Mastering legend Bernie Grundman explains why the measurement crowd has it all wrong!

If that is what he is saying then he is simply incorrect. Accuracy is objective and easy to measure. There’s nothing hidden in an audio signal that can be heard but not measured. If one prefers certain inaccuracies that is an inarguable subjective preference. 

Accuracy is objective and easy to measure.

Interesting. Does the measuring device hear the same as you or I do? Do you and I hear the same? What if you have lost some hearing and still think you hear accurately?

You can measure an audio signal accurately, but accuracy of the music cannot be measured. We can try to hear it and decide. It depends on what the listener perceives as accurate to them. And you are right about audio signal.

--First there is more than one set of measures : electrical, mechanical, and acoustical and neurophysiological in any psycho-acoustics experiments ...

--Second, accuracy in these different set of measures can be set at various levels in many experiments ...Quantitative accuracy must be CORRELATED here to subjective qualitative accuracy ( perception) ...

--Third "accuracy" in electrical and mechanical design must be correlated to hearing proper accuracy in psycho-acoustic varying parameters in a CYCLE of experiments which at the end will improve the " musical experience" for all listeners , nevermind their prefered blinders , be it an objectivist or a subjectivist blinders ,...

We hear with our ears/brain but we use electrical tools and design to optimize our experience guided by acoustics principles which always CORRELATE the perceiving subject with objective parameters in a controlled environment ( our dedicated room or a laboratory )..

It is astounding to see people lacking any psycho-acoustics concepts quarelling about subjectivity OR objectivity as children divided in two groups ...

Then the measurement crowd and the subjectivist crowd are wrong in the same way, by ignorance in acoustics concepts ... They focus on a common core : the gear and/or the electrical tool and they forgot acoustics concepts ...

My two cents...

You can measure an audio signal accurately, but accuracy of the music cannot be measured.

..

“Interesting. Does the measuring device hear the same as you or I do? Do you and I hear the same? What if you have lost some hearing and still think you hear accurately?

You can measure an audio signal accurately, but accuracy of the music cannot be measured. We can try to hear it and decide. It depends on what the listener perceives as accurate to them. And you are right about audio signal.”

If we are talking about electrical measurements of an audio signal it can be measured with precise accuracy down to the molecular thermal noise. If we are talking about measuring sound with microphones it becomes a bit more complicated but with modern techniques we can get very accurate measurements. I’m not sure how one would even ask the question of human hearing and perception. Audio recording and playback exists in service of human perception. If you are asking if human hearing is accurate in comparison to a test microphone and digital recorder the answer would be no. We have limited bandwidth, limited dynamic range and frequency response that looks like a roller coaster. But that is what our ears receive and what our brains process and turn into aural perception. 
 

I honestly have no idea what “accuracy of the music” means. We can measure a dip signals with accuracy that goes way beyond human thresholds of hearing. We can measure acoustic sound with a great deal of accuracy. We can, based on the right measurements predict the objective performance of a stereo system. But we can’t tell someone how they will respond to what they hear quite as reliably. As for humans being able to hear things that can’t be objectively measured that is a myth. If a human can hear it it can be measured. 

Measurements aren't taken in the real world and the way the equipment is used, it's usually taken in isolation, not the system as a whole with music.