Post: #21

Chemset Androsterone smells like mildly musky male sweat to me. I can't say I like it but it's not unpleasant. Just sorta there. Unlike androstenone, I have to put my nose almost on the application spot to notice the scent. It gets rank when intermingled with body oils and sweat. It seems to breakdown easily to stinky funk.

Post: #22

Quote:Androsterone has no smell.  P95 is very stenchy.

They both have a mild musk to me, but I can't consciously smell pheromones at all very well.

The point I was trying to make was that: putative x and putative y may both be, for arguements sake, Androsterone but they may be categorised separately because variables mentioned by Micheal and Jasmin: like purity, quality control and difference in synthesis can have an effect on the results people get from the same molecule (like the less pure -none is MX292). Likewise, Androsterone bought from one company may get you slightly different results to Androsterone from a different company. I was just suggesting that there may be merit in labelling the same pheromone as two separate putatives.

Post: #23

(01-26-2010 5:15 PM)WildFlower Wrote:  

They both have a mild musk to me, but I can't consciously smell pheromones at all very well.

The point I was trying to make was that: putative x and putative y may both be, for arguements sake, Androsterone but they may be categorised separately because variables mentioned by Micheal and Jasmin: like purity, quality control and difference in synthesis can have an effect on the results people get from the same molecule (like the less pure -none is MX292). Likewise, Androsterone bought from one company may get you slightly different results to Androsterone from a different company. I was just suggesting that there may be merit in labelling the same pheromone as two separate putatives.

There is definitely merit in distinguishing differences in different batches of the same molecule, based on the characteristics you mentioned. However, I think it is entirely possible to do so without resorting to putative #s which are not descriptive and are arbitrary. I'm not really sure what the scales for purity, QC, or synthesis are, but I could imagine something like:

Androsterone p:79%, QC grade: B, synthesis method: ..? Rather than a simple, undescriptive (and somewhat cryptic) p95. I suppose we could shorten the above description to something like ADER79B. Androstenone could be something like ADEN44C. Maybe a different, higher quality Androstenone would be ADEN93AA.

Post: #24

(01-24-2010 4:26 PM)Gegogi Wrote:  I actually prefer androstanone mixed with androstenone, not as a standalone. I find some of the nasty/negative qualities of androstenone endearing but androstanone adds a little buffering and dimension to the mix.

How many mcgs of Androstanone are you adding to your Androstenone? I have been having a tough time getting the 2 to play well together.

Actually I would like to hear the what mcg threshhold everyone has. I dont seem to have positive results over 10mcgs.

Post: #25

(01-26-2010 5:15 PM)WildFlower Wrote:  

They both have a mild musk to me, but I can't consciously smell pheromones at all very well.

The point I was trying to make was that: putative x and putative y may both be, for arguements sake, Androsterone but they may be categorised separately because variables mentioned by Micheal and Jasmin: like purity, quality control and difference in synthesis can have an effect on the results people get from the same molecule (like the less pure -none is MX292). Likewise, Androsterone bought from one company may get you slightly different results to Androsterone from a different company. I was just suggesting that there may be merit in labelling the same pheromone as two separate putatives.

What does that mean exactly, though... the purity is less...?

All the pheromones I've ever purchased come with quality of assurance as to content, and a list of the means by which that quality of purity was assayed.

Is the none in MX292 then from a bad chemist batch with who knows what in it? Is that safe?

Diane

 

 

Post: #26

Diane Wrote:What does that mean exactly, though... the purity is less...?

All the pheromones I've ever purchased come with quality of assurance as to content, and a list of the means by which that quality of purity was assayed.

Is the none in MX292 then from a bad chemist batch with who knows what in it? Is that safe?

They may have made some bad business decisions or forum decisions in the past but the purity level is within industry standards on all androtics molecules. They get them from different US labs though not just one and test different synthesises. So no its not a bad batch of pheromones. While all labs they deal with have quality assurance not all labs synthesis the exact same way. Its that way with any product really. Its like buying hellmans mayonnaise or the store brand. Both follow the quality assurance rules. Both may have the exact same ingredients but one is always superior to the other for some reason or another.

From what I been told they also will test them under different numbers for another reason. Blind testing and placebo. For instance and I wont name names but I know who was on the "pay attention to this user list". You may have a member who is reporting and on two different putative # that are the exact same molecule and they are saying they have totally different effects. You then know who to watch and who not to watch when testing results come in. Unfortunately the members dont know and they may end up being mislead that's why I would stress not to read other people posts on what it does. To the laymen it may look like testing madness over there but there is a method to the madness. Its not unethical either because it clearly states in the advanced section for research enthusiasts only. Your welcome letter also mentions this when you join, as does a few posts about testing from the admin in there forum. They dont flat out say you are testing the same molecules but they do flat out say that all advanced products are for research and development and how they conduct there research is their business. Its only a handful molecules they do this with to. So there isn't 3 or 4 putative that are the same. There is usually just one twin. This was also hinted at a few times in there forum. Once by me in reference to when they release a series of mixes together but everyone took it as meaning they were getting a bottle with no pheromones in it which was not what I was trying to say. You always get pheromones, sometimes some of the mixes in the series are the same. If your reporting results with one and not the other or totally different results its another indicator. They know there testing over there and how to get quality assurance of there own when it comes to the consumer products they sell. That's why there consumer products are as good as they are.

