# MX102 is definitely 'edgier' than A314 **URL:** \ **Category:** Men's Pheromone Advice & Field Reports\ **Created:** [December 16, 2006, 5:53am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/mx102-is-definitely-edgier-than-a314/1170 "2006-12-16T05:53:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 9
**Author:** ![MHarris](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/mharris/32/2107_2.png) [@MHarris](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/MHarris)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2006, 1:08pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/mx102-is-definitely-edgier-than-a314/1170/9 "2006-12-17T13:08:07Z")
> [@Sunny](#): > > I get what you mean, it’s a good comparison! > > Now I am wondering: Is the oil version of A314 that I am currently using (shipped Nov. 16) the most current version, the one you are talking about? Yes. That and MX172 are most similar. [A314 Classic](https://a314.com/product/a314-classic/) is up to “Revision 12”. Well, that’s our old versioning system, anyway. I suppose we should change it to v1.2 or v2.2. I’d prefer v1.2. Even though it’s gone through 12 changes, they’ve been very minor in terms of end results generated. The “heart” has stayed the same. So, you had an even older bottle of A314, didn’t you? Rev 11? Do you notice any difference between that and this one? > [@](#): > > If this is true, then the main reason for my much superior results with MX172 is the better diffusion from the spray - and probably better timing for the different molecules. I hope I can get a biiiiiig bottle of this hot stuff!!! That’s right… you can chalk it up mostly to superior diffusion in the spray version (and perhaps the different diffusion curve, which may be releasing pheromones you’re particular fond of faster, and ones you aren’t, more slowly). There may be a few more mods made to an eventual spray version of A314. I should take MX172 and make variations of it for the next A314 test pack. See what a lower -none version will do, a TACless version, one with P80, etc. I’d love to be able to predict what all possible variations would do, but sometimes there’s surprises in a complex mix. Predictions are inferior to actual test results at this point in the game. > [@](#): > > On a different topic, I have recently noticed, that the “light neroli” scent which you use on most products acts as an anchor for me to feel good. Since scents bypass much of our conscious mind, they make the best kind of sensory anchors. You know what I mean by anchor, in an NLP sense. It’s much more than a placebo. I don’t think there is any way to escape this effect, but it makes testing of different pheromones a bit (positively) biased… Interesting. Yes, I definitely know what an anchor is. I suppose that’s good for the consumer products (nothing wrong with making people feel good usually), but not so good for the testing realm. Great observation. I’ll note this bias when considering test results. --- _[View the full topic](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/mx102-is-definitely-edgier-than-a314/1170)._