Neutral electronics are a farce...

Atmasphere, the real ’good and valid point’ I felt Geoff to be making there (and I didn’t fully make this clear above) is simply that magnetic fields do have an adverse impact on sound. Who is right or not on the theoretical details I’m not really qualified to answer.

" This was around the issue of balanced line connections, which can be used to eliminate problems of cable construction and colorations as well as the effects of magnetic fields impinging the cable. BTW, this is not to say that EMI/RFI isn’t a problem; Geoff was right about that); what I am saying is the if you run balanced lines and the equipment supports the balanced line standard then the cables will have almost no effect on the sound and it will get around the problem of EMI impinging the cable."

This is technically true. However it is Wholly insufficient to fight either magnetics or EMI/RFI in the **system** - that is to say with its sonic performance overall. This is because they both have Sooo many other points of entry into the system and just protecting the IC’s alone can never, and will never, cut it.

My system uses balanced lines from source to amps. But, if that were anywhere near sufficient by itself, then the $10k’s worth of Alan Maher Designs gear I’ve bought over the last few years that is designed specifically to deal with both magnetics And EMI/RFI should have made no impact on the sound and that is plainly not the case at all. It makes a "night and day" difference...and yes, as in a ’whole new system’ level of difference. What I’m saying is that balanced lines, in the grand scheme, make no appreciable difference...**once you’ve caught on to just how bad the overall picture of magnetics/EM/RF vs system performance actually is**, that is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
-From the page:
A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[12] and is stable.

However it also states that it is a form of EM radiation.

However the signal in a cable is not carried by photons. A better carrier would be the electron, although stated in those terms might be considered a gross oversimplification.

Ivan, if you had read the thread through (and I don't blame you for not doing so) you would see that I brought up the balanced line thing specifically with respect to the fact that if properly executed (and quite often in high end audio, the balanced line standard is pretty well ignored) then the cables at least will be immune to EMI (stray magnetic field) problems. If you do not hear that in your system then its likely that it is not supporting the balanced standard. 

Understood. Last I checked, I believe my system was full differentially balanced, but since some of it is modified I should 'triple check' that, to be sure. But, to make clear for anyone else, I've certainly found balanced lines to make an audible difference in my systems (the degree of which depending on the gear) prior to using AMD. It's just that after doing so, switching out between single-ended and balanced has no longer made an audible difference, under my roof.

Atmosphere wrote,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
-From the page:
A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[12] and is stable.

I never said a photon did have mass, or that it had an electrical charge or wasn’t stable. But electrons are carriers of *charge* not the audio signal. The electromagnetic wave that is the actual signal is made of photons. Just like (visible) light but with a different wavelength. Gamma rays, x-rays same thing - Photons with a different wavelength than visible light. The electromagnetic spectrum is extremely wide and includes obviously visible light which is obviously just a very small part of the whole thing. Electrons in the conductor are almost at a standstill, but the music signal is moving at near light speed (since it’s made of photons). That’s what I mean by carrier. The radio wave (RF) does not need a medium in which to propagate, obviously, since it will propagate in a vacuum. Just like a radio transmission to a satellite is comprised of photons. Or an ELF transmission.

Atmosphere also wrote,

"However it also states that it is a form of EM radiation."

Electromagnetic radiation. Now we’re getting somewhere! I am agreeing with that statement. That's what I’ve been saying, that light and radio waves are electromagnetic waves, radiated. The units of measurement for satellite communication transmission is surprise, surprise, EIRP, Effective Isotropic Radiated Power.

atmosphere also wrote,

"However the signal in a cable is not carried by photons. A better carrier would be the electron, although stated in those terms might be considered a gross oversimplification."

Electrons carry charge, whereas the music signal is an electromagnetic EM wave so it (the signal) must travel in a conductor at near lightspeed. In order to travel at that speed the wave must be, physically, photons, not electrons. The electrons in the conductor only travel what a meter an hour or something. If the audio signal wasn't light speed you would hear a pretty big delay for normal phone conversations, no?

Ivan,

switching out between single-ended and balanced has no longer made an audible difference, under my roof

This is an interesting observation which can mean one of two things.
1. You have very good gear with not too much of a problem with external interference.

2. You have arrived at a combination of gear that has masked the benefits or the "sounds" of either configuration.  

I believe you can have both a neutral system and a natural system. After all - if your understanding of "neutral" means no top end or bottom end exaggerations or no coloration's etc., wouldn't the default term be "natural" as well - meaning that a system that can deliver a flawless performance in your listening room would have to be considered natural?

If two audiophiles went to a live concert - how would they describe the performance to each other? Would they use terms like "sweet top end" or "detailed mids" or "smooth" or "rich"?

No. They would say what non-audiophiles in the audience would say..
"It was awesome"
"It was overwhelming"
"It was thoroughly enjoyable music"

This is how audiophiles want their home systems to sound.
Unfortunately they have to go through months and years of swapping this for that until they "bump into" the best compromise. Except now it is worse because if they upgrade one component that gives them truly better detail, it further exposes a harshness in some component up stream and they either have to get another replacement for it or put the first one back in so it is tolerable.

On most of these threads you see a pattern of some wisdom. When someone gets the bug be can't afford much, the old guys tell the newbees how to get the best sound for the buck. You simply get a "bright" sounding preamp to drive a "good" power amp with poor top end that emphasizes the mids and bottom end. This uses one component as pre-emphasis and a second for de-emphasis. You end up with the perfect mix of zig and zag and you save a lot of money. Yes?
Well, it might be a good place to start but it will be quickly disappointing.
It is hard to fool your ears with anything that contains distortion - even if it is the "good" kind.

Roger