> even if you try to emulate the analogue system including all those noise sources and bandwidth limitations > Variance within the emulation is trivial I poin

> even if you try to emulate the analogue system including all those noise sources and bandwidth limitations > Variance within the emulation is trivial I pointed out those limitations not as a target for digital systems to emulate, but to refute the repeated insinuations that "Analog signals are continuous waveforms that vary smoothly over time, capturing every nuance of the original sound", "The continuous nature of analog signals means they can theoretically capture an infinite amount of detail". > because it involves exponentiation, you can't calculate its exact output in finite time That hasn't stopped the exp() function from existing. https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/exp https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/exp > as soon as you get feedback in the system or any other way for errors to accumulate over time, your simulated output is going to diverge from the theoretical But then the same argument can be made against analog circuits. Two physical copies of a circuit necessarily cannot compute exp() exactly, exactly the same. So they will diverge too. So the digital version should be no worse than analog versions. It's like you're arguing that a digital double pendulum (a well-known chaotic system) diverges from a theoretical mathematical version of it due to rounding and discretization errors. Like yeah, but any analog double pendulum is also an approximation of the mathematical ideal, and no two copies of the device will behave the same. One difference is that it is relatively easy to increase or decrease the precision of a digital system - just increase the bit depth or sampling rate. Whereas increasing the precision of analog systems requires nontrivial engineering, and is sometimes impossible due to noise floors and other physical limitations.