Your reference to dummy head recording is problematic:
We are left with using microphones that we like, for whatever reason, for specific situations. Yes, my reality is not the same as the next person, but that's all we have.
I have seen this so often at demos of high-end audio components in rented suites at trade shows. Most of these systems are not particularly good, but you will rarely hear critical comments, especially if the system demonstrated costs a lot of money.
There are few problems with the theoretical "accurate" microphone that have not been discussed but have been alluded to by some of the comments throughout this thread:How do we measure the accuracy of a microphone?1. We put the microphone in front of a speaker system, with all its linear and distortion errors (brought out by Jim Williams) that has been normalized for flat response using a test microphone that has been tested to be within a certain accuracy (yet another problem). We then measure the microphone with this "normalized" system to get a frequency response at one point directly in front of the microphone, with a given distance (already discussed), and at a given level.2. Off-axis measurements seem to be rudimentary at best, with usually two or three frequencies displayed. In my experience with measurement microphones, I have found that they all have high end roll-off the farther off-axis you go. Microphones of the side-address variety might show some very interesting responses as they are measured close to the body of the mic.3. I have never seen a measurement of the linearity of loudness in microphones or the loudness versus frequency. I think we would find some very enlightening information from these tests.My point is that the more we investigate the "accuracy" of a microphone the more we will find that there is no such thing, and no real way to measure it. We are left with using microphones that we like, for whatever reason, for specific situations. Yes, my reality is not the same as the next person, but that's all we have.
It's the sensuality of the experience that makes it so much fun driving a car whose engine sits over the (rear) drive wheels and plants the car, for immediate and direct input/feedback to the driver. 'Objective' horsepower or torque data cannot not show that: you may be fooled by a front engine/rear drive car's superior power stats but ultimately inferior "seat of the pants" experience.
Even today a U47 mic performs quite well because of its still respectable objective performance.
... It might as well be a clever euphonic design, producing a sense of well-being and connectedness to the music in the listener, which is then assumed "objective".
How would you know the "objective" aspect of a mic's performance?