I think that one explainable technical factor, which seems to be rarely discussed and rarely specified but could account for some subjectively perceived differences between unbalanced interconnect cables, is the resistance of the shield (or other return conductor).
Although there may be others, as far as I am aware Kimber is the only manufacturer providing information relating to that specification, and even in their case it is not an explicit specification. Their specs include "loop resistance," which presumably encompasses the round-trip resistance of both the center conductor and the shield, for a given length of cable.
Low shield resistance would minimize potential differences between component chassis, thereby reducing extraneous ground loop related inter-chassis currents, including those at 60Hz and 120 Hz hum frequencies, and also at much higher noise frequencies.
With unbalanced interfaces, those currents cannot be distinguished by the receiving component from signal currents, and conceivably could intermodulate with the audio to produce all kinds of unpredictable (and system-dependent!) sonic effects.
Best regards,
-- Al
Although there may be others, as far as I am aware Kimber is the only manufacturer providing information relating to that specification, and even in their case it is not an explicit specification. Their specs include "loop resistance," which presumably encompasses the round-trip resistance of both the center conductor and the shield, for a given length of cable.
Low shield resistance would minimize potential differences between component chassis, thereby reducing extraneous ground loop related inter-chassis currents, including those at 60Hz and 120 Hz hum frequencies, and also at much higher noise frequencies.
With unbalanced interfaces, those currents cannot be distinguished by the receiving component from signal currents, and conceivably could intermodulate with the audio to produce all kinds of unpredictable (and system-dependent!) sonic effects.
Best regards,
-- Al