Neutral electronics are a farce...

The shielding in cables protects the cables from external radio frequencies but does nothing to protect the audio signal from the induced magnetic field. And the reason is because the induced magnetic field is a different issue and requires a different solution. It's name is high permeability.  

Again your first sentence is correct but what follows is not. One reason balanced lines work is because the system is relatively impervious to induced magnetic fields. This is because the magnetic field is impinged on the shield of the cable and the two conductors within. Since the shield carries no signal current whatsoever there are no worries there- it can't induce noise in the ground plane since ground is ignored. The internal connections carry the signal in two phases, 180 degrees opposed. When it arrives at the input (amplifier) the Common Mode Rejection Ratio (CMRR, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-mode_rejection_ratio) of the amplifier then comes into play. If properly designed, the result will be that EMI imposed by the magnetic field cannot get amplified. This is because the input of the amplifier is looking for what is **different** between the two input signals and the EMI is the **same** to both inputs. Because the amp is looking for what is different, EMI gets rejected.

The result is that the cable plays little or no role in the overall sound of a system. There are other factors that contribute to why this is so that have not been discussed. I find it quite odd that this technology has existed now for close to 70 years but still gets a lot of resistance (if you will pardon the expression) from audiophiles; eliminating cable interactions is a big part of obtaining neutrality in an audio system.

I was designing satellite systems when you were wearing bell bottoms.

It could be that you know so much that you have forgotten more than I will ever know. That *could* explain your lapse of basic communications knowledge essential to satellite technology. But Occam's Razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
suggests a simpler explanation.

"Thanks for the psychoanalysis, Mopman. "

Mocking my moniker makes me doubt your sincerity but you are welcome anyhow.   I sincerely hope it helps but I will manage my expectations there.  

@Al- The Dunning-Kruger Effect is another possibility. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) The initial propositions, not the corollaries.

geoffkait may be one of those people who believe math and science are intuitive. Perhaps - for real math wizards - it is intuitive. But for most of us, it isn't. Even Einstein said he struggled with math.

It's probably futile to try and explain this to geoffkait, although atmasphere deserves kudos for trying.

I think the word "farce" in the thread title just appealed to him and not much else really mattered.   Just a hunch.