The Science of Cables

OK, time to hit the nail on the head.

Although the Mind Lamp™ works using an REG device located in the base of the unit, we encourage you not to think about the REG itself. Our interpretation of the research suggests that the mind is constantly interacting with random or uncertain systems, and can influence their observable outcomes based on its intention. This approach is very different from mechanistic ways of thinking, which might require you to direct your intention towards a physical sensor. Don’t worry about that for now—just be confident in your intention.

RGB Color Wheel

The Color Wheel
The first thing you will probably want to do is see if you can make the lamp change to a particular color. Remember that the Mind Lamp™ typically moves from color to color by progressing around the color wheel, rather than by jumping directly to a new color. If the lamp is blue and you want it to turn red, then it can go either way around the color wheel to get there (i.e., blue > cyan > green > yellow > orange > red; or blue > purple > magenta > red). White is a "jackpot" color, which appears when the REG is producing strongly imbalanced data, or when you are having a very strong effect on the lamp. After white, the lamp typically jumps to the color opposite to the previous one in the color wheel scheme.

Full disclosure: MACHINA DYNAMICA is the sole distributor of The Mind Lamp TM from Psyleron 

"...and the correlation is like 85%. Where anything over 50% is statistically significant."

What p-value was accepted here?

celander,

"glupson, I think one will hear a greater improvement in SQ with the SM of interconnect placement on an entry level audio system than on a $25k-$50k audio system."

I have never tried it, I just went by one of the posts in which douglas_schroeder mentioned those numbers as being relevant for his method.

Mr. Duncan, how are your HAVE custom built IC's working out for you? Post your thoughts...

What p-value was accepted here?

You’ll have to break down and look up the pear studies yourself.

Right now, you have questions, so you can reserve for yourself, full denial... and walk away and never look.. but that is an intellectually dishonest thing to do.

You were given the doorway to walk through (names being named), that should be enough, to step in and take a look.
Although there should be a internet rule for this problem, similar to rule 34. like "If the subject is contentious, there will be fully fleshed out denials of it". the pear studies and this given meta test, are a drop in the bucket of the data trails... 

It's the same pattern and problem... of isolated drug testing. where in the real world, all the drugs and the environment interact. In the way a low level considered safe carcinogen is having to deal with 1000-2000-5000 low level chemicals and carcinogens/precursors/drivers/etc, which as a sum total in the real world has 'Cancer' writ large --all over it.

All one has to do is start putting the dots on a page, through looking, looking, looking... and the dots will emerge/converge into a load line of probability that escapes all potential to question it's validity. that thing about science not being a simple bit of reading...