It's totally impossible to measure equipment by your subjective evaluation that any particular recording chain is a more accurate representation of something you heard hours or days or years earlier. You simply can't evaluate sound on playback in reference to live sounds that occurred in the past. Your brain can't do that. Try mixing a record sometime and see how you make EQ adjustments every day you sit down and work on it. Why does your brain do that? I dunno, but it does. It just doesn't really remember exactly how it sounded yesterday when you "finished" it, so it wants you to make more changes. Or maybe you heard something you "didn't hear yesterday". Sure you heard it yesterday; your brain just didn't pay attention because it was focusing on something else. Your audio gear remembers just fine though and will play it back the exact same way, unless you change the gear or move the furniture around or something.
I reject the entire concept that "what we do" is somehow different from what everybody else does with audio equipment. It's the same, other than some interesting problems in microphone selection and placement. But to an amplifier, it's exactly the same.
In fact, you are handicapped in that you can't effectively monitor your recordings because you can't isolate yourself from the acoustic source to a sufficient degree. An engineer in a studio control room can monitor a direct feed or send that same signal through any given chain (compression, ADA, etc.) and get an immediate A/B comparison. You can't do that at a concert (unless you have a remote truck), but you can pretend that your subjective impressive of playback at a later time is a closer representation to what you heard, when the reality is it's what you would like to remember that you heard.
Further, it is easily demonstrable that if you want an accurate reproduction of what you heard you should always use binaural omnis and the flattest pair of reference headphones you can find. But you don't want to do that, because you want to pretend that wook next to you wasn't yelling "Freebird" the whole concert, so you use hypercardioids that minimize that crap.
But your ears didn't minimize the wook, they heard him just fine. It's just that the extremely powerful DSP that is your brain conditioned itself to ignore him (or the AC noise or the PA hum or whatever), but on playback your brain just can't quite manage the same trick because it lacks the same spatial cues. So you use a hypercardioid and pretend it's more "accurate". No it's not, it's more "euphonic".
Which is fine, I would do the same thing. I wouldn't pretend that accuracy was my goal though, because it's not. I want to make a recording where I like to listen to the finished product. So I'll use any tool that gets that job done; EQ, compression (maybe multiband), reverb, multiple channels, etc. and I won't care if it's "accurate" or not. But I do know the difference.
But we aren't even talking about microphones, we are talking about amplifiers and converters, which have the dumbest job in the world: signal out equals signal in, maybe with some amplification, and with necessary bandwidth-limiting in the converters and supplying some DC power to your microphones by the amplifier. That's it. That's all. If you want your amplifiers to do something else, well now you have an effects box inside your amplifier. Which is also fine, but let's not pretend that is accuracy either.
And why "trust your ears"? Odds are that your ears suck. We are a bunch of middle-aged men who have been to too many loud concerts. I would trust a seven year old girl's ears before I would trust anybody here, because they can hear lots of things that we simply can't anymore.