I’m not. You’re just being daft. If it doesn’t align with your thoughts and wishes it must be wrong. Your argument that classic amps can’t and shouldn’t be improved is simply stupid. Anyone with basic knowledge knows that’s utter horseshit.
The fact that you keep insisting that my argument is that classic amps can't and shouldn't be improved, is just flat out wrong. It is not even the argument I am making. I don't even know how you could read anything I've said and come up with that. I've literally never said it. It is an illogical conclusion you've drawn.
My argument is that authenticity gets the best tones. Because the reference we all
tend to have in our minds, is from a range of amps spanning the 1950's through to the 2020's. Modelling is a simulacrum of a real world phenomenon. Capturing that phenomenon as accurately as possible and as authentically as possible is the stated goal of digital amplifier circuit modelling.
This can be backed up by the fact that 200+ amps inside the Axe FX III all have names that are direct references, or at least allusions, to real world amps.
If we had clean 1-50, crunch 1-50, lead 1-50, and fartbox 1-50 labels for these, then we'd have no real world frame of reference, and we'd have to just pick the ones we like the most. Which is certainly one way of working.
But for me, when I bring up a JVM, or a Diezel, I want to know that it authentically emulates a JVM or a Diezel.
And this is my argument in full, and has been all along. I've made no claims that updates are not cool, or desirable, or necessary. But in the cases where they are, don't call it the same thing as the real world model that you improved - because it isn't the same.