In the US, the federal RFRA law (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) actually has a quasi-relevant test here. RFRA was passed when a ban on certain kinds of drugs kept Native Americans from using peyote in religious rituals, and Congress decided it wanted to re-balance how religious people could seek relief if a law wound up hampering their religious practice. The law wasn't supposed to become a blank check, but it was supposed to give a way to carve out exemptions to neutrally written law (a la Alice doing the "normal" thing without specifically targeting the neighbor).

Here's the test:

You can get an exemption IFF:

• the law represents a "substantial burden" on religious practice
• the law doesn't further a "compelling" state interest
• or, if it does, then the law isn't the "least restrictive means" of serving that interest

I like this test, both for law and for interpersonal issues. So, if Alice were happy to use headphones instead, that might be a less restrictive means and she should do it. If the neighbor dislikes the noise, but isn't "substantially burdened" then Alice might go on as she pleases.

All the terms of art ("substantially burden" "compelling interest" "least restrictive means") have more precise definitions in law than in everyday life, but they give me a few helpful lenses for looking at a disagreement.