There's another much, much larger issue, which is the complete lack of specification around the word "correct". OK, so "a simple analog circuit like a passive

There's another much, much larger issue, which is the complete lack of specification around the word "correct". OK, so "a simple analog circuit like a passive 1-pole low-pass filter (see figure above) can have output values where digital emulations can't be sure if the result is correct". Sure, why not. But, stick another "passive 1-pole low-pass filter" next to it. Is it "correct"? Because it sure isn't "the same". That's the nature of analog circuitry like this. "A person who has one analog circuit knows what the correct output is. A person who has two does not.", as the old saying about clocks goes. The article is written from a mental perspective of there being a "correct", an exact, singular point that represents the one and only valid "correct" output for a digital simulation, and if the digital fails to capture that "correct" then it's just wrong. And it simply goes without question that if it is wrong obviously the music created with that wrongness has been destroyed or something, which is actually a pretty complicated topic of its own. But "correctness" is actually a range in the world of analog... how are you going to prove that the digital simulation doesn't exist within the range of possibilities for a real circuit? Obviously there's plenty of "not even close" values. But digital getting to "close" can be hitting the bullseye because even if it doesn't match analog circuit A, it may well match analog circuit B with what is nominally the same design. (Which also suggests you can always expect that any digital simulation of a bit of analog gear you own will always not be quite exactly the same as what you have... but as long as it's in the range of the differences you can expect from another instance of your physical gear, which will also not be the same, it's basically "correct".) Article also strikes me as written by someone who has at least some of the "Sampling fallacies and misconceptions" mentioned at https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html . Doesn't come right out and say digital samples are jagged stairsteps but I think it's implied.