Hmm. I've actually read a lot of people here claim that neutral response is not "natural". But why? Let's take for example this scenario;
You have a live instrument playing, let's say a guitar, or a piano. You are in the same room, the sound is as natural as it is ever going to get.
You use a microphone with a theoretically perfectly flat frequency response, it will capture all of the frequencies of the instrument just as they are without boosting or reducing any of the frequencies > sound still stays natural.
The sound is then converted with a theoretically perfectly flat ADC into digital format and onto a CD > sound stays natural.
You put this CD into your CD player whose perfectly flat DAC sends the now analog signal into your perfectly flat headphone amplifier and the sound at this point is still exactly unchanged, i.e. as natural as the real thing.
You hear the sound through your perfectly neutral headphones and in essence you are hearing the exact same natural sound that the instrument has played.
Needless to say this is all ideal-case scenario. But what exactly is the argument against neutral headphones here? You mention the construction of the ear (which, yes, is responsible for everyone's different hearing). But, like I said, provided you were in the same room,
the "sound chain" would basically be: Instrument > your ears. Whatever frequency imperfections your ear design has would be the only thing changing the sound. When listening to recorded music, if all your other gear is neutral, then again only your ears are changing the sound. However, when listening through substantially colored headphones you are in essence adding another layer of frequency imperfections so how can this be any more natural?
I'd really like to know. Hope I'm getting this right