Take it as a fact that you’ll commonly have higher standards than your audience. This applies to software, actors, musicians, whatever.
That, and your experience affects your performance. It’s easier for an actor to act in a room full of props and other actors, versus a green screen. Easier for a musician to make music with the gear and tone that they prefer.
"...Take it as a fact that you’ll commonly have higher standards than your audience. This applies to software, actors, musicians, whatever..."
Can you explain this a bit more? I do not see this is commonly true, it is the exception and not the rule in many cases of 'someone and their audience'.
It might be true that that 'someone' believes it, however misguided.
Any form of art or engineering requires a huge amount of background knowledge and/or practice experience, and artists and engineers should have a better grasp of the technicalities than the audience.
But audiences tend not to care about specifics. They care if you can live up to expectations and provide the experience they expect. So if a performance is lacklustre, or a piece of software is stupidly designed from their POV, they'll know something has gone wrong - but they won't know (or care) exactly why.
Amateurs and wannabes tend to fethishise equipment instead of art. There's a lot of "If only I had that equipment I could do this properly."
The reality is that expensive pro-grade equipment only ever adds a final layer of polish. It's also good at not getting in the way with unnecessary frills and complications.
So a world-class professional with a budget guitar will always outplay and outperform an amateur with a pro-league instrument. No exceptions. And a professional photographer will always take better photos with your phone than you will. And so on.
The professional may notice some polish is missing and they may have to work harder than usual - but they will be able to do the job, while an amateur won't, no matter what they're using.
Indeed, and I'm conscious of this as an amateur with a pro-league instrument. ;-) I spent many years playing a student grade instrument, had used it for countless performances, and nobody ever complained about my sound.
But a nicer instrument is a pleasure to have, and provides me with the assurance that anything wrong with my sound is strictly a matter of improving my own abilities. So it's a challenge to live up to the quality of my instrument.
I'm not an electric guitarist, but this is a dilemma that every musician faces at some point. Being a musician can involve an obsession for quality that can't be explained in utilitarian terms.
One thing is that the audience only has to tolerate your sound for a couple of hours, and can always seek refuge at the bar or just go home. You have to hear it over and over, night after night. You also have to hear it at home. As an amateur, most of my playing time occurs in my own living room.
Another thing is that there's a layer of the performance above the basic sound of the instruments, that the audience might perceive even if they can't quite put their finger on what it is. It's what separates a great performance from a dull one. We're all trying to find what that thing is, and it involves exploration on many fronts, including how we choose and optimize our instruments.
It's harder to tell the difference when recorded (although it's not that hard). The bigger problem is around what it feels like to play. Even the best modelers do not have the "feel" of a tube amp and that will influence the way you play.
