Bryon and Almarg, are you suggesting lack of neutrality includes any and all perceivable kinds of distortion? If you are, then can we not use "the alternate", aka, accuracy?
The word 'neutrality' means different things to different people. I use the word to mean 'the degree of absence of colorations.' And I use the word 'colorations' to mean 'audible inaccuracies.'
My use of the term 'neutrality' is limited to the degree of absence of AUDIBLE inaccuracies. But of course some inaccuracies are inaudible, either because they are outside the scope of human perception or beneath the threshold of individual perception. So the word 'accuracy' can't be substituted for 'neutrality' without a significant shift in meaning.
IMO, another useful way of thinking about the difference between the concept of 'accuracy' vs. the concept of 'neutrality' is this... Accuracy is objective, i.e. 'inaccuracy' refers to various kinds of distortions, many of which can be measured, and all of which exist whether we hear them or not. Neutrality is partly subjective, i.e. 'colorations' refers to various kinds of sonic "signatures," many of which can be heard by some listeners but not others, either because of differences in listener hearing or differences in listener expertise.
IMO, the concept of 'accuracy,' as it's commonly used by audiophiles, is a higher-level concept that subsumes the concepts of 'resolution' and 'neutrality.' In other words, resolution and neutrality are both TYPES OF ACCURACY. Resolution can be thought of as the accuracy of the reproduced SIGNAL, whereas neutrality can be thought of as the accuracy of the reproduced DISTORTION. Some high end systems are highly resolving but not very neutral. Others are highly neutral but somewhat less resolving. Which is preferable is of course largely subjective.
Bryon
