I want to respectfully discuss the role of "the musician's perception" in evaluating the accuracy of audio. There are many musicians, there are many types of music, and there are many types of recordings. The scope I want to discuss here is the following: We have some kind of live acoustic music that the musicians and the audience enjoys. We presume that the musicians have spent time practicing their craft to maximize the quality of what they produce. We also presume the existence of an audience, who have also invested time in coming to appreciate this music. (They could be musicians themselves.) The acoustic space in which it is performed is part of what is enjoyable. We presume that an engineer makes a recording for the purpose of reproducing the enjoyable and/or quality aspects of this original acoustic event. That is, the recording exists not for scientific research, but in order to create enjoyable/quality experiences in more listeners in different situations. If this is the situation, (and it is not alway the situation), I claim that an accurate recording is one judged by the listener to have the same elements of quality/enjoyment that were present in the original. I mention "the musician's perception" because (1) musicians are very experienced, (2) sometimes their perceptions diverge from what sound science would claim, such as the possibility that experienced listeners/musicians judge average vinyl to be more accurate than average digital. In the past, people here have told me that musicians are not reliable for any number of reasons, and that when their opinions can't be reconciled with the science, they must be deluded about what they are hearing. I claim this general idea is nonsense, and that I've never heard any sensible reason why musicians would be deluded about what they are hearing.