Yes. Because of the way reply notifications come in I thought it was a reply to a different comment.
But I still think that's missing the point of my (not entirely serious) comment.
People still have access to analogue amplifiers but digital simulations of them are still developed.
As models and workflows improve, if people want a flickery old-school look then they may well simulate it rather than go through the hassle of running old tools that might not mesh well with newer workflows.
> People still have access to analogue amplifiers but digital simulations of them are still developed.
That's because analog stuff requires hardware. There's "something to simulate". You don't simulate digital computers, perhaps you "emulate" them.
More generally, analog stuff is really different from digital stuff. Some "audiophiles" argue about which lossless compression algorithm applied to .wav files gives the best sound, but we know it's just bits. Bits are fungible. By contrast, you can never make a perfect copy of something analog (you can often make a copy that's indistinguishable for all purposes that matter, but there's still a difference). People still make and buy LPs, the sales are increasing. I don't expect that to ever happen for CDs, unless perhaps combined with scratching or otherwise damaging them on purpose.
Of course, nostalgia goes beyond such mundane distinctions, which gives rise to thingsike pixel art. But there's still nothing to simulate there.
But I still think that's missing the point of my (not entirely serious) comment.
People still have access to analogue amplifiers but digital simulations of them are still developed.
As models and workflows improve, if people want a flickery old-school look then they may well simulate it rather than go through the hassle of running old tools that might not mesh well with newer workflows.