't help me to hear more clearly, it creates a visual and emotive interpretation of the music (too much weed can give you that too).
Coke (I don't like it) just makes me pump up the volume, which is not a good idea for detailed listening…
For alcool (don't like it also), never seen increase something, but it can help some artist for the writing and fighting stage fright.