relative vs absolute: the usefulness of Internet Guitar Tone

I want to take the time to formulate a response to a controversial opinion I encountered on the Internet.

I think his name is Chris Monck, of Highline Guitars.  Seems to be a nice guy, and he does really beautiful work!

http://www.highlineguitars.com/

Really smart and an original thinker.  I love discovering creative people this way, it's one of the true benefits of "all this Internet stuff".

But he made a point in a youtube video, which -- although I understand where he's coming from I think -- I don't totally agree with.  No disrespect intended.  I just think it's an interesting question overall: the use of non-perfect speaker systems to review or compare audio tracks. 

"Don't Be Fooled By Internet Guitar Tone"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUfNRuNccKY

He had shown a circuit he was working on in a different video, and myself among others commented that he should include audio samples of whatever the effect was; in response he directed me to the video linked above, so I guess it's a question he gets asked a lot and this is the stock answer.  Fair enough, and I really appreciate that he even responded.

But the thing is, yes, youtube compresses the audio rather mercilessly, and then to listen back to a file through the tiny speakers on a mobile device or tablet, yes, the sound is very lacking in quality and in no way resembles what the "real" sound was.  But nonetheless, even through all the filter of the youtube and the small speakers, as long as the result is more or less consistent, it still becomes possible to make fine comparisons between versions; indeed, for various reasons, I find that cross-checking audio creations with "trashy" speakers gives an important perspective which an optimal hi-fi system cannot provide on its own.

Here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CnZzEePweY

In this video, to my ears at least, it is easy to hear the difference between the two speakers which are demonstrated, even through tinny speakers on a mobile device.  The sound in both cases is nothing like the sound would be in the room next to the real speaker in question; but the difference between the two sounds is a reliable difference which one would also hear analogously between the real sounds.  The tinny mobile device speakers almost seem to make it easier to quickly discriminate such differences, since the sound is anything but immersive.

It's the difference between relative perception, i.e., do the two samples sound the same or not, and absolute perception, i.e., what will the sample sound like when it's played on a "good" system.  And of course, the trashy speakers only function to allow relative discrimination in the frequency band that they can pass: so, e.g., information about the bass is entirely lost.

Another example:

https://youtu.be/rGEXKG40Qa0?si=lqljP58A3egbieeM

Once again, although it is certain that "in person", neither amp would sound anything like the reproductions that I hear through my tinny mobile device speakers, nonetheless the difference between the two is unmistakeable; and if I felt that one sounded "better" than the other for any particular reason, then it is likely that I would find this same judgement applied to the "real" sounds.

An analogy might be sunglasses, or ski goggles.  With the goggles on, all colours are distorted.  Everything is shifted towards a certain hue.  Usually, blues are diminished, and yellows are accentuated.  The brain becomes accustomed to the colour distortion, so that after a while it is basically not perceived, and it seems that colour vision is normal.  When the goggles are removed, for a time the complementary distortion occurs: i.e., everything looks more bluish than normal.  The point is, with the goggles on, one would not be in a good position to judge the absolute hue of something colourful, such as choosing paint shades.  However, one could still probably make a clear and correct relative determination as to whether two objects are the same colour, or are different from each other.