Tisha

Post: #27

(01-27-2010 3:22 AM)Tisha Wrote:  They may have made some bad business decisions or forum decisions in the past but the purity level is within industry standards on all androtics molecules. They get them from different US labs though not just one and test different synthesises. So no its not a bad batch of pheromones. While all labs they deal with have quality assurance not all labs synthesis the exact same way. Its that way with any product really. Its like buying hellmans mayonnaise or the store brand. Both follow the quality assurance rules. Both may have the exact same ingredients but one is always superior to the other for some reason or another. From what I been told they also will test them under different numbers for another reason. Blind testing and placebo. For instance and I wont name names but I know who was on the "pay attention to this user list". You may have a member who is reporting and on two different putative # that are the exact same molecule and they are saying they have totally different effects. You then know who to watch and who not to watch when testing results come in. Unfortunately the members dont know and they may end up being mislead that's why I would stress not to read other people posts on what it does. To the laymen it may look like testing madness over there but there is a method to the madness. Its not unethical either because it clearly states in the advanced section for research enthusiasts only. Your welcome letter also mentions this when you join, as does a few posts about testing from the admin in there forum. They dont flat out say you are testing the same molecules but they do flat out say that all advanced products are for research and development and how they conduct there research is their business. Its only a handful molecules they do this with to. So there isn't 3 or 4 putative that are the same. There is usually just one twin. This was also hinted at a few times in there forum. Once by me in reference to when they release a series of mixes together but everyone took it as meaning they were getting a bottle with no pheromones in it which was not what I was trying to say. You always get pheromones, sometimes some of the mixes in the series are the same. If your reporting results with one and not the other or totally different results its another indicator. They know there testing over there and how to get quality assurance of there own when it comes to the consumer products they sell. That's why there consumer products are as good as they are. Tisha

Okay, so a "less pure" steroid, where the main difference is some "contaminant" is not an "inferior" steroid... I get it... not.

So, clear me up on this one... you're saying they are selling placebos labelled at putative pheromones at full price...

...and others are stating that they are claiming a loss on their main MX sellers.

I don't know...

I'm not going to get on another Androtics rampage, so don't worry.  I just am glad I'm outa that game.

Diane

 

Post: #28

Some quotes from Michael about different androstenone synthesis:

Quote:Anyway, enough from me, lest I start to rant. As I said originally, though, sometimes rough is good -- even right down to the core design (the molecules themselves). I actually liked one of the rougher synthesis' of androstenone I have over the more clinical synthesis. For some purposes, anyway.

Quote:A314 benefits from the cleaner synthesis route, while something like MX292 benefits from the rougher one. Something we never would've known unless we had done the actual work over the years to split test the hell out of this stuff.

Here again he is talking about a different synthesis of androstenone in MX292:

Quote: It's just part of a new mix methodology. i.e., actually using what we learned in the old androstenone tests, as well as combining it some new tech.

 

And here's the post by Jasmin talking about p95:

Quote:Hey guys,

I just found out today what P95 is. (they even keep me blind to 'em!)

It's been actually a very, almost ludicrously high quality synthesis of a crowd favorite here. 

Sometimes synthesis route, purity, quantity of impurities, and what type of impurities there are, all matter. These often overlooked variables can often make molecules work very differently, so I'm wondering what sort of results you guys have been seeing?

I think p95 is Androsterone, but like I said, if I hadn't seen this post I would've just assumed it was a molecule with Androsterone like properties, rather than Androsterone itself.

Post: #29

Thanks for providing the quotes, Willow.

Diane

Post: #30

Diane Wrote:Okay, so a "less pure" steroid, where the main difference is some "contaminant" is not an "inferior" steroid... I get it... not.

Since it my words your twisting.............

No offence Diane but you gotta remember your new to the buying and selling of pheromone molecules. I am not saying you wont be good at it, in fact I predicted you would be good at it, it just that as you have admitted in another post your still new as well and learning more everyday about certain molecules. They are right about rougher or as you call it less pure steroids. Neither of us said "contaminanted" or "inferior" and your use of those words is just a attempt to get back at them them because your pissed at them for the treatment they gave you which was wrong. Two wrongs dont make a right though and its getting a little old and you need to get over doing that all the time. I am not going to keep rehashing this out or let you twist something everytime we mention androtics just to serve your ego.

Diane Wrote:So, clear me up on this one... you're saying they are selling placebos labelled at putative pheromones at full price...

Your doing the same thing I said others did over at androtics when I mentioned the testing. I think I explained it rather clearly above but I will clarify what I said just in case.

Tisha Wrote:two different putative # that are the exact same molecule and they are saying they have totally different effects.

(The word "They" as seen in the above quote is referring to the tester not androtics)

Yes they are selling at a pheromone price because they are both pheromones. Whether its at a loss or not I cant say for sure

NO its not them sending a placebo, a placebo would be sending water or some other non pheromonal substance when you order a putative. They dont do that. They code, so P50 and P59 (Made up numbers) are both the exact same pheromone. You dont know what they are but they do. If you report two very different effects whether self or otherwise with these then they know your having a Placebo effect that has more to do with a preconceived notion of what it should do or your just not a reliable tester.

Since your buying from the advanced section which clearly states for research its not unethecal and makes for more accurate effective products later down the line. Despite other things that may have been done that we dont like they are number 1 in the business when it comes to pheromone technology.


Now I believe the question was ......

Quote: on the main difference between Androstenone and Androstanone?

Tisha