Neutral electronics are a farce...

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

Roger,

"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?"

Generally speaking, I certainly believe that if you do have a neutral sound then the overall result will indeed be more natural overall, no question...and as far as that goes, I would add that there would also be more realism as well. At least, that's what I'd say I am experiencing here. But, the idea of neutrality as a separate issue was raised that way in the OP and that was the way I was responding to it...but, yes, I regard it as simply an integral part of the whole. But, if you ask me, I would think that trying to pursue realism and naturalism without neutrality might make for a little tougher sledding in the long run, but to each his own, I suppose.

"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."

Yes, IME I find it's actually a rather striking observation (which is why I made the comment, really), but that has been one of the differences made by Alan Maher here. In truth, I would say I have moderate gear and a greatly reduced level of external interference...far below what is normally encountered. Again that's from the AMD here.

"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."

That is what the AMD here is really all about. It has eliminated that result for me. Instead, all I've had to consider all the technical aspects of system synergy. Reducing the noise in the system's environment wholesale has allowed me to consider a far wider range of equipment without ever running into the "harshness" conundrum. It even allowed me to use less expensive gear and get stellar results.

"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."

Agreed, this is always worth avoiding...although to be fair, the old guys, whenever they may be handing out such advice, are usually up against the most severe budget restraints of newbees when they do so, but personally, I'm with you.

Regards
John

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?

Wow. Just wow.

So are you saying that there is no current flow in a vacuum tube or a transistor? That its all photons? or does the the photon flow turn into electron flow once it hits the tube? Wow.

Not sure why you're putting words in my mouth. No, I’m not saying that. Wow.