Neutral electronics are a farce...

Actually radio frequencies are electromagnetic waves. I realize it sounds repetitive but RF is not magnetic fields, which are stationary fields. It should be obvious that magnetic fields are not the same thing at all as electromagnetic waves. If they were the same then magnetic fields would be flying all around the room at light speed, which of course they are not. They’re stationary. Recall the experiment with iron filings and a magnet? The magnetic lines of flux are stationary. Everyone and his brother knows that the intensity of the magnetic field is inversely proportional to the distance from the conductor in the case of induced magnetism. This is not true for radio waves. And the fact radio waves don’t attenuate like magnetic fields allows extremely low frequency radio waves like ELF at 75Hz to be used for long distance communications. The last time I looked nobody is using magnetic fields for communications. Even the units are different, V/meter and Gauss. Thus, when setting out to eliminate or reduce magnetic field intensity one requires high permeability materials, not shielding. 

Thanks Dracule1
For pointing out there is no such thing as "neutral" in the recording/listening chain. Any musician like you, or myself, or any recording/sound engineer can tell you that...how do you measure neutral? What are the standards utilized to measure it? Every room is different, every combo of equipment is different, the electric signal varies from home to home, minute by minute and so on infinitely. Talk about a "moving target"...this is it. Best, Rob

Well you got the first sentence right. The rest of it seems to point to the area of confusion.

You might want to think about the fact that radio waves can very much metals.... An example that most of us know about are microwaves.

I think maybe where you are having the disconnect is this:

Recall the experiment with iron filings and a magnet? The magnetic lines of flux are stationary.

What you are talking about is a simple magnet- much like what would happen if you put DC into a field coil. But that does not cause EMI- but if you use AC as a source now it can. IOW a simple magnet does not cause EMI only because it operates at DC. As best I can make out that must be where your confusion lies.

An example of an AC source powering what otherwise might be considered a magnet is a tape head degausser. It is an electromagnet; different from a power transformer in that the core is the load rather than a secondary winding. If you get it near the tape head you will see a prodigious signal through the playback electronics if they are on. But you might be surprised to find out that if you take a simple magnet and bring it near the head the same thing will happen- not because the magnet is creating a field so much as the act of moving it is putting the field in motion and inducing something in the head as a result (thus the use of the term V/meter instead of Gauss).

RF most definitely follows the inverse square rule BTW. The reason ELF works is that the ground wave can extend around the planet whereas at higher frequencies (FM for example) don't. Take a look at this Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_wave_propagation

I really recommend you read Wiki pages at the links I have posted!!

Hopefully this won’t rekindle a nine page debate as occurred several years ago in Bryoncunningham’s neutrality thread that I referenced a few posts back, but I thought it would be appropriate at this point to cite a few excerpts from his original post in that thread:

Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results:

(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse....

If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral....

This is only a way of judging the relative neutrality of a system. Judging the absolute neutrality of a system is a philosophical question for another day....

I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. But it doesn’t follow from that that differences in neutrality do not exist....

I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system, but in my experience, the changes that have resulted in greater neutrality (using the standard above) have also been the changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment.

IMO those are propositions that are essentially self-evident. As I said earlier, it surprised me that his post stimulated nine pages of debate.

The concept of neutrality should be viewed in a manner similar to the concept of perfection, IMO. We can’t achieve perfection, at least in most kinds of endeavors, but it can serve as a useful goal. And in most kinds of endeavors, at least, there are ways in which we can judge whether we are approaching it more closely or not.

Regards,
-- Al

Mikirob,
I also  gravitate towards Dracule1's  perspective of pursuing a natural sound character rather than "neutral" sound,  and for the same reasons he expressed. It seems that generally  SS tends to be described as neutral /accurate and tubes are more often  described as natural /organic. 
Charles,