The great myth of the XlR

First off, it is not a "Myth" as you call it under all conditions.
Second, if your equipment is "Truly" balanced it will sound somewhat better using balanced connections. (Read the Stereophile review on the Ayre AX7e integrated and what the reviewer had to say using single ended vs. balanced with this amp [which is truly balanced]) Just because it has XLR connectors doesn't mean a thing and if it is not truly balanced what you say could be the result-maybe.
Now, I would challege you to have a friend rotate cables in a random order without you knowing which is which and get you to say which is which in your system. Differences are very minute. Our brains can do funny things. Once you've made up your mind, all the evidence in the world will not change it. BTW, it's XLR not XIR

You would really have to compare the same cable in XLR and RCA configurations to know anything about the difference. Comparing different brands and different cables within brands is pretty worthless IMO.
It costs money to really experiment and find truths, something I did for years and finally got tired of it.
They're all sorts of reasons why things do what they do.
The bottom line is do what satisfies you. Look at all the cables for sell on this site! Cables get blamed for a lot of ills that are not their fault. I think a lot of people try and "Tune" with cables which is a mistake IMO. You end up getting a system to sound closer to what you want some of the time.
No cable is absolutely neutral and can only screw up the sonic picture. Cables cannot "Improve" sound over the original signal. They can "Adjust" it more to your liking but you have just given up any neutrality your system may have had.
Some music just sounds bad and it should be reproduced just as badly as it was recorded. If your system sounds good all the time, either you're playing the same disc over and over or something is amiss!

My point is not all recordings are good. You will always have some that don't quite cut it and the system should reflect that. If a known bad recording sounds good, then you have a system that is not neutral. BTW, neutral to me is not a preference. It either is or it isn't. After 40 years of playing with this stuff, I can pretty much tell you if a system is neutral. Most aren't!!!! Some don't like neutral (as in your individual preference statement requarding this point.)A truly neutral system will not "Tear" the music up as you say. If it does, then it is not neutral. But you should only get what is on the recording, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is ---distortion!Therefore, not all recordings sound the same nor are they all good. This has been discussed in many other threads. Neutral does not mean thread bare or unmusical to me.If somethings are better hidden, exactly how do you get your equipment to "Hide" just the stuff you deem unfit? If it hides anything, how do you know it isn't hiding something you really want. A system cannot be selective. It either presents the entire signal for better or worse or it distorts it---plain and simple.
BTW, no way it hell you better the real thing. If you have bettered it to your ears you have created some sort of euphoric distortion! The "Real" thing is what we strive to reproduce, nothing more, nothing less. To pretend anything else---well, it goes without saying.
It is like home theater. Most people like its sound. Is it accurate or neutral? Not on your life. It is music manipulated to the extreme, compressed and presented as a poor representation of what was originally there. Does it sound good? Sometimes. Is it accurate or neutral? In no way shape or form.

So Sounds real _ audio. Is it the equipment or the cabling? And why wouldn't a balanced system not be able to convey the music and the emotion. Kind of a misguided blanket statement from a dealer wouldn't I would say? Wouldn't have anything to do with this equipment being ONLY single ended would it?
And "Best sounding?" I think this will be in dispute until the end of time or i-pods take over!

Virtualimage-glad someone gets it! High Fidelity has wondered way off its original goals. It's sad. It seems now whatever suits an individuals taste (sound wise,) then it is automatically labeled high fidelity. High fidelity is about reproducing the original source as accurately as possible. It was never so much about sounding good(which leaves everything open for interpretation.) So many companies are proceeding with this premise to the detriment of audio. Of course, companies must market and sell what consumers want. I can take some pretty inexpensive components and make them sound good!
And just for the record, I have never heard a system approach the real thing! And I've heard and owned some mega buck stuff. It has always sounded pretty much what it is-a facsimile.

Unfortunately, pitch and timing fall into another one of those elusive categories. Ones man pitch is another mans distortion.
How can you have decent timing in speakers (which I'm assuming we're talking here) with high order crossovers destroying the phase relationships and drivers even being wired out of phase?
I know amps with high negative feedback have timing issues.
Also, to elaborate on Cd's, a lot of them are recorded with phase and timing issues. This would account for some of the "Goofy" sound you receive from some of them.
Now, back to my bottom line, you can include timing and pitch variables in with all the rest. How do you know when the timing is right when it should have been wrong with the recording? You follow this? They're no absolutes. Everything is pure conjecture on the individual listeners part. This is why we have so many amps, speakers, etc.
Everyone has a different idea. Everyone wants to "Tune" a system to their specific sonic specifications.
I play sax and have for many years. They're so few speakers (and/or systems) that can reproduce sax realistically, it's truly worrisome. Spending great sums of money for something that is inaccurate by any definition doesn't make sense to me when you can honestly do it much cheaper and meet the sonic criteria of "Good sound."
Therefore, you try to purchase as honest and accurate a system as possible using test results, listening results and other criteria that gives you a fair chance at true accuracy. My belief is a good, honest and accurate system will provide greater long term satisfaction than a system that gets it right some of the time.
Look at how much is for sale on A'gon. All these people aren't trading up! Dissatisfaction runs rampant. There's a reason for this.

The Sonus Faber is a good speaker. Expensive seeming for what you get but decent non the less. They do have a "Warmish" sound and are not the last word in inner detail. I have had the good fortune of having a local dealer with a good friend who sells Sonas Faber. I have listened to them many times.
Vandersteen is another speaker that comes to mind with phase (and time alignment.) I'm a big fan of the Quatro and 5A series speakers.
BTW, it takes more than just a 1st order crossover to do the trick. B&W uses a first order on the tweeter but a higher slope on the midrange and woofer.
Sonas faber is not a time and {phase aligned speaker} in the truest sense. They do have a first order crossover which is good but some of the other required elements are missing.
Now, with CD players, part of the problem is in the mastering of the discs. A lot of the producers don't give a crap about time, phase or anything else. When you send a signal through an equalizer, you change its time and phase characteristics. A single capacitor will have an effect!
It doesn't have to be deliberate, it just turns out that way because they don't care for the most part. The are processing the signal to get a desired sound and in this process destroying the time and phasing of the original master recording. This is why a lot of people like vinyl. Some of this issues are removed. (I will add though that not all vinyl is good either.)
I thought the SACD format was a step in the right direction and still do. It was much closer to analogue and for the people who couldn't hear the difference, well maybe they needed a serious equipment upgrade. The differences were readily apparent. Some compared the hybrid discs using CD vs SACD and I agree, sometimes the differences weren't there. I think there's a reason for that but that's for another day. However, if you took a copy of a single SACD vs a CD, it was apparent WITH well recorded material to start with.
Then we get to the CD player itself. My God, how much does the signal travel through till it gets out the other side? They're some really crappy players that cost an arm and leg!
It still all boils down to what the individual likes and wants. It has nothing to do with High Fidelity. That is one of the most overused words around. See, now we need to define High Fidelity! Obviously, it means different things to different folk.
If you are truly happy with your systems performance, pat yourself on the back. You're one of the few! But don't think for a minute as the years go by that your taste and wants will not change. You'll get on the rat race at some point. I just got tired of the rats winning!!!!!

Well, I think we've gone full circle here so I'm bowing out. Enjoyed it